This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Teahouse. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.
Hello, Kanabidolis. I'm afraid that Lithuanian Wikipedia is not "the Lithuanian section" of anything, but an separate project, wholly independent of the English Wikipedia. Sorry. ColinFine (talk) 12:17, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia wont let me Upload a Photo that my wife has copyright to
I have a photo of high historical value taken by my wife back in 1975 at a protest rally over the dismissal of the Whitlam Labor Govt in Australia.
The photo contains images of the then Premier of South Australia Don Dunstan, the then leader of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, Bob Hawke and the local federal member Chris Hurford MP marching up King William St, Adelaide sometime in late November 1975.
We have the only negatives and I have digitised the 35mm black and white film.
My wife would like the photo uploaded but she is not interested in becoming a wikipedia editor and in any case she would get the same response.
Wikipedia says I can't upload the photo as it thinks I don't have permission to use it.
How can I prove my wife has copyright and I have permission to upload it.
Hello, Stringybark316. Only the copyright holder can freely license the photo. That's your wife, not you. Are you trying to upload to English Wikipedia, or Wikimedia Commons? Cullen328 (talk) 22:21, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply
English Wikipedia.
Yes I know and my wife has given me permission to upload and identify her as the copyright holder. But I can't even upload it or indicate on the upload panel that she is copyright holder. Stringybark316 (talk) 22:43, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
To be crystal clear, Stringybark316, your wife CANNOT casually give you permission to freely licence the photo on her behalf, unless she completes and signs a very complex legal document with every t crossed and every i dotted. Any tiny error will cause the upload to be rejected. It would be vastly easier for her to register her own account and freely licence the photo herself. That's the easy, fast way, and the other way is the very hard and very slow way.Cullen328 (talk) 05:40, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Alternatively, Stringybark316, you could create an account for your wife, and upload the image from that account by clicking the option for "this is my own work". Technically that is lying (and also sockpuppetting), but presumably your wife will not mind, and it will be muuuuch easier this way.
Submitting information to an article about yourself
When, or is it appropriate to submit corrections to articles about yourself? For example if your marital status or birth or age is inaccurate. What is acceptable way to cite your DOB or marital status? Toddmeagher (talk) 22:27, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Toddmeagher Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. We need a published reliable source to support such information. If that information(like your date of birth or age) are not in any published reliable sources, then they shouldn't be in the article. 331dot (talk) 22:30, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
In general, can I add or correct information about myself if I can cite it from a reliable source, or does editing an article about yourself violate Wikipedia guidelines? Toddmeagher (talk) 23:02, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
You should not directly edit an article about yourself. Instead you can place a Template:Request edit on the article's talk page. In the edit request, you describe the edit you want to be done to the article with sources attached to it. See the guide WP:COIE for more info. Carpimaps (talk) 05:55, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
Hello, the guideline WP:ABOUTSELF allows the usage of any verified social media account of the subject of the article to verify information they say about themselves. So all you need to post your correction on one of your verified social media account so readers may verify the information. Carpimaps (talk) 22:41, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
The layout of Wikipedia page has been changed. Was that necessary? Is it possible to revert back to old layout, with lighter blue background color? 87.214.100.46 (talk) 00:54, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
If you do not want to register, there are various web-browser addons which will apparently make wikipedia show you the old layout, e.g. this, this, or this for firefox though I don't use and cannot vouch for any particular one. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 13:39, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
issues with promotion
Hi there,
I've recently just submitted my first article and it has been rejected on the grounds of promotion policy. Is there any advice on how to adjust your article so that it is to wikipedia standards to avoid this issue?
I believe that citing the subjects own website isn't allowed? Also, language has to be entirely neutral and not necessarily "positive' when describing life events or achievements? Tom at KLOSS (talk) 13:36, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
@Tom at KLOSS Please read WP:PROUD to understand some of the issues. Who said "Maxwell was a shy yet creative child"? Also, please remove all external links from the body text of the article. Links to Kloss film's website are considered spam in this context. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:45, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
Hello, IP user. Please see your first article for how to go about creating an article. But I strongly advise that you first spend some time improving existing articles as you learn how Wikipedia works. We delete hundreds of articles every day, and many of these are created by people who plunge into trying to create an article without understand what is required. ColinFine (talk) 13:09, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
So for a good article (good in a general sense, not the good article award thing), how many references should be in the MOS:LEDE? Or should there be no references at all? Vamsi20 (talk) 19:58, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
Hello, Vamsi20. In general, references are not required in the lead section, as long as the body of the article is well-referenced, and the lead correctly summarizes it. There are exceptions, though. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section says: The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and direct quotations, should be supported by an inline citation. Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead.. Cullen328 (talk) 20:12, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
Alright, my draft (here) has three refs in the lead...I think that's way too much, but again I do feel it's a broad claim. Vamsi20 (talk) 20:19, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
Right now, you have a two-sentence, three reference Lead with no other content. OK as is, but perhaps there is an article to add? David notMD (talk) 02:57, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
@Vamsi20, if you expand the article as David suggests you can then move your references from the lead to later sections. The policy on sources in the lead doesn't apply to very small articles with only a few paragraphs or sentences. Here are a couple examples of Featured Articles (having gone through Wikipedia's FA review) that are fairly short but have all references in the body paragraphs:
Hello. I've recently for the first time to get an article (not mine), that was previously declined to acceptable standards. A reviewer said it looks like a CV and it has been rejected on the grounds of that. Is there any advice on how to adjust your article so that it is to wikipedia standards to avoid this issue? The page is Draft:Adetola Nola. Thank you for your time in advance. Amaekuma (talk) 16:16, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
@Amaekuma: Welcome to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1185. Please be aware that there's a difference between a draft being declined and being rejected; the former is less serious than the latter and usually has a chance of being salvageable. The entire paragraph that begins with Veritasi aims to provide luxurious but affordable homes for middle and high income earners is something I'd expect to see in an introductory excerpt designed for prospective clients and customers in mind; it is promotional in tone. Then there's the §Personal life section, which is uncited. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:24, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
@Amaekuma: The usual answer to those queries is that you should check the subject is notable before worrying about polishing the draft. If the subject is not notable (which is a criterion about the existence of off-wiki sources, not something you can fix), then any work you do on the draft is wasted. "Notable" means "has been written/spoken about by multiple reliable sources independent of the subject" (see WP:GNG).
The unusual thing though is that the person you are writing about made it to the Forbes 30 under 30 list. Now, the Forbes source itself is not a WP:GNG-level source (it is a barebone interview without much to go on), but it does indicate that this might not be a lost cause; presumably Forbes did not pick a random African businessman to interview.
I was wondering if I could use Britannica as a reliable source for an article I'm writing, however I doubt it... Vamsi20 (talk) 15:42, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi @Vamsi20: per WP:BRITANNICA, there is no consensus on this. Most of it is probably reliable, but there may be some residual user-generated content which might not be. That's when we're talking about supporting facts. The bigger problem, however, especially in what comes to establishing notability per WP:GNG, is that an encyclopaedia is a tertiary source, whereas notability ideally requires secondary ones. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:54, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi! I just came across this draft which is both a hoax based on YouTube videos and self promotion because the user that created the draft, has also uploaded a video related to this Roblox "group". I tried to nominate it for deletion in the miscellany category, but once I put the template, a loophole appeared in the preview. Also, the name is clearly inspired by a real Kpop group called TNX and the characters names are those of actual kpop idols. Should I instead put the speedy deletion template? Thanks, Bloomingbyungchan (talk) 20:08, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
@TDmile567 Welcome to the Teahouse. I think you would probably have more success making your request at Talk:Matthews Southern Comfort, rather than here. Personally, I never edit music articles, and I'm not really sure what it is that you want to achieve, though others might. So, unless someone here happens to have a yen to do it for you, that article talk page really is the place to make the request. If it doesn't get picked up by someone watching that article, we do also have a formal process to attract attention of editors to make those changes that you specify as clearly as you possibly can, citing sources where applicable - see WP:EDITREQUEST. Nick Moyes (talk) 17:04, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
Oops, my apologies. I actually did that, but I had two tabs open and tried to copy this message onto that page but I accidentally posted it here instead. Sorry again, just ignore this message. TDmile567 (talk) 17:13, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
I used {{cite AV media}} in the source editor to cite a song on the B-side of a vinyl singles album. It is the 2nd reference on the page Truck Drivin' Man (Lynyrd Skynyrd song). The release date was November, 1987. When I included a coma after November, the Reference Section displayed the following error: {{cite AV media}}: Check date values in: |date= (help). How do I fix that? Also, it would be helpful if someone could add more examples on the Cite AV Media help page. It took a lot of trial, error, and web searches to (maybe) get it right. -Thanks!
p.s. Explanation: On this page the song infobox provides information on the album track, not the single, because the song charted on the Billboard Rock Album Tracks chart (there's a rumor it charted on the Pops Singles, but at this time I haven't found direct evidence of that).
@Dogsgopher: (edit conflict) There shoudn't be a comma in dates in "month year" form (see MOS:DATE), and putting one in confuses the citation template. But you seem to have discovered that, since there's no such error in the article now. Deor (talk) 01:40, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Hello Dogsgopher, not all date formats require a comma. Dates that are written from the largest to smallest unit or smallest to largest unit do not require one. This is why you are seeing that error message. You can find a thorough explanation on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Citation_Style_1#Dates Below are several examples of your citation with various format dates that the template will accept, note that only the month day, year formats need a comma here on Wikipedia:
Lynyrd Skynyrd (artist); Al Kooper (producer) (28 November 1987). Truck Drivin' Man (Vinyl). Universal City, CA: Duchess Music Corporation/MCA and Get Loose Music, Inc./BMI. MCA-53206.
Lynyrd Skynyrd (artist); Al Kooper (producer) (November 28, 1987). Truck Drivin' Man (Vinyl). Universal City, CA: Duchess Music Corporation/MCA and Get Loose Music, Inc./BMI. MCA-53206.
Lynyrd Skynyrd (artist); Al Kooper (producer) (Nov 28, 1987). Truck Drivin' Man (Vinyl). Universal City, CA: Duchess Music Corporation/MCA and Get Loose Music, Inc./BMI. MCA-53206.
Lynyrd Skynyrd (artist); Al Kooper (producer) (1987-11-28). Truck Drivin' Man (Vinyl). Universal City, CA: Duchess Music Corporation/MCA and Get Loose Music, Inc./BMI. MCA-53206.
Lynyrd Skynyrd (artist); Al Kooper (producer) (1987). Truck Drivin' Man (Vinyl). Universal City, CA: Duchess Music Corporation/MCA and Get Loose Music, Inc./BMI. MCA-53206.
Lynyrd Skynyrd (artist); Al Kooper (producer) (Fall 1987). Truck Drivin' Man (Vinyl). Universal City, CA: Duchess Music Corporation/MCA and Get Loose Music, Inc./BMI. MCA-53206.
Lynyrd Skynyrd (artist); Al Kooper (producer) (c. 1987). Truck Drivin' Man (Vinyl). Universal City, CA: Duchess Music Corporation/MCA and Get Loose Music, Inc./BMI. MCA-53206.
Additionally, if you are adding sources to meet Wikipedia's threshold for notability, the general expectation is 3 reliable, secondary sources that cover the work. The current sources are all either primary or just mention the song. I hope this helps, Rjjiii (talk) 02:18, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
I need help, advice or time
Greetings colleagues. I hope you are fine.
I am a Venezuelan Wikipedian, and I have been active on Wikipedia in Spanish for more than 4 years (more than 300 articles), and for the last 3 years I have participated sporadically on Wikipedia in English (less than 100 articles).
My intervention in this space is to place a situation that I am going through in context: days ago there was an inconvenience that has been growing as if it were an avalanche, and that is that a user reviewed my latest articles and considers that there is a conflict of interest.
I would like to know your opinions about it in each consultation. All I have done these years is create content that I consider relevant due to the references that can be found on the internet, but if I have not had a good eye to distinguish which is a paid press and which is not, I apologize and acknowledge my mistake.
I have to confess that English is not my main language, however, I have a good interpretation to support me in the writing and creation of articles that I consider may be useful for this Wikipedia. I'm sorry for any inconvenience caused by my ignorance. Thanks. ChuchoVCJMuzik (talk) 06:02, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
Here's a truckload for you, ChuchoVCJMuzikI looked at one of these, Aiona Santana. Unfortunately I don't read Spanish (and I distrust Google Translate and the like), and therefore can't check various sources; however:
Since 2018, she has officially ventured into music. Does "officially venturing into" something mean performing it for the public?
She gave a stellar performance at the Tulip Festival when she was 17 years old. No. Wikipedia can't say this. It can say "She gave what the critic Joe Bloggs called 'a stellar performance' at the Tulip Festival when she was 17 years old", of course with a reference to Bloggs's review. There's a reference. I looked at the cited source -- but this has no text. So effectively there's no reference.
claiming her place on the local music scene: I really don't know the meaning of claiming one's place on this or that scene. Same reference, to the source with no text.
Sorry, but wording like this does seem gushy (Variety/PR-speak), and will get other editors' antennae twitching. I suggest that you go through each article, and:
Cut material that seems trivial. For Santana, this would include (but not be limited to) minor beauty pageants, and her announcements of what she intended/intends to do.
For what remains, check that the references actually point to reliable sources that really say what the're presented as saying. Any material that you can't reference properly, cut. ((If you later find sources for it, you can then reinstate it.)
Within what remains, look for vague phrasing such as the three I point out above and replace it with easily-comprehensible phrasing.
At at least two of the AfDs you have added large amounts of text and references in support of your opposition to the AfD. This does not help. If the refs were already in the article, no need to duplicate. If the refs are intended to be added to the article, do that, and at AfD, state concisely that refs have been added. One constant issue is that Wikipedia English has a stricter standard for refs needed to support notability than some other language Wikis. I agree with Hoary that all of the articles need editing to be more concise. And correct - pronouns used in Sagcy are both she/her and he/his. David notMD (talk) 07:23, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
when you Google search Ohio State defense Force the result shows Ohio defense force which is incorrect The Ohio defense Force does not have anything to do with the Ohio State defense force which consists of the Ohio Army national guard the Ohio Air guard the Ohio military reserve and the Ohio cyber reserve and the Ohio Navy.
Please note again the Ohio defense force has nothing to do with the state defense force because the Ohio defense Force is a volunteer funded civilian militia group as of which the Ohio State defense force is a funded state military and federal agency.
For more information you can go to
After reading a review of new film "Tetris" I had a read about Taron Egerton. Like fellow Welsh actor Michael Sheen in 1991 he had a very fast theatre career before film appearances. In partlcular his professional debut was at the peak of UK theatre the summer he graduated. (Entry for playwright Stephen Beresford.) He was then at another London peak theatre, the Royal Court.(Entry playwright Polly Stenham.) Prior to winning a place at RADA he had performed leading roles in his home town. (Aberystwyth Arts Centre/ Theatre). Beirniad33 (talk) 07:13, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Editing Taron Egeron is semi-protected and requests discussion via the Teahouse. I am not going to edit the entry myself, (not a cinema expert), but the early career could be added. The career is as often happens; a lot of experience before the first film roles. Beirniad33 (talk) 07:33, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Yes, Beirniad33, Taron Egerton is "semi-protected" (as it's called). You're very welcome to make suggestions for improving it; the place to do so is the foot of Talk:Taron Egerton. Make any suggested addition (or correction) as precise as you can (NB "peak of UK theatre" is an example of imprecision), and for each, please specify a reliable source. (Wikipedia is not a reliable source.) -- Hoary (talk) 07:43, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Beirniad33, that's not the advice I'd have given. Incidentally, when you do make your suggestions, you'd be wise to do so via a formal edit request. This will increase your chances of getting fast and careful attention. -- Hoary (talk) 08:07, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Hoary, thanks for guidance- in itself it's a small thing but there is a tendency when success gets reported that the huge amount of work/ effort beforehand slips notice, Beirniad33 (talk) 08:33, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
I've encountered an article that I think is suitable for a deletion proposal. Where would I submit such a proposal?
As the title said. This article has a writing tone that I consider is remarkably similar to an advertisement in some parts, and does not carry much significance in my opinion as it is not a very popular brand here. Where would I submit a request for an article review/deletion? Reserve scav (talk) 05:16, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Hello, Reserve scav. Popularity is not equivalent to notability. There are countless things that have fallen out of popularity that should still be covered by this encyclopedia. First, consider the possibility of expanding and improving the article. There are three distinct deletion processes described at Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Read that thoroughly, and select the most appropriate option, but only if you truly believe that the topic is not notable. Cullen328 (talk) 05:54, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. After some consideration, I'm still having some mixed thoughts. On the one hand, the notability of this article can be argued to be present through its mention in the listed awards. However, I've so far failed to locate any mention of this product outside of its own websites, store pages and Vietnamese spirit registry databases; and I believe that there is no more possible action to improve the article besides heavily truncating the article to the point of making it a stub. Is the Wikipedia:Proposed_deletion process suitable in this case then? Reserve scav (talk) 06:18, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
No, Reserve scav, "prodding" the article would not be suitable. "Prodding" is only for deletions that wouldn't be controversial (other perhaps than for the author and their chums). The number of people who've already looked at this article and thought it better to tinker with it rather than attempt to have it deleted shows me that they thought it had a future. If you think that the article should be deleted, send it to AfD. (Do I think it should be deleted? I have no opinion: I haven't bothered to read it. Although my eyes did land on this remarkable sentence: "The Empress was renowned for her virility and joy of life.") Tips: (1) With extremely rare exceptions, articles are not notable. (Certainly none that I've created is notable. Their subjects are notable, I believe; you may disagree.) So don't knock the article for not being notable. (2) Cullen328 is right about popularity. Although he may have inadvertently suggested that a subject requires popularity (of some kind) in the past, if not in the present. It does not. Kaikhosru Shapurji Sorabji, for example, was never remotely popular, yet he certainly merits an article (and I'm happy to see that it's a "featured" one). So in an AfD, keep shtum about the non-issue of lack of popularity. -- Hoary (talk) 07:36, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
@Gandhimartinnelson as @DoubleGrazing notes in their decline, the sources are not of sufficient quality. A number are from non-secondary sources, like LinkedIn or "slpblrstory". Others are non-reliable or not independent, like most of the investment stories. These are mainly press release or vanity publications, not accepted to have enough editorial control or fact-checking. Finally, sources like the Hindustan only include a small amount of content about the actual CEO - so not significant coverage.
@GeneralCraft65, see the 3 tiny letters in the top left of the template? These things are technically their own pages, and E is for edit (perhaps you knew this already). I think you have to work in wikitext, but it's doable. WP:BOLD applies. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:23, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
@GeneralCraft65 Editing these template pages is fairly easy. You would just insert a wikilink to your new article in the correct place in the first set of links. Don't do so until your article is accepted into Mainspace, however. If you run into any problem, come back here in the Teahouse or comment on my Talk Page and I'll fix it for you. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:27, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Hassan Bin Aziz
GH.HASSAN, known professionally as Hassan Bin Aziz or simply Ebni Hassan,is an kashmiri music producer,rapper,songwritter and an actor. He started in 2016 as a session and recordinding artist,and became as a kasmiri and hip hop music producer.Later he became successful with his songs and started making songs for bollywood films. Its hassan97 (talk) 12:35, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
@Its hassan97 Is this a brief draft of an autobiography? We don't encourage people to write about themselves, for the reasons mentioned at that linked article. Nevertheless, if you insist on attempting a draft, you must use the WP:AfC process and you will find advice here which emphasises that you would need to show you meet these criteria. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:15, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Blank edit summary warning is not working
Dear Everyone,
I just joined the English wikipedia and I would like to use the "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" feature, but it seems it is not working for me.
I enabled/disabled/enabled it on my preferences page, added some edits to my user page with blank edit summary and the edits are published without warning.
I tried it with firefox and chrome browsers and the effects are the same.
Is this preference setting work for someone right now?
Thank you, Eightbillion (talk) 14:33, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
If I'm not mistaken, this feature is only enacted on non-user non-talk pages. Try making a minor edit with no edit summary on an actual page. - UtherSRG(talk)15:45, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
After doing a little checking... no, it won't indicate your place in the list. it's simply the count of all of the similar requests. 3 requests could get fulfilled and 3 more come in, and the number will be the same. If you click the "requested edits" link in the notice, you will be brought to the list of those requests and you can see if any notes have been made on yours. - UtherSRG(talk)16:04, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
@Toddmeagher: There’s no review queue. There's a review list (well, in fact it’s a category, but that’s a Wikipedia-arcane distinction). That is not a "queue" in the sense of "waiting for your turn in line with the guarantee to be served before anyone else that arrived later". COI edits are looked at in no particular order. Reviewers may sort the requests by oldest date, but they are under no obligation to do that.
I think your request is rather good (it is rather short and cites reasonable-looking sources). I would estimate it is more likely than not to be addressed within a week, but again, no guarantees. Other that making it short and sourced, there’s no shortcut to getting a faster review. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact)16:09, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
How would I go about putting an image of a website?
Like the title says. I want to insert an image of Google One's interface on an account with an active subscription as an example, but don't know how I'd fit it in. It's my own picture of my own Google One account. Technogod (talk) 06:15, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
I have created a draft for an article, and it says at the top that drafts will be deleted after 6 months. Does this mean after six months of not editing the draft, and if I edit it, it will reset the timer, or will it delete at the end of six months whether I edit it or not? Thanks for the assistance! Leejordan9talk sandbox16:26, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
When will I know it is time to give up trying to write a Wikipedia for a living person? I understand that it is a much higher bar for many good reasons, but when I volunteered to write the article I had little idea of the time and effort involved. My sense is that much of the article will be difficult to verify from independent sources, which I appreciate is one of the reasons such articles are so difficult to produce. A graceful exit seems my only option. Billyboybliss (talk) 14:48, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
While the bar is definitely set higher for living persons, most first-time article creators (yourself included) fall into the trap of starting with the text of the article and then try to finish it with the needed references. Per WP:BACKWARD, starting with just the references and building out from there is much easier. - UtherSRG(talk)15:48, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
That all said, as long as the draft is only declined and not rejected you have something potentially viable to work with. I'd say start a new section of the draft with just the references you know to be acceptable, but your text out from that, scrap the rest of the draft, and submit it again. The draft doesn't have to have every bit of life detail about the person, it just needs to have enough to show notability using verifiable and reliable independent sources. Anything else can be ignored for now and added later if better sources come available. - UtherSRG(talk)15:54, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Did she also publish as A Greenall and A Greenall Gough? Regardless, for most articles about academics, there is a modest section "Selected publications". I recommend you remove all references to her publshed work, then restore a short list to a section by that name. Be aware that listing an academic's publications contributes little to nothing in the way of confirming notability. See Wikipedia:Notability (academics) as a guide for your revised attempt. David notMD (talk) 17:26, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Are phrases such as "Gough has a passion for changing the way science and environmental education is taught in schools..." from you, or can that be referenced? If the former, delete. David notMD (talk) 17:32, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Nazi Control of Warsaw and Polish Citizens Aid to Jews
Some years ago there was an excellent article on this subject showing the number of Jews hidden and protected compared to the number of traitors and thugs quite willing to report Jews to the Germans. Unfortunately this article has been removed. Does anyone know how to find it or the information on which it was based?
Hello Britsubenc and welcome to the Teahouse. What was the title of the article? Articles are only deleted from Wikipedia when there is a good reason to do so, usually when it is inaccurate, biased, or poorly sourced, and therefore not to be trusted. We do have an article on the History of the Jews in Poland. Shantavira|feed me19:01, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Citing an Article in a Multi Volume Work
I am translating the German article [Vanilla odorata] into English to add it to Vanilla odorata. My problem is figuring out how to correctly cite a multi volume work. The main reference is
Roland Portères: Le Genre Vanilla et ses Espèces. In: Le Vanillier et la Vanille dans le Monde. S. 243–245.
Web serching has turned up that this is an article in a multi volume work and I'm unsure how to cite it correctly.
Portères, R. (1954) Le genre Vanilla et ses espèces. In: Bouriquet, G. (Ed.) Le vanillier et la vanille. Ecyclopédie Biologique. Editions Paul Lechevalier, Paris, pp. 1–784.
This suggests to me that I should maybe use the cite Encyclopedia template, but I am not sure and would like advice. Thank you/Danke. MtBotany (talk) 17:42, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi @MtBotany. Google scholar gives a Chicago- style citation as Porterès, R. "Le genere Vanilla et ses espèces: pp. 94-290. Le Vanillier et la Vanille dans le Monde. Enc. Biol 46 (1954)., with the page numbers for the article within the volume and the volume number. Wikipedia has its own citation style and uses the full name Ecyclopédie Biologique. Either Template:cite book or Template:Cite encyclopedia has fields to fill in with the information. See the examples in those two templates. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:11, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not censored for any reason. We have articles about pornographic actors/actresses and staff. We have articles about sex positions and techniques. We have articles about nudity. We have articles about many potentially offensive topics. We also have imagery for those articles. If you create an account, you can suppress the display of images(see WP:NOSEE). If you choose to not have an account, you will need to do something on your end to block images with your web browser. 331dot (talk) 22:52, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Mob780 Hello and welcome. This is a place to ask questions about using Wikipedia; it isn't a general question asking forum, sorry. Do you have a question about using Wikipedia? 331dot (talk) 23:53, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Reviewing Contribution to : Hispanic and Latino Americans in US Politics
Hello everyone!
I recently added edits to the Hispanic and Latino Americans in US Politics article as a part of a course. I am open to hearing feedback on my contribution. Specifically on the following sections I added information to:
Rovalle234: At a glance, it's pretty good. Way better than it was a month ago. Just a few things stand out. First, the lead is a bit cluttered. It should be a brief summary of the article (see WP:LEAD). Details like statistics and percentages should be used sparingly in the lead. The article also suffers a bit from recentism. The article should stay up to date, but it also shouldn't treat 2023 as more important than any other year. Looking at the references, it's also good (but not required) for the references to be formatted the same way. Most Wikipedia editors like to use the citation templates like "Cite News" and "Cite Website".And I know you didn't add this part, but I'll also add that the "Notable Latino politicians" section is problematic because there's no way of fairly deciding who's "notable enough" to be included. That's why we have lists like List of Hispanic and Latino Americans in the United States Congress so there's room for all of them. Overall, there are still places to work on (like most articles), but it's a huge improvement over what it looked like before! Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:09, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
My First Change As An Editor
Found a page that was in need of a rewrite (Fort Marcy). So, I researched it and now I'm ready to make the changes. I spent the time to learn how to use the visual editor. So, I think I'm ready to go, but I'm a little hesitant to start.
If I load the current page to my Sandbox and make changes will it just replace the current page or will it be reviewed and approved first? Gene11757 (talk) 20:47, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
@Gene11757: Welcome to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1185. If you copy everything over to your sandbox and edit there, Fort Marcy won't change. Why not just make small edits to the article directly for the time being? If anyone has an issue with something you've edited they'll undo it and you can discuss with them on the article's talk page or their talk page about their decision. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:02, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
My entry is a complete rewrite. The current entry was flagged and I picked it up. I’ve done extensive research and I have extensive references.
Please remember to log in.For existing articles, unless it's apparent that it is devoid of value, they're generally not completely rewritten from scratch when there are issues. As far as I can tell the problem that another editor picked up was that there were insufficient inline citations.Anyone who's watching the page will see any edits you make to it. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:42, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
publishing
Hi,
I have written an article called Lemzi which is currently in my sandbox....how do I submit it for review and hence publishing. Does wikipedia put the article into a specific format? or is this to be done by me - scarface1925?
Hi @Scarface1925, welcome to the Teahouse. There are a couple of issues here. First, you have uploaded a photograph of this person as your own work, which indicates that you have some sort of connection to them. Please review WP:COI and WP:PAID and make any necessary declarations.
Second, the article you have written cites no sources, and therefore will never be accepted. Please read Help:Referencing for beginners to learn how to cite sources, and WP:RS to learn about the type of sources Wikipedia requires. 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) 17:05, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hi @Scarface1925, welcome to the Teahouse. Over and above what our IP helper has suggested, there are a lot of things wrong with that page which need addressing before it's worth submitting for review. Firstly, the formatting is terrible, and all the extraneous underlining and 'nowiki' commands need removing. Then the external links need to be given as proper inline references. See WP:REFBEGIN for advice. Thirdly, and most importantly, the person (you?) needs to clearly meet our notability criteria. See WP:NMUSICIAN for how they need to do that. To be honest - read that section first as , if they/you don't meet that notability standard, then there will never be an article about that person until they do. See WP:TOOSOON. If you care to address those and then return for help with the review submission process, that would be best. Kind regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 17:13, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
I've fixed the very odd formatting and made the arrangement of various things a little closer to our standards, so it's at least more readable now. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:17, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
@Anachronist I fail to comprehend how you can mark that image for speedy deletion as a copyright violation (from this page) when it's obvious that the image uploaded by @Scarface1925 is of vastly higher resolution than the online version. They clearly have access to the original file from the camera so, if anything, it's likely to simply be an issue that the uploader didn't take the image of themselves, but that someone else did and the photographer supplied the high res file. Nick Moyes (talk) 17:59, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Either they are the photographer, or they are not. No way to tell. If not, then they have access to the web site, which has the full-resolution image. Web sites, particularly those running under a content management system, routinely display different resolutions from the base resolution, depending on the device being used to view it. Either way, there is no verified permission granting the Wikimedia Foundation the right to publish it under an acceptable free license. In any case, an administrator on Commons has deleted the image as a copyright violation. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:45, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
Edit to the Spades, Indiana article
My edit was reverted to its previous state because it was deemed "not constructive." Before I contributed to the article, it was a stub and unhelpful to anyone who wanted to learn a bit about this town. The reversion to its original state appears unhelpful. Can anyone explain why this occurred? CreatrixInspirata (talk) 02:58, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
Your reply to the message on your talk page was solid. When discussing the issue on another page, you can ping the user by linking to their page, either manually or with this template: {{U}} And Materialscientist would be the one to ask. At a glance, I personally notice that you've added some material about a local church. When I attempt to check the reference: the URL is not linked, the URL appears to be dead, the Internet Archive does not have a copy, and there is also no access date to know what time period we should look for to verify it. Good luck, Rjjiii (talk) 04:04, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
I dont know any british newspapers,like some sources could be reliable but since im not British i dont know if the source is actually reliable or not. I may find many sources but wont use some as i dont think its reliable bjt is instead relible and use a non reliable source as i think could be reliable. Or with British Urban Film Festival its independent and british so of course its not gonna be the teen choices awards everyone knows but still looks reliable to me. Is there some types of data that would write every british sources i could use? Veganpurplefox (talk) 23:32, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
@Veganpurplefox: You can check the list at WP:RSNP for some that have been discussed. For example, The Times of London is considered reliable, the Daily Mail is not. You can check out WP:RS for more information about reliable sources. RudolfRed (talk) 00:32, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
When I add things to my userpage, it always pushes against each other and does not look good. I would like my userboxes to appear on the side and then the barnstar to display with the message I got with it, but I don't want it all bunched up and pushing each other!
I agree, reduce to 10-30 refs, each with complete information. I also question your claim that the images are your own work. Were they copied from websites. meaning possible copyright infriingement? David notMD (talk) 13:11, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
@ਗਿਆਨੀ ਪੁਰਸ਼ I'm surprised to see that it takes 57 citations to show "there is not much known about his early life". Among other things, see H:FOOT for how to re-use a reference multiple times and hence cut down the repetition. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:08, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
Uploading a picture with Creative Commons Zero licence
Hello, I would like to ask a question concerning the Creative Commons Zero licence. To say it honestly - I have no idea how licences work. I always upload only the pictures I take myself. This time, I wanted to upload a Hibachi-style grill, popular in North America, but I recently bought only a cheap Chinese-made copy of it, that was available here in central Europe, which doesn't look representative. I found a good looking picture at the National museum of American history - https://americanhistory.si.edu/collections/search/object/nmah_1424246 - it is supposed to be Creative Commons Zero licence, but I have no idea under which conditions to upload it to wikipedia or commons. Thanks a lot. Novis-M (talk) 14:17, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
@Novis-M I looked at the webpage you linked and I don't see the object as marked CC-0. Indeed, if you do a search of their website with the checkbox "Show only items with no use restrictions" ticked, you won't find that item. Their T&C page is not very helpful but it seems to say that all content not specifically marked as CC-0 must not be used commercially. Unfortunately, Wikimedia Commons does not allow licenses with that restriction (called "NC" in the jargon). So I don't think you should upload that image. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:10, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
@Novis-M I see I was too late to stop you uploading the image which I'm sure you did in good faith in view of the above response by the IP editor. However, its exif data confirms that its use is restricted and requires permission from the museum. They may be prepared to give that but you would need to contact them and ask them to send an email to the c:Commons:Volunteer Response Team confirming it. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:17, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
This redirects to Roman Catholic Kshatriya. I searched for this expression on Google and found nothing except in text originating from Wikipedia itself. So I strongly supposed this phrase was made up by the user who created the page, and has no real use elsewhere. 176.159.12.72 (talk) 17:14, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
I did a Google Books search for Cxatria and learned that it is the Portuguese word for the Indian caste Kshatriya, and that it is used in Portuguese books about India. There are 20 million Catholics in India and their history for the past 500 years is intertwined with Portuguese colonialism in India, which continued until 1961. The former Portuguese colony of Goa, now the most prosperous state in India, is 25% Roman Catholic. This is not a made up phrase, although admittedly obscure. Cullen328 (talk) 17:55, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
No sources available
I'm writing an article and it includes a section about the Roman-Seleucid War. However, I can't find any source other than Wikipedia mentioning it (even on the Wikipedia library) and all the references in the aforementioned article seem to point to a specific point (or battle) in the war...can someone help? Vamsi20 (talk) 20:06, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
I've create an article/page for Robert Tyminski, who is a Jungian Psychoanalyst in San Francisco and has published several books and multiple articles.
I'm getting the feedback that Wikipedia is NOT interested in Robert Tyminski's writing, bur what other "notable sources"(???) wrote ABOUT him. Is this correct? GSH2023 (talk) 19:57, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi @GSH2023, welcome to the Teahouse. It's a bit counterintuitive, and leads to many misunderstandings, but that is basically correct. 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.
The notability of the sources isn't part of the problem here; the notability of the article subject, Robert Tyminski, is the issue. Since your subject is an academic, the notability standard involved is WP:NACADEMIC - this determines whether he merits an article on Wikipedia. That's a particularly tricky guideline and I'd recommend you read it carefully to see whether your chosen subject meets its standards. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 20:09, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
What you have created is not yet an article. It is an unsubmitted draft: Draft:Robert Tyminski, DMH. As written, it has no potential to be accepted by a reviewer, so do not submit it. Per above, a draft about a person can have a section "Books and selected publications" but that will not confirm notability in the Wikipedia sense. Also, you have the same content on your User page - delete all of that. David notMD (talk) 21:41, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi Danial Bass. Only an administrator can protect a page? Since you're not an administrator, you don't have the ability to do so. You may, however, request page protection as explained here, but page protection generally requires some serious and continuous disruption before it is done. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:15, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Can an image taken by user, be used as its own reference
0800cpc has added Coat of Arms to the Naenae College article. In the references they use for the information, are photos they have taken themselves and uploaded to Commons. Is that ok as a reference, I couldn't find anything about if it is allowed or not and I have tried to search for an alternative reference to use instead but can't see one online. If it is ok, is the formatting alright, because we then get copies of the photos in the reference section.— NZFC(talk)(cont)22:32, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
Although perhaps less preferable, am I allowed to use a quotation of a report on an original (ancient) source as a source of information for sourcing when writing about that subject? FourLights (talk) 01:53, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
I'm working on a project for my Women, Gender, & Sexuality studies class, where I'm going to edit Wikipedia pages relating to any of those topics that seem important and also need a fair amount of work. Does anyone have any suggestions for pages that fit those criteria? I have found some lists and categories on Wikipedia of different topics that I've been looking through, but I thought it wouldn't hurt to ask here too.
Hi @A. E. Katz, welcome back. Many WikiProjects maintain lists of articles within their purview that need attention. WikiProject Women, for instance, has a Get involved! section on their front page, with descriptions of and links to things interested parties might work on. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 19:58, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
A bit over my head in attempting to find information for infoboxes + other questions
Hi, I've read and looked all in the help pages. But I really just want a copy and paste base infobox without LUA or any other fancy things, but I can only find things where the parameters have already been made and you just need to fill it out.
I'm also here to ask the question is it possible to put in info that exists on another page without typing it again?
Also another thing for infoboxes i noticed some take a format like "<format>{{ {{{element1}}} }}</format>" instead of just a blank parameter like "{{{1|}}}" where can I learn more? I'm trying to learn from the help templates but they don't tell me much about how to make a template from scratch or where to copy it. Tayzers (talk) 01:39, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
@Tayzers: It is not clear what you are asking. If you just want an infobox, why not use one of the many infobox templates available? All you need to do is fill in the parameters, and if you don't know what to fill in, leave it blank. You don't need to use any codes, you can use plain text for the parameter values, although embedded templates to display age of a person based on birthdate are useful.
In your second quesiton, it is unclear what you mean by "page". A "page" can be an article, a user page, a talk page, a template page, a Wikiproject page or other things. If you are referring to articles, then generally one should not copy and paste information from one article to another article. You can summarize or paraphrase, and provide a wikilink to the other article.
Your third question could use an example. It seems as if you're trying to understand how to use a template from reading the template source code. The documentation page for each template should be explanatory. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:29, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi there. I want to learn how to make a template from scratch for personal projects, rather than just using a premade one.
As for said personal projects, if i could copy data from one to another, how would i do it, instead of making users jump from page to page.
Hello, Tayzers. In answer to your second question (if the question is what I think it is), Wikipedia will transclude the contents of one page into another by putting it in double curly brackets ({{...}}). This is mostly used for templates, but can be used more generally. Does that answer the question? ColinFine (talk) 08:23, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
@Tayzers: To clarify, you can create a sub-page in your user space, for example User:Tayzers/My infobox. Then create your own template in that sub-page. In another page you can use {{User:Tayzers/My infobox}} (curly braces, not square brackets like in a wikilink) to transclude that template into the page. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:27, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
I don't see the referencing templates I'm looking for
If I understand correctly, I can get templates that will help me add references to my draft article by clicking on the "CITE" drop-down box. I've tried that, but what I'm hoping to see:
{{cite web}}: Empty citation (help) for references to general websites
{{cite news}}: Empty citation (help) for newspapers and news websites
{{cite book}}: Empty citation (help) for references to books
{{cite journal}}: Empty citation (help) for magazines, academic journals, and papers
Manually adding references can be a slow and tricky process. Fortunately, there is a tool called "RefToolbar" built into the Wikipedia edit window, which makes it much easier.
To use it, click on Cite at the top of the edit window, having already positioned your cursor after the sentence or fact you wish to reference. Then select one of the 'Templates' from the dropdown menu that best suits the type of source. These are:
{{cite journal}} for magazines, academic journals, and papers
A template window then pops up, where you fill in as much information as possible about the source, and give a unique name for it in the "Ref name" field. Click the "Insert" button, which will add the required wikitext in the edit window. If you wish, you can also "Preview" how your reference will look first. Was Kisevalter Nash? (talk) 06:19, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi IP 112.209.16.229. You can find out more about how to create an account here. You can also scroll to the very top of this screen and click on "Create account". -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:58, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Mehreen Iftikhar
Mehreen Iftikhar is a renowned anchor from Lahore, Pakistan. Right now, in 2023 working in ARY NEWS, Pakistan's number one NEWS channel. She is very passionate and hardworking about her work. If we talk about her professional behavior. she will never say NO to any transmission or any NEWS breaking. besides all the abilities she is good looking and having an attractive personality, concomitant with fast-paced she has done many fields work, social issues for her YouTube Channel named "Mehreen Iftikhar" current affairs, public and other reactions of the public reports confidently. She has joined this NEWS field in November 2019. She is the right now the most junior anchor of ARY NEWS. If we talk about her education, she has done Masters in English literature and linguistics. Mehreen Iftikhar (talk) 01:57, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
November2019, she started an internship at City News Network after getting on-air December2019. She got renowned face of media industry at a very short period of time due to her good work and in a very short period of time she joined Pakistan's number one channel ARY NEWS and still working there. Mehreen Iftikhar (talk) 02:14, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Hello, Mehreen Iftikhar. That is all highly promotional content. Wikipedia is not a venue for promotion, advertising, marketing or public relations of any kind. There are plenty of other websites that allow this type of thing, but not Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 04:08, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Iftikhar advised on Talk page to not use User page as a place to draft an article, to not attempt autobiography, or if not writing about self, to abandon this account and start anew with a different User name. David notMD (talk) 08:55, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Talk page archived
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Hi there, since I made some mistakes do this in all archive and now was reverted. Can someone help me? When reach consensus after reading on Consensus, now can be catch a lot to continue but I don’t know what’s the matters will resolved. And maybe I can reach to watching consensus via Talk page guidelines to make edits Wikipedia. Do someone else who reply to me before make edits archive in the next talk page? Thank you. 125.235.238.149 (talk) 04:16, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Yes, since make your archive in this page, now can be found to be true and seek consensus with them. When make points and arguments on the talk page, I want to edits semi-protected edit request if you can and if I return to archive, waiting for not sections in this talk pages, I will be able to make archive again. Can anybody make your points to make useful contributions before edits? Thanks. 125.235.238.149 (talk) 04:23, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Background: this user is adding archiving to hundreds of talk pages using non standard settings and without consensus. Their english also isn't great. They've had two editors question this on their user talk page. If they don't stop, this may need to go to ANI. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:57, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Two editors who may ask me to stop using an non standard settings and if log in or create an account, maybe used standard settings to make sure not violated in Wikipedia policy, but minthreadsleft = 0 is not yours to me. 125.235.238.149 (talk) 09:08, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
This IP started editing two days ago. The great majority of edits have been to install a non-standard auto-archiving bot trigger on Talk pages, which in many instances has caused most of existing Talk content to be archived. This definitely needs to go to ANI as quickly as possible, and all edits by this IP reverted. David notMD (talk) 09:12, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
I’m not sure if go to ANI in the time, but if come home, no need to archive, some edits will reverted of removed. @David notMD, if have an chance to not used archive bot and make it another chance to let you know what I made done to not resume archive and now can still be assists to me and not install non standard auto archiving. 125.235.238.149 (talk) 09:18, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
The most recent archiving edit by this IP was at 08:59, 6 April 2023. Any subsequent Talk page edits involving adding the archiving trigger mean that the IP has continued. David notMD (talk) 09:24, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Yes, Your IP will continued and not being blocked from editing Wikipedia. If go to another way example updated the counter in the review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes in one example film, I will sure to update the score with a ratings and more. I’m sure I will continue. @David notMD If I log in or create an account, if can to using OneClickArchiever to archive formatting is available from all registers users. I’m promise it. 125.235.238.149 (talk) 09:28, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for your help, now go away and get it for some articles not made archive talk pages to clear a consensus policy. Just a like you! Cheers, 125.235.238.149 (talk) 11:07, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Finding years-old Talk page comments that were not signed at the time and adding "Preceding unsigned comment added by..." is another negligibly useful activity - more evidence that this IP is not here to improve the encyclopedia. David notMD (talk) 11:13, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
@David notMD I don’t know what "Preceding added unsigned comment added by…", for some User was not added name IP address or User account and date, will skip into the next one, and then add archive to get some an trouble to come out in the madness. This evidence not here to build an encyclopedia can removed. Waiting an next article and see what happens. 125.235.238.149 (talk) 11:17, 6 April 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.
Find the text of an AfD'd article
Hi. Is there a way for an Admin to be able to release the content of an AfD'd article? We have a situation where a well-sourced global-scope article was deleted after an AfD a couple of weeks ago, but now that exact article title exists again on a (formerly US-scoped article) that was legitimately moved but is overloaded with US-centric prose. Would like to get to see the prose and sources from the AfD'd article by that same name.
Oops...I was a bit quick on the trigger here it seems; as I didn't see copyright problems, I have emailed the old article to @N2e:. Lectonar (talk) 10:44, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Thank you, Lectonar! That was super responsive way to help. I'll look at the email and see if I can't begin to improve that US-focused article with the new global-scoped name. Cheers. N2e (talk) 10:51, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
WIKIPEDIA is already a great encyclopedia. But it would be more better if you add a feature to search a certain word or sentence to of the certain article. it would be much more helpful. Like, i could search 'birth' in a poet's article and the birth date of the poet would appear instantly. 103.67.157.229 (talk) 03:52, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Yes, this is a feature in most or all browsers, not something websites do. Try Ctrl+f in Windows browers, ⌘ Command+f on a Mac. On mobile devices, try tapping the address bar, start writing, and you may get an option to search the current page. On my iPhone the option is often hidden behind the keyboard while I type. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:31, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Can someone provide suggestions/review the article?
@ਗਿਆਨੀ ਪੁਰਸ਼, at first glance, I see that three of your references are to wikis, including Wikipedia itself. Those are not reliable sources; you should remove them and any information sourced to them.
Folks at the Teahouse are often willing to help improve a draft, or at least offer advice, but please don't post here in an attempt to get an earlier review. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:01, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
I created a page for a company using a username that wasn't compliant with Wikipedia rules. Then I created a new account and started working on a draft of my page. Only after submition I realized that the account didn't switch! So I'm afraid my draft will be deleted now! How can I attach this draft to my current account?
Hi @Arthur at SkyX, welcome to the Teahouse. Are you being paid by this company (apparently SkyX)? You haven't declared per WP:PAID on this account, and you haven't made any other edits with this account either, at least none that are visible to me.
Drafts aren't deleted because of where they are created. It doesn't particularly matter if the draft is in the userspace of your old account, but you could certainly move it into the userspace of this account if you wish, though it will need to be autoconfirmed first (at least four days old with at least ten edits). Even better would be to put it in draftspace, where it wouldn't be attached to any account in particular. What is the name of the draft? 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:09, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Per notes on the Talk page of the old account, there was a block for the inappropriate User name, and then a subequent indef block by User:Jimfbleak. The latter appears to be for creating promotional content. It is posible that your draft was Speedy deleted, leaving no trace. You may have to appeal the indef block in order to do any editing on anything, going forward. And that may include promising to not attempt an article on SkyX Systems again. Jimfbleak has now left a note on your new account Talk page, with more to follow. David notMD (talk) 15:35, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi @Soosider3: a couple of things, the information is not supported by inline citations but instead by inline external links, which is not the preferred way of referencing. And secondly, only the top c. 1/5th of the results is supported – where is the rest of the information coming from? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:23, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for getting back to me, I appreciate your comment re citations however this is fairly common practice for other wiki articles that in essence aggregate polling in UK, such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_on_Scottish_independence or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_Scottish_Parliament_election so I followed what I thought was acceptable practice, having said that I would suggest that these external links are to trustworthy sites and provide the most reliable sources. You are correct that only the first 5th or so have these citations, frankly it is time consuming and was reluctant to expend energy and time until I was surer of publication, but if thats teh stumbling block then I'll get them done Soosider3 (talk) 15:39, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
I think this the information within your draft can be better served by including it in Politics of Scotland or some other related articles. In its current state, the article is just few sentences and a table. IMO, those polling articles should be merged with other articles. Carpimaps (talk) 16:51, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
I had an edit reverted, for no factual reason
I clarified some information on the Treaty of San Stefano ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Treaty_of_San_Stefano&action=history ), and Dancing Dollar removed it right after on the claim of "unsourced edit".
While in truth this is my first edit, and I don't know how to put my source in there - I don't actually have to, because it already is listed, and it is the Treaty of San Stefano itself.
What i was doing was just clarifying information, that was left out, and gave a totally different message.
For example: Bulgaria never got to be a "de facto" self-governing body with a Christian government, in fact the Treaty states that a Russian political team, aided by Ottoman officials is to supervise and oversee all actions of the local administration.
Another one: "with the right to keep an army" - this is a straight forward lie. The treaty explicitly forbids for a Bulgarian army to be created, and instead only a small local police force can be established to deal with banditry.
A misleading one: "while Russian troops would remain for two more years" - not stating the exact amount of Russian troops - it being 50,000 - is kind of beneficial for the pro-Russian political part VMRO, and funnily the guy who did an insane amount of edits circa 15 Feb 2023 (1,5 months before the Bulgarian government elections) is named VMORO (a variation of the abbreviature). The other misleading part is that in the treaty it is stated on multiple occasions that these articles, including the army occupation one, are to be effective for 2 years, after which the Russian-Ottoman overseers are to consult with the Russian Empire and can one-sidedly extend this period indefinitely.
I am just using information from the Treaty of San Stefano, and wanted to share it with the general public which is not as bright as to read the document themselves. Unfortunately political trolls are all around the internet, and wikipedia is their weapon. 109.160.19.92 (talk) 17:29, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi 109.160.19.92, although i wasn't part of the edits i wanna help you understand something important when it comes to wikipedia.
You see Wikipedia relies on secondary published academicly approved sources (although not always they do tend to favor them more) you said that your edits were based of the materials in the San-Stefano treaty, which is unreliable, in WP:PRIMARYSOURCE its stated that "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." what you did was interpret the original treaty without a secondary source.
If you're having troubles finding sources for the subject you can check out Google Books and search for any book you want and once you find the right source check WP:Citing sources for more info on how to properly cite sources, if you have any questions feel free to ask. Gurther (talk) 17:43, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Disambiguation pages and redirects
I'm in the process of creating Fall 2023 fashion weeks and basically I ran into some miscommunication with some editors regarding linking out (or not linking out) to disambiguation pages. The problem is that the article contains a LOT of brands that have no page (and whose designers also have no page). Some of these brands are also the names of words that already exist and have disambiguation pages - think "Rains" or "Beautiful People." I think a lot of them deserve their own pages someday, but I created the page in the first place to get a bird's eye view of the coverage of contemporary fashion on Wikipedia, and the coverage. . .is a lot worse than I thought.
Basically my questions are these:
1) If a brand has a disambiguation page for the word, but the brand is not already listed on the disambiguation page, do I put the brand on the disambiguation page and then link to the disambiguation page directly?
2) Alternatively, do I (for example with the brand "Rains") create a separate article for "Rains (fashion brand)" and then that redirects to the disambiguation page?
3) Alternatively, do I add it to the disambiguation page but I leave "Rains (fashion brand)" in red in the article without linking out anywhere?
I want to create the article in a way that is future-editor friendly, while also helping people locate the most information possible.
This was very helpful, thank you! If I search the brand and I find it on no other pages, I will put it on the disambiguation page and note that the brand featured at 2023 fall fashion week with a blue link to that article. Computer-ergonomics (talk) 17:52, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Formal tone help
I submitted an article, Draft:Lex Croucher, which was declined due to lack of formal tone. I've recently made some edits and wanted to ask for some opinions on the tone.
@Ashford39: The tone seems OK, but there is far too much reliance on primary sources (sources written by Coucher). You need to work to minimize those. The Youtube section could be reduced signficantly too. Can you state what three sources you list meet all three criteria in WP:Golden rule? ~Anachronist (talk) 18:44, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Mention of countries’ economy in lead section
I remember when we use to mention the US being the largest economy and have the most military spending in the lead section and I have noticed we stopped mentioning those things in the lead section for China and India too. Was there a consensus on this? I’m aware I might be able to find something with enough digging, however it would be rather helpful if editors involved could point some directions. Thanks in advance. MarvelousPeach (talk) 16:06, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
@MarvelousPeach: Did the lead section ever mention those things for China and India? In any case, if either the economy or military spending are described in depth in the article, then they should be summarized in the lead, per the WP:LEAD guideline. The purpose of the lead section is to provide an overvew of the body, not to introduce material that the body text doesn't contain. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:00, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Editing a preview thumbnail
Hello, I would like to edit a page preview thumbnail because it has a... obscene image, probably from a Troll. How can I do it? The picture I'm talking about is from the page about Japanese Maiko https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maiko, the one that appears when you hover the mouse on the "misedashi" word, below the first image. (Warning: it's pretty disgusting) SpicyWaterLemon (talk) 17:24, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
There is a "purge cache" selection in the Page menu dropdown, but this probably appears only for registered users. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:41, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Yep. There are several ways for folks with accounts to do it, and there's a handy link at the ANI thread if mass purging is needed. But it seems that IP editors can't purge pages, no way, no how (recent discussion at VPT). I did a dummy edit instead. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 19:04, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Hello! I have been learning more about Wikipedia for the last several months, and I recently decided to try writing a draft page. I've been periodically returning to it to add in new sources and information to improve the draft. Its been several weeks since I first made the draft, and I'm hoping someone could tell me if there is anything else I need to do in order for it to be reviewed. Was it automatically submitted for review or do I need to move it somewhere? The page I've been working on is Ken Spain (political strategist)FriendlyEtherealMoose (talk) 18:15, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
@FriendlyEtherealMoose: I would order the facts from most relevant to least relevant, which means putting the personal life at the end of the article. You have way too many bare links as references; please convert them to actual citations. If you have a lot of citations to the subject's own works or writings (it's hard to tell from bare links), then try to minimize them, because Wikipedia cares more about what sources independent of him say about him.
Thank you very much, this is so helpful! @Anachronist/@Valereee! I'm going to go clean things up right now. For the three citations that are best for supporting a notability claim, should I place those on the talk page of the draft? I really appreciate the help! FriendlyEtherealMoose (talk) 18:33, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
That's what I'd do, and maybe put a comment above the first line of the draft that tells a reviewer you've started that discussion at the talk, to keep them from missing it. Valereee (talk) 18:45, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Thank you! I have finished cleaning up the bare links, and I have moved the personal life section to the bottom of the article as recommended. I also added three citations for the notability requirement on the talk page. I really appreciate the help! Thank you very much @ValereeeFriendlyEtherealMoose (talk) 19:29, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Hello I'm trying to get my article published on Wikipedia and I need help to edit it so it can meet its criteria of being published. Please can you help me Candice Lowery (talk) 21:13, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi @Lovelymelanin37, welcome to the Teahouse. Besides a number of formatting problems, your draft does not cite any reliable sources which can establish that this person is notable. Also, you have uploaded many pictures of this artist as your "own work" - did you take these pictures? Do you have some association with this artist? 199.208.172.35 (talk) 21:21, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
@Beadrill, article titles are (for the most part) based on what is most used in English-language sources. If it's indisputably obvious that English-language sources use ISRO much more often than the full name, you could simply be bold and move the article yourself (see WP:MOVE). However, if such a move is likely to be at all controversial, it would be better to use Wikipedia:Requested moves instead. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:18, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
The relevant policy is WP:COMMONNAME - the article should be at the most commonly used name in English sources. A good rule of thumb for this is to count Google News search results. These counts are accurate as of 19:07, 6 April 2023 (UTC).
Acronym
Full Name
NASA: 308,000
National Aeronautics and Space Administration: 792
JAXA: 2,220
Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency: 300
CNES: 835
National Centre for Space Studies: 8,860
ISRO: 8,540
Indian Space Research Organization: 21,700
As you can see, NASA and JAXA are most often referred to with the short forms, while CNES and ISRO are referred to mostly with the long forms. Therefore, I think it would make more sense to rename the CNES article instead. casualdejekyll19:07, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
The move discussion at Talk:Kim Jong-un is showing up with an excessively long listing on the WP:RM page, due to the lack of a signature before the explanatory subsection. What is the recommended approach to fix this? Can I move the signature? Or add my own in the middle? Walt Yoder (talk) 23:36, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi Walt Yoder. I don't think the "problem" has to do with a lack of signature before the explanatory section, but rather with the way the OP formatted their post. They tried to format it into sections like you would with a article, but that can sometimes cause problems with the over all formatting of a talk because the software doesn't see it as one long post, but rather multiple posts in individual sections. So, when the discussion is being transcluded on the RM main page it's formatting looks mucked up.My personal opinion is that the section like formating should be removed, and replace by simple paragraphs, or perhaps WP:PSEUDOHEADs. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:31, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
I tried to tweak things by converting to PSEUDOHEADs and using bullet list syntax, but that didn't work when it was transcluded on the the main RM page. Moving the signature helps with transclusion, but it also removes any quick way of identifying that the same person also posted all of those sources. Simple paragraphs might be the way to go here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:58, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
LINK seems to have been highjacked to some clitoris porn site!
Never did this before so apologies if I faux pas; Flag as inappropriate the LINK from Tony Tulathimutte article to Selected Shorts: Too Hot for Radio seems to have been highjacked to some clitoris porn site! 2601:645:983:1AC0:352B:84D3:7D53:FB84 (talk) 04:58, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Your comment is perfectly valid, and it seems one of our other editors also noticed, and has already removed the offending link. Thanks for raising it here. HiLo48 (talk) 05:35, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Questions on how to insert
While editing the source of my user page I inserted a map of Mars. The issue is that it's three screens long and five pages tall. Is there a way to select one of the smaller versions of the image other than the 3,773 × 4,249 pixel one?
Hello @Derpyhoi and welcome to the Teahouse! I have gone ahead and done it for you. If you would like to change the size of an image in the future add |300px to the image’s wiki text. You can change the 300 to whatever size you want. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆(𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 00:59, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
@Derpyhoi: You can also use the 'thumb' parameter in the image file link to add a caption if you want. The 'thumb' parameter automatically sizes the image to an appropriate thumbnail size (controlled by user preferences) without you needing to specify an explicit size. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:45, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I'm from Germany and we have an german article about the Balkan Route already. I was surprised there is no article in the english wp yet. Currently there is a large increase in migration / refugee numbers traveling on the Balkan Route and many people are looking for information. I would have asked in a WikiProject, but could not find one specialized on migration matters, so I'm asking here. Perhaps some of you guys want to create Balkan Route? 2A02:8106:208:9200:7D59:38E9:2983:558A (talk) 11:34, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Hello! I am a new wikipedia editor and trying to fix some dead citation links in the page for Food Security. Reference #7 needs to be updated to this pdf but it looks like I can only add to the reference list- not edit it.
Hello Secretcanoe. You should not edit the reference list but the top section. Search in the edit window for "socially acceptable ways" which will be followed by the reference you wish to edit. Shantavira|feed me13:49, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
@Secretcanoe The current .pdf is a 76-page document dated to year 2000. The link you provided is a 4-page document, also from year 2000. Are you sure that is the correct replacement? Maybe you need to discuss this with other interested editors at the Talk Page Talk:Food security. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:49, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
I am writing an article about the founder of a company, and I have the following sentence:
"David Latimer is an American designer and founder of New Frontier Design, a company that specializes in architectural and interior design for homes and businesses."
I put a reference to the company's website right after "New Frontier Design" as well as a second reference corroborating that he is, in fact, the owner of said company.
Hello @JasonWeitz and Welcome to the Teahouse! That would be allowed, but there is a better way. I am assuming this is the first sentence in your article. Normally, we don’t put citations in the lead part of articles, we cite them later, in the body per this. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆(𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 23:12, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
@JasonWeitz: while it would probably be allowed, it would not be a good idea. Referencing should support the information in the article. If you're just linking to the root of a website, that doesn't really support anything, other than the existence of the said website. And if you do this too many times, it could start to look like gratuitous refbombing, which is frowned upon, or worse. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:10, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
@DoubleGrazing Thank you. I am only referencing it one time in the whole of the article, and it is to support the existence and legitimacy of the company. But I understand that Wikipedia generally doesn't like this which is why it is immediately followed by a corroborating article from an unbiased source. If you and @Illusion Flame still think I shouldn't though, I will remove it. Thank you for your input. JasonWeitz (talk) 15:03, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Primary Resources
I have received a lot of comments indicating that my biographical page for Vincent Arcilesi contains too many primary resources. This confuses me, as primary resources are considered to be the most accurate, as they are first hand accounts of history. My primary resources include letters and certificates confirming the information to be true, not information written by Vincent Arcilesi. My article also has secondary resources, in the form of reviews, articles, etc.
Hi Mzerah96 - rather than me regurgitating the policy, please see WP:PRIMARYSOURCE, and please note it is a policy, not just a guideline - please come back if you have any specific questions - best wishes Arjayay (talk) 15:03, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
@Mzerah96 I have gone over your article and used named references in the standard manner (see WP:REFNAME) for those surces you have used multiple times. In doing that, I note a much more serious problem than the use of primary published sources: namely that many of your sources are not actually published, just held in what I assume is your personal Google drive. This means that large parts of the article is what Wikipedia defines as original research and is hence not acceptable in its current form. Onel5969 is the new page patroller who accepted the article into Mainspace, so I defer to them as to what should now be done with it. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:39, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Hello, these resources are all published. They are in a google drive because they are scanned copies from various archives that had these sources. Since we have publications/letters/awards from the 1960s on, not all of them are online so these are scanned copies. They are not documents created by 108.30.78.104 (talk) 16:41, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Hello, Mzerah96. File:Self Portrait Arcilesi.jpg which you uploaded to Commons as your own work appears to be a copyright violation. Your Google Drive references appear to be packed with copyright violations. Can you explain? Cullen328 (talk) 16:42, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
As noted before, all of these are scanned copies from various archives. Since we have publications/letters/awards from the 1960s on, not all of them are online so these are scanned copies. They are not documents created by me or anyone else involved with Vincent Arcilesi's page. Please look at the documents themselves. Mzerah96 (talk) 16:44, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
You cannot take other people's copyrighted work, scan that into a Google Drive, and then link to the copyright violations on Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 16:46, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
I really do not know how else to say that it is not me taking credit for the work. It is me referencing the resources. Mzerah96 (talk) 16:50, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
As noted before, these are copies of publications, letters, and that help substantiate the claims in the wikipedia page, such as indicating that Vincent worked for FIT> Mzerah96 (talk) 16:51, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
What's more, I have indicated that I am a paid contributor by a gallery owned by Vincent Arcilesi's daughter. Mzerah96 (talk) 16:52, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi @Mzerah96, to answer your question about primary sources, you are correct that primary sources are typically first-hand accounts of history, but this does not mean they are the most accurate; there are many reasons why a primary source may be inaccurate (writer desires to hide something, someone makes a mistake, etc). Primary sources all require some form of interpretation, which wikipedia editors are wary of (this is why you have been told you are doing "original research"). The principle here is that wikipedia editors are supposed to be writing whatever the mainstream scholarly consensus about something is - so if all we have are primary sources, there shouldn't be an article at all. This is why editors are becoming concerned and tagging the article.
It would help if you could use footnotes for all of your information - these can be generated automatically with the "cite" button at the top of the visual editor window. Using a URL, doi, or isbn number gives the best results with this tool. -- asilvering (talk) 17:53, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Okay I understand, thank you. Most of the primary resources were publications at one point, in newspapers etc written by individuals not connected by any conflict of interest to the subject, so that is why I thought this was alright, but I see now having uploaded it myself makes it a primary resource by default.
In short, I am wondering what to do when the only evidence I have to support a claim that the subject was involved in something or did something is something I have scanned, but cannot link it to the page. In this case, is a regular citation fine with no link? Just simply giving information about the source? Mzerah96 (talk) 18:10, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Ok, in that case, they're not primary sources, but uploading them to Google Drive is confusing everyone. It's fine to make citations without a link. Offline citations are perfectly fine. Online sources are strongly preferred, because they are easier for others to verify, but there's no rule against offline ones. -- asilvering (talk) 18:34, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Mzerah96, you must immediately remove the link to the painting unless you personally are the copyright holder. You must immediately remove links to any Google Drive sources that host copies of copyrighted documents without formal written permission of the copyright holder. Cullen328 (talk) 16:55, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
As a paid editor, you are expected to be fully conversant with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, including copyright policy. Cullen328 (talk) 16:57, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
I indicated that I am copyright holder of the picture because I work directly for AHA Fine Art who owns the copyright of the picture. I need more information on why the sources in Google Drive cannot be used; there are many instances of information that are not online therefore cannot be linked. I have asked for guidance on this from some editors and have received no answered, following up many times.
I will delete the entire page if necessary and start over. But I need to know why the google drive sources are not okay because I do not have other ways to substantiate the claims. Mzerah96 (talk) 16:59, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
I have moved the page back to drafts for now. I will also say that the Teahouse seems to be a friendly place for help but this has been quite accusatory. Mzerah96 (talk) 17:06, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Working for a gallery does not make you the copyright holder for a painting in that gallery. You cannot link to copyright violations and as far as I can tell, those Google Drives are full of copyright violations. We take copyright violations very seriously. Cullen328 (talk) 17:10, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
As previously noted I was trying to say that since I work for the galley and disclose that I thought it was okay to indicate my work since I disclosed I work for the gallery, this was clearly a mistake. I am aware copyright violations are serious. Mzerah96 (talk) 17:27, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
I have removed all of the potentially infringing links, along with some other problematic material. @Mzerah96, if you had used the Articles for Creation process rather than moving your draft to mainspace, many of these issues would have been pointed out by a reviewer. It's common for newcomers to make mistakes, but since you are being paid to do this as part of your job, the volunteers around here tend to be less forgiving of such mistakes.
You need to cite your sources, not upload them. That means you provide enough information in a citation template for someone else to go find a properly licensed copy of the source. Sources do not need to be online, they only need to be published (again, so someone else can go find a copy of the publication). 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:19, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
I will recreate the article in the Articles for Creation. I do not think the volunteers should be "less forgiving" these were honest mistakes. Mzerah96 (talk) 17:30, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Yes and I have a made a mistake in which I asked for help. I want to do the right thing therefore I asked for help. Mzerah96 (talk) 17:36, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
@Mzerah96, I would recommend carefully reading one of our featured articles on an artist - for instance, Constance Stokes. Look at how the sections are arranged and titled. See how the referencing is done. Study the tone used when describing her works and talents. Your article is lacking sources in some important spots and lacking a neutral tone in other important ones. Keep in mind that while your gallery's goal is to promote this artist (and presumably sell their stuff), that is not Wikipedia's goal. It's also not our goal to have articles which the subjects approve of. Our goal is to neutrally summarize what has been written in reliable secondary sources. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:43, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Okay, thank you. I will carefully review the page you referenced before submitting this article through the Article Wizard for review by editors. I will insure I create a more neutral tone based on your recommendations.
Good morning everyone! This doesn't relate to any specific pages at the moment but is more of a question regarding notability guidelines, and mainly about comics because that's the only thing I know anything about. It seems to me that the bar for notability on new articles is considerably higher than that of extant articles, but I won't get into that too much right now. The upshot is though that it feels like any new articles need to be all-but-complete to avoid tedious back-and-forth. Hopefully my edit history will show that I'm not a lazy editor but this process means considerable research and work needs to be put in for an article which can then be flagged, blanked, deleted et cetera, according to the preferences of the page reviewer.
So my question is that is there some mechanism for finding out if the sources accrued for an article will pass notability before the article is fully written?
For example, I have gathered some notes at User:BoomboxTestarossa/Tales of Terror (comic) for a prospective page on the Eclipse Comics title Tales of Terror (comic). IMHO the sources are robust enough to justify a page like those for similar titles Twisted Tales, Alien Worlds and Alien Encounters (comics), but I'm reluctant to do all the infobox and content stuff for a new article with the aforementioned possibility that as a new page it has to pass a tighter enforcement of guidelines than those for articles that have been sitting on Wikipedia in poor shape for years.
BoomboxTestarossa Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. What is considered notable has changed over time(usually gotten stricter) and with well over 6 million articles to manage, articles that may be no longer notable haven't yet been addressed by the limited number of volunteers. This may be why it seems to you that new articles are treated stricter.
As for getting an idea of what is notable before writing about it- you are doing that now. One needs to just ask. 331dot (talk) 11:25, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Thanks! So it's okay to ask here ahead of any possible creation, as long as I have a few sources to point to to avoid wasting anyone's time? Splendid =) BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 11:30, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Totally, that's what we're here for. But don't ask us to look at all nine sources you've currently listed. The three best is what we want to look at. Valereee (talk) 11:32, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
So, not an area of my expertise, but on first glance these look like reliable, independent sources. I can only get to the snippet previews of the books; the first seems to mention ToT multiple times, but the preview snippets for the second book only seems to mention it once, and it looks like a bare mention. So unfortunately I can't comment on sigcov. For sigcov what we're looking for is several paragraphs discussing the subject in some depth, not just a bare mention. All three of your three best sources needs to meet all three requirements. In this case that seems to mean that, yes, these meet RS and independent, but do they all meet sigcov? Valereee (talk) 12:22, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Hey, @BoomboxTestarossa, what we need to see is WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS that are WP:INDEPENDENT of the article subject. Three instances, two of which are outside of the local area and outside of industry-niche publications, will generally do it for new articles. It's easier for others to assess notability if you make it clear which three are the ones you feel best support a claim to notability; you can open a section on the talk page to list those. Sheer number of sources isn't important; you can move a draft to article space with only three sources as long as each of them meets all three requirements. The article does not need to be complete. Valereee (talk) 11:27, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Thanks! Can I just ask though how "industry-niche" would be defined? I mean technically any entertainment website such as Variety could be niche? I mean the problem is that in a way 95% of comics that haven't been turned into films aren't Notable-notable, but then neither are aircraft prototypes or small towns, if you follow. Given that the comics industry received very little mainstream coverage until the advent of internet news sites (which means all sorts of titles that have sold a few hundred copies have been covered on websites whereas older titles that sold five or even six figures often don't) this could lead to something of an online/recency bias that IMHO leads to what seems to be a problem with Wikipedia's popularity and the laziness of copy writers for some news organisations - i.e. that writers use Wikipedia for much of their research in some areas and therefore notable sources tend to recount whatever is on Wikipedia, therefore making the subject notable for Wikipedia...
No worries, we'll get there. I work often on restaurants. When I'm assessing a restaurant, something like Nation's Restaurant News I would consider an industry-niche publication. Although a national publication, very few outside the industry are reading it. An article in that publication would count toward notability, but one in NRA and one in Modern Restaurant Management, I wouldn't count as two, generally. If it's an LA restaurant, a review in the Chicago Tribune or at least the San Francisco Chronicle is what I'm looking for. A review in the LA Times or a story in NRA can count for one. The other two, I'm looking for outside the local area and outside niche pubs. Does that help? Valereee (talk) 12:15, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
It does! I'm replying to both of your replies here so I keep track, and I'm aiming to get to the point where I don't have to ask so many questions every time! So let's see if I'm following...
Amazing Heroes is a) a notable source and b) significant coverage; I do tend to forget that some people aren't into comics and don't have a pile of old issues of magazines about comics next to them, but while some of the sources are bare there's information about why the comic was created and why it ended, with the 'bare' sources being details that can be added in to the article as examples of the notable comics figures that worked on the series.
Well, technically you don't. We require "multiple" sources, and two is multiple, and there are editors who'll happily accept two. The reason I look for three (and recommend that) is that three such sources will pretty much bulletproof the article from being nominated for deletion. Valereee (talk) 12:57, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Ah, excellent! Well, there's no real rush for that one in particular at the moment so it won't do any harm to keep an eye out for more as these things tend to crop up when looking for something else, so if a third will help smooth things over a third will hopefully be found! Thank you very much for your help and patience =) BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 13:03, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi, BoomboxTestarossa. There were new notability guidelines created a year or two that were basically made in response to a user who had published tens of thousands of articles with limited sources or information. I don't think the new rules and their consequences were really thought out and it has lead to a lot of issues that were unforeseen. It has particularly made it hard to find sources on things that pre-date the internet and to find foreign sources. The general rule is that 3 independent sources are needed for an article and the subject of each source has to be mostly about the subject in question. However, it all depends on who looks at it and what their motivation is. As you may know, there's people on here whose main purpose is to add information here (inclusionists) while there's others whose main purpose is to police information here (deletionists) and the new rules really benefit the latter. You really never know who will see your article or what they may do with it. Articles that exist today could be gone tomorrow and articles that get deleted today could be reposted tomorrow. As someone who has posted over 100 articles, I legitimately have no idea when they will be allowed to stay or will be removed.KatoKungLee (talk) 17:10, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
...that's not an accurate description of the history of notability guidelines and their enforcement. Our current basic notability guidelines have existed since ~2006 (see the page history of WP:Notability for the minutiae), and their increased enforcement in the past few years has been the product of a shift in the ratio of articles created to editors reviewing (i.e. before ~2018, we simply could not keep up with the volume of new content created, now we generally can), not a reaction to any specific editors' edits. signed, Rosguilltalk17:21, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the background info and the thoughtful replies! I do get the need for the tight rules in a society where - for example - some TikToker can go viral and raise a fanbase of thousands in days then be forgotten about in a week. Broadly I salute anyone who ploughs through the submissions for every new media personality and craze in order to keep Wikipedia halfway usable.
It just seems to have caught a lot of other stuff in the crossfire and it makes it difficult for new submissions because you look at the way an article that's existed for a decade with little objection is written, follow it and it gets knobbled, sometimes with what seems like very little discussion or even consistency, and it's confusing when you create an article to the standards of one Wikipedia article only to find you're meant to be writing to a different set of standards which can sometimes *seem* opaque and almost arbitrary.
Something like Re:Gex, for example, has sat in the same basic state for 15 years while getting better sourced articles past review can sometimes take a lot of back-and-forth, which I find takes up time that can be better taken improving the project elsewhere.
BT, yow, yep, that's a bad one. Since you have knowledge about comics, do you think it's actually notable? Because a quick Google search turned up not much for me. A few bare mentions, some fan pages and directories. To me it looks like it should be a redirect to Rob Liefeld. Valereee (talk) 17:41, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
That or Awesome Comics; I can't really remember much about it at all beyond an article on Liefeld's art making fun of a shower scene, and I think it only lasted a couple of issues, so the chance of it having drawn much discussion is slim. In my experience, articles related to Liefeld and Todd McFarlane stuff seem to be the most egregious offenders for this sort of thing; sadly I'm not a fan of either so am not really in the position to neutrally add to them (I generally try and steer clear of comics I absolutely love for the same reasons!) BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 17:59, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
I agree, this gets pretty frustrating. For old articles, it's important to keep in mind that there is a really limited amount of volunteer time, so it tends to end up on things that are a) most interesting and b) most urgent. It takes a lot of work to successfully delete an article. So an obscure article from 15 years ago that no one cares enough about to fix, and that doesn't horrify anyone enough to motivate them to do the deletion legwork, can stick around for ages. -- asilvering (talk) 18:29, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Is there anything as a random passing user I can do to help with older articles that are poorly referenced and I have neither the resources or will to spruce up? Is tagging them just shovelling more work on volunteers? And am I the right person to make that call? The only thing that worries me with something like that is something I encountered with Strike! (comic book). Now, IMO it's a dreadful comic and rightly largely forgotten, but I turned up some sources researching something else and the autism took over, hey presto an article which was four lines is a little bigger. Just chucking... less developed articles out the airlock does rule out the chance of someone doing the same for all the four-line Youngblood or whatever articles (Re:Gex wouldn't be one as nothing happened in it, no-one paid any attention to it and no-one liked it, I should add).
Yes, that's why deletion debates turn on whether the subject is notable instead of whether the article is any good (unless the article is so bad there is consensus to nuke it from orbit). Tagging them is a good move. It might end up in a massive backlog that no one is regularly tackling, but it's better than doing nothing, imo. The maintenance tags are always dated, which might help someone in the future (eg, if they're going through the oldest tags first). By the way, this is the backlog for WP:COMICS: [5]. It's... not great. But if the autism wants to take over in the future and just needs a direction, here you are. -- asilvering (talk) 19:06, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Thanks! Crikey... a few of those are actually already on my to-do list so I shall get cracking =D That said I think a lot of the problems with comics come from inconsistent styles and standards of how, why and where to split articles, what goes on pages for Green Lantern-the-guy and Green Lantern-the-comic etc. That said my instincts are generally to tear down and rebuild whole articles, which is fine when it's Eclipse-style stuff no-one actually likes but would probably generate a lot more pushback for much else. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 19:17, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
If someone pushes back, just keep calm and carry on. Major rewrites are not a problem, but if someone objects, go directly to the talk page and work it out there. Valereee (talk) 19:25, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
BT, you can tag the article for notability if the sources provided don't support it or if there are no sources. Set yourself a W-Ping for a few months. If no one has added sources to support notability, and you with your knowledge of comics believe it is likely not notable, redirect it. If someone reverts, do your due diligence (an actual google search for easily-found sources) and if you don't find anything that supports notability, AfD it. Valereee (talk) 19:14, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
BoomboxTestarossa - Yep. There's millions of articles here and when rule changes are made, millions of articles risk being affected. Unfortunately, there's nowhere near close to that amount of users and even amongst those users, there's going to be a lot of different positions on what's good and what isn't, so you just never know. I had an article deleted and then someone else published the article months later and it was allowed to stay with the same rules in place. The good thing is that you can re-submit articles and you can ask for articles to be undeleted. KatoKungLee (talk) 18:05, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Rejection of proposed article National Museum of Asian Art
I am going to accept that the rejection of this new article was a correct application of the rule, and notwithstanding that, I nevertheless assert that this article ought to exist. If a rule decrees that the creation of this article is improper, then the problem is with the rule.
To be clear, I actually have no interest in correcting the rule nor in demonstrating that the rule does not properly apply, I'm just pointing out that this application of this rule is detrimental to Wikipedia. Fabrickator (talk) 07:18, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
Just for the record, the draft was not rejected, but declined. This is a material difference, as decline means it can be resubmitted after the reasons for declining have been addressed. However, the author appears to have requested speedy deletion instead. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:42, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
Fabrickator You can ask for the draft to be restored and then add more references before resubmitting. As drafts can stay drafts for six months, it is even possible that stuff not yet published can become refs. David notMD (talk) 09:01, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
Then I'm not clear on why you are bringing this up if you have no interest in working to reverse the decision at issue or in working to change the rule. I mean, that's fine, you don't have to, but I don't understand what your goal is. 331dot (talk) 09:27, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
So, what you are saying, Fabrickator, is "I don't know or care what your rules are, but you've got it wrong, so yah boo sucks to you!" Is that right? ColinFine (talk) 13:38, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
I suppose that I have a deep philosophical difference of opinion about this. Some editor came along and they corrected a particular problem in Wikipedia. Nobody is coming forth to dispute that the new article wasn't needed. Rather, the claim is that somebody didn't abide by the proper process.
I am claiming that there wasn't anything wrong with content that had been added, but if somebody believed that there really was some deficiency in the content that was added, then the proper response would have been to make the change they believed was required, not to revert that change and make things worse.
If the Wikipedia editor community (such as it is represented in this discussion) has determined that that the revert of that change was in accordance with the Rules of Wikipedia, then on that, I am going to disagree (i.e. either the added content was in accordance with those rules, or alternatively, that those rules are defective).
My contention is that this is an issue of either bad or misconstrued policy, and I choose to call out that the policy is either flawed or misapplied, and that to comply with this erroneous "as applied" policy would only serve to reinforce the bad policy or application of policy. I've called out the problem, but this does not mean I have some sort of moral obligation to fix it.
You could construe my point to be that if you're gong to make a change, you should make things better, not worse. I contend that is what I am doing by refusing to add the source that is being demanded, and that in doing so, I am encouraging other editors to realize where the true problem lies. Fabrickator (talk) 14:22, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
You may point out whatever you wish(though this isn't really the forum to do that, the Village Pump is better) but to be frank if you are unwilling to work on the problem, very few people will pay attention to you and you are just taking up volunteer time. If you feel that a policy was incorrectly applied, or that a policy is wrong, it's up to you to do something about it. Not morally, just because we're all volunteers here. 331dot (talk) 14:34, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for your feedback. Setting aside the issue of whether this is the best place for this discussion, I am doing something about it. I'm calling out what seems to be a problem with what I argue is an erroneous policy or a mis-application of policy. Discussing theoretically how a policy might have bad results is unlikely to have any good effect, while "fixing" the problem (e.g. by adding a source to support the claim) only reinforces the bad practice (i.e. declining/rejecting an AfC under these circumstances).
I contend my comments here are productive. They could lead to a refinement of a rule, inasmuch as the intention of the new article would presumably have been to establish the relationship to two pre-existing articles, so maybe this is a distinct sort of case. Or maybe we just need some other sort of "exception" to the requirement for a source. What's a little weird in this case is that the name change is effectively based on what would be an acceptable "self-published source", since the Smithsonian Institution is decreeing the terminology it will use to refer to these collections ... the only issue here is the fact that it implicates the creation of a new (or possibly renamed) article. OTOH, it actually looks like, contrary to the explanation of the decline, there were appropriate sources actually available (which bypasses the issues I have raised, but which begs the question as to why one would have chosen to support the AfC decline). Fabrickator (talk) 17:10, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
Fabrickator, the topic is clearly notable and we ought to have an article about it. Your draft was not rejected. Instead, you were asked to do a little bit more work but you chose not to do that and instead asked for your draft to be deleted. According to the WP:GNG, A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Your draft had two sources. One was to the Smithsonian's own website, which is not an independent source and therefore does not establish notability. The second, a Washington Post article, was excellent. So, you had one source that indicated notability but the word "sources" in the guideline is plural. A quick Google News search shows plenty of other significant coverage of this combined museum in reliable, independent sources. All you would need to have done is select the best two or three of them, add them to the draft, and it would have been accepted. Instead, you chose to take your ball and go home. That's kind of sad, but it's the path you chose. Cullen328 (talk) 17:53, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
Cullen328. Well, not my draft! If the article just needed to have a source added, shouldn't it have been moved to draft space rather than declined? (I'm completely unfamiliar with the process.) Alternatively, it could have been accepted with a tag added regarding notability. Fabrickator (talk) 19:09, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
I apologize, Fabrickator. I thought you were the author. I am not sure what you mean when you say "shouldn't it have been moved to draft space rather than declined?" It was a draft and it was submitted to AFC, and declined for the reasons I explained above. The unusual thing is that the author requested deletion instead of correcting the very easy to fix problem. Cullen328 (talk) 19:24, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
Cullen328 So if I'm understanding this correctly, the user involved submitted his draft, it got declined on the grounds that it wasn't notable. That happened on 17 February 2023. At that point, it would have been left in draft space, but rather than just leaving it in draft space, he asked to have it deleted. Perhaps he didn't understand how to address the issue of it being not notable (having been told that it actually wasn't) or perhaps he was just annoyed at the process. And if that's the fact, then I'm empathizing with him, which is really in line with what I've been saying. Fabrickator (talk) 20:32, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
Fabrickator, the reviewer did not say the the topic is not notable. Instead, the decline notice said: This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject), reliable, secondary, independent of the subject.Cullen328 (talk) 20:44, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
Yes, this type of source can be used as a reference for basic, uncontroversial facts. But it does not contribute to assessing notability because it is not independent of the topic. Please read WP:ABOUTSELF. Cullen328 (talk) 17:13, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
On the one hand, I wonder what would have happened if there weren't some non-Smithsonian publications that had an article with some degree of "in-depth" coverage. Would we then have refused to create the new article? Would we have demanded this if it had been a straight rename, rather than (in effect) two notable entities being combined into a single entity?
The decline of the simply article wasn't necessary. It would have required common sense to approve the article without requiring such references, but we are cautioned away from this, presumably because failing to insist that we rely on arbitrary policies to make decisions would lead to madness. I presume that JMutka had decided that he'd had enough nonsense, and I credit him with pulling the request. Refusing to go along with nonsense rules helps, ever so slightly, to move Wikipedia in the right direction. Fabrickator (talk) 04:56, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Fabrickator, Wikipedia's policies and guidelines have powered this website to become #7 in the world, and #1 by far worldwide in originally written educational content. Wikipedia has billions of pageviews each month. And here you are, presuming to describe the very policies and guidelines that have made Wikipedia a success as "madness" and "nonsense" and "arbitrary policies" that defy "common sense" as defined by Fabrickator, one random anonymous individual on the internet. Do you really think that anybody is going to pay attention to your hyperbolic evidence-free ramblings? Perhaps you might choose to frame your critiques in a more productive way, instead of huffing and puffing and blowing off steam. Cullen328 (talk)
Cullen328 I would take the position that once we understand that henceforth, the Smithsonian will generally refer to Freer and Sackler as the single entity National Museum of Asian Art (and in point of fact, it was already common to refer to the Freer/Sackler), and therefore, a requirement that there be sources with extensive coverage using the new name be identified was simply inappropriate, inasmuch as we specifically recognize that a new name does not require the establishment of notability. I extrapolate this from the statement in WP:RPATROL that "redirects are not subject to notability guidelines". Where I may differ from the accepted Wikipedia orthodoxy is that I advocate for a judicious use of common sense, whereas the general principle on Wikipedia is to use policy as a means to arbitrate differences of opinion. Further, it's a silly claim that "We apply these policies on Wikipedia, and Wikipedia is successful, therefore applying these policies in an arbitrary manner is a good thing," as implied in the immediately preceding comment. Fabrickator (talk) 08:33, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
"Judicious use of common sense" is indeed Wikipedia orthodoxy; it is the fifth pillar (see WP:5). There has been no failure of common sense here. An incomplete draft was declined; the drafting editor no longer wished to work on it and asked for its deletion. What would have been the more common-sense way to approach this? To force the declining editor to work on an article they didn't want to work on? To force the deleting editor to work on an article they no longer wanted to work on? These don't look like common sense to me. -- asilvering (talk) 02:27, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Fabrickator wrote, some way back in this thread, "if somebody believed that there really was some deficiency in the content that was added, then the proper response would have been to make the change they believed was required". No. That is not how Wikipedia works (and not, in my opinion, how it should work). If someone adds unreferenced content to Wikipedia, it does not somehow become someone else's responsibility to find a reference for it. We are all volunteers here. If someone wants to add content, it's their job to supply a supporting reference. Maproom (talk) 08:12, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Maproom: That's quite different than what it says at WP:MINREF. Similarly, WP:V states that information must be "verifiable", not that a citation must be included. Of course, the policies seem to invite abuse, since one can challenge anything and on that basis, remove it, and adding it back requires a citation. This seems like a recipe for WikiWar, but not my fault. Anybody is free to find a fault with just about anything (e.g. if it has a citation, you can claim you checked it and that there was some discrepancy). No doubt, abuse of this may quickly get you blocked, and in any case, I'm not advocating it. But while you say it's not your job to provide a supporting reference, it is actually quite similarly not your job to remove every claim that lacks a supporting reference. If there is a collective obligation of some sort, it is to do those things which improve Wikipedia rather than detract from it. Fabrickator (talk) 21:04, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
asilvering Sorry that this is out of order. Anyway, the gist of User:asilvering's comment is that the supposedly incomplete draft was declined, and in the absence of volunteers, the deletion of the draft (at the request of the originating editor) was common sense. Isn't it? On the one hand, the deletion of the draft on the grounds of notability seems to create a presumption that it's in fact not notable, so there isn't anything to be done about it. Procedurally, I don't know what is the right thing to do. Just as the fact that when somebody calls out a deficiency in an article doesn't make it their job to fix it, the fact that somebody calls out a deficiency in a process doesn't create an obligation for them to figure out what the right process is. Fabrickator (talk) 21:26, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, I "misspoke", the decline of the draft was based on the grounds of notability (or more specifically, on the absence of evidence of notability). Now do I have it right? Fabrickator (talk) 09:44, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
That is more technically correct, but substituting that into your previous comment doesn't make the previous comment any more correct overall. This is what the draft looked like when declined: [8]. It has a single reference that isn't the museum itself. That isn't acceptable for an AfC draft in any circumstances, so the draft was declined, and tagged with an explanation for how to revise it. The draft was not deleted on the grounds of notability. The draft was deleted on the grounds that the creator of the draft wished for it to be deleted. This form of deletion is only allowed on drafts or articles that have no significant writing from any other editor. It is not a statement on the notability of the subject in any way. -- asilvering (talk) 16:50, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
So, If I understand this correct, @Fabrickator finds it a fault that the article was declined, and that the author chose to delete it, so they believe the article should have been approved to mainspace. Is this correct? Club On a Sub 20(talk)19:43, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I do find that the decline of the article was inappropriate. The new article actually reflected a rename of the underlying entity. Notability is not a matter of the name by which an entity is referred to, and while handling this as a redirect (i.e. combining the two existing articles into a single article, and creating redirects accordingly) would have been possible, that was not the approach taken. It's been something like 3 or 4 years since the Smithsonian announced the name change and we should appreciate that the creator took the effort to address this issue. It's pretty understandable, given this demand for unnecessary additional sources, that the creator chose instead to pack up his toys and go home. Fabrickator (talk) 21:33, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Please consider this in the future
Please consider allowing banned users to at least edit their own user pages.
My former account was indefinitely banned (my wrong judgment, my fault; I am sorry). Now, I want to blank the user page, which I am not able to. The details I wrote about my edits are now causing damage to my business; it is also embarrassing and I feel ashamed.
Hello IP and Welcome to the Teahouse! Blocked and banned users are not allowed to edit their user pages for many reasons, but mainly because they shouldn’t be editing anywhere on Wikipedia and to prevent vandalism. They are however welcome to appeal on their talk page. If you would like a change, I would check out the Wikipedia:Village pump. If you don’t mind me asking, what was your previous account? - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆(𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 10:25, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Is there a person who is knowledgeable and specialized in Egyptian football competitions to give us his important opinion regarding naming the Egyptian Super Cup? Are editions of this cup supposed to be labeled with the years or the seasons it follows? According to RSSSF it is the season not the year. Sakiv (talk) 01:01, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
I want to add some images to an article I'm writing, but I don't know if I can use them without a copyvio or not. Can someone help? Vamsi20 (talk) 13:16, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Hello, Vamsi20, and welcome to the Teahouse. Where did you get the images? If you took them yourself (and they are not photos of copyright work) then you have the legal power to license them in a way that Wikimedia Commons will accept. If the owner of the copyright has explicitly released them under CC-BY-SA or similar, or is willing to do so, then you can use them, but it will be easiest if the copyright owner uploads them. If they are public domain by reason of age or by explicit release, you can upload them. Otherwise, probably not. See Help:Upload for more information. ColinFine (talk) 13:37, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
@Vamsi20 We can give more advice if you provide a URL link to the images (assuming they are not yours) and the name of the draft article. Also, if you do an image search in Google for a topic of interest, then the Google results page has a tool called "Usage rights" that can cut down the hits to those with appropriate licenses (Creative Commons), although you would have to check the details before uploading them to Commons. Finally, there are limited cases where English Wikipedia allows what are called WP:NONFREE images: see that link for details. Such images can't go into drafts, however. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:43, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Yes, but I will be moving the article into the mainspace once I am done writing, which is why I put this. Vamsi20 (talk) 21:17, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
You're good. I'll give some details, but if you're using images from the commons, you're good. The Wikimedia Commons has stricter rules on copyright. Images hosted there are either available under a free license or they are in the public domain. Those files should all have a license or PD notice, and zero issues with copyright violations. Thus, commons is the preferred source for images on the English Wikipedia. Some other languages do not permit fair use and seem to require images from the commons. (Which is why the Mercedes Richards article has a different main image for the Spanish Wikipedia: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercedes_Richards) Good luck, Rjjiii (talk) 04:42, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
I have been working on the James Mott article and just came over to take a peek for a potential source for their relationship. Abigail and James are siblings. When working on the James Mott article, I removed use the Thomas Cornell source because he's a relative (i.e., likely a genealogy type book) and his book was self-published. Bad combo together.
I also did not use this source: Mott, Lucretia (1884). Hallowell, Anna Davis (ed.). James and Lucretia Mott. Boston: Houghton, Mifflin and Company.. From the preface (I think, or intro) it sounds like she is James and Lucretia's granddaughter, but this book was published by a well-known publisher.
Would it be better to switch over to the Hallowell source, or remove all family-related works from the article?
Hi @CaroleHenson! The reliable sources noticeboard might be the place to go to get the best opinions on this. There are a lot of factors that can influence whether or not an author is sufficiently detached from a subject to be able to write about it objectively and thereby be a good source. Overall, you want to use the best available source, so if that book has the best info, then I'd use it even if there are some independence issues. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk05:02, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Sdkb Thanks so much! Based upon your response, I think I am going to try to work the article without using either family source, and if I need to use Hallowell, I will go to the reliable sources page. Thanks so much! P.S. I have had fun playing the vanity license plate game with your user name. I am coming up with "She didn't know bupkis".–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:16, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Please help to make this article about Marie Burde a Righteous Among the Nations, Happen
I Tried to translate this a German wikipedia article and could benefit from some support in bringing it to the english wikipedia.
Unfoutunatley I do not find a lot of englich sources but I think it is an intresting life story.
Thank you for your support.
Entrey with an English description :
https://collections.yadvashem.org/en/righteous/9619346
This is my draft. It is based on a translarion of the german wikipedia
where could I get more help? I would prefer not to go to deep ito the english wikipedia because I would prefer to give this article to an native english speker who could complete it. Aberlin2 (talk) 19:56, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
@KatoKungLee, @Aberlin2 Machine translation is strongly discouraged at Wikipedia, because the results are so poor. An editor who is translating an article should be fluent in both languages. David10244 (talk) 06:07, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
@Aberlin2, no English sources is fine. We prefer them when they're available, but a reliable source in another language is fine. I am very interested in this topic, and while I'm not an expert, I'd be willing to do a copyedit at minimum. I'd need you to be available by ping to make sure we agree on what I'm rendering, agree on significance of coverage and whether the source is reliable enough for enwiki, etc., would that work for you? Valereee (talk) 20:11, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
I don't understand what you mean by "I'd need you to be available by ping " .
if you mention me here or on my talk page i get a notification. I Try to ansewer you fast and help you with your questions.
I have problems with making it look like a completed entry. Especially with the wiki Syntax and error messages. I alao have not so much expirience with the process of taking it from a draft on my page to a normal wikipedia page.
I guess there could also be more englisch and german sources on this topic.
@Aberlin2, yes, that's what I mean -- that I would want you to continue to respond when I have questions, and since you seem to be happy to do that, I'm happy to help! I am going offline for the evening but I'll ping myself to take a look tomorrow. (And, yes, you have to both ping and sign in the same edit to send a notification.) Valereee (talk) 20:45, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
@Aberlin2 and Valereee:, It looks like there is a great start to this very interesting article. I would be happy to work on it, too, if you would like. I don't want to get in the way.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:04, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
I think it would be good if you worked on the article as well. You can take it away from my userpage to a more fitting place and I supplement it then there. I don't know what the conventions are and how it works best. I think the next step would be to move the article off my userpage so that more people can work on it equally. Maybe more persons here are also interested. furthermore, it would probably be good if the discussion about the technical details and individual sources would be in the discussion of an article draft rather than here in the teahouse. Aberlin2 (talk) 07:31, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
@CaroleHenson@ValereeeThank you for your support. I think I will be away for some hours but then I think I will go to the next step and will try to explain the German sources in the discussion of the draft. There was some discussion about naming a place with here name and this could also be added to the article. I just lloked up in ferurary 2023 a Street was namit with her name.
I'm new and confused if I should write an article or not.
Hello, I have been asked to write an article about a company I work for. It is a manufacturing company based in the U.S. and has been in existence since 1935. The only thing that has been written about the company (to use as a source) is the company website. Anything that I would put into the wikipedia article is on the company website. Are company websites/company press releases are not acceptable sources? I would really appreciate if someone could give me some guidance on this before I put more time into it. Thanks very much. TaraB1216 (talk) 17:51, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Would an Amazon storefront count as notability? The company sells their products through Amazon and has a large Amazon storefront with an "About" page on it. I think I'm grasping at straws here but worth asking! TaraB1216 (talk) 18:03, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
@TaraB1216, that article was created in 2012, well before our current standards were in place. It may very well merit deletion. The problem is that few editors are interested in fixing up old, bad articles; the best we can do is prevent any more such articles from being created, and slowly work on the backlog. Also see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:35, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Think of it like this: since articles are written and maintained by volunteers, people gravitate towards things that editors find interesting, or things that are urgent. New articles are urgent, so loads of people watch out for those. Old articles on peanut butter manufacturing companies are not urgent, and while I'm not saying it's impossible, I've never met anyone with a special interest in peanut butter manufacturing companies. -- asilvering (talk) 18:46, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi @TaraB1216. As asilvering and the IP user have already stated what your suggesting is not in line with Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines. However, if you don't mind letting me know the companies name I might be able to help out with the article you intend to create! AdmiralAckbar1977talkcontribs18:35, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Well, @TaraB1216, there's good news and bad news. I did find quite a lot of independent sources about the company - however they all seem to be about a Salmonella contamination.[9][10], and [11] just to name a few. There also seems to be a Bloomberg Profile [12] but that's about it. Do keep in mind there's a bunch more about the Salmonella contamination. I hope this helped. AdmiralAckbar1977talkcontribs18:59, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Thank you, TaraB1216, for drawing people's attention to the feeble article The Leavitt Corporation. It's easy to say that this is a product of the bad old days; however, looking a little longer at its history reveals that it was still being augmented with unsourced material as recently as 2017. (My own favorite (?) edit is this minor one, in which an IP helpfully points out that a number of the "current owners" are "living". I suppose that the IP feared that some people take the term "working stiffs" rather too literally. This was added to a paragraph that was already telling the reader that "Leavitt products are exported internationally to countries such as Switzerland, Serbia, Croatia, UK, Germany, Japan, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Brazil, Argentina and Panama" -- because, as we all know, exporting internationally is more impressive than just doing so domestically.) Well, a huge percentage of Wikipedia articles are terrible; all we can do is try to decrease this percentage, one way or another. I'm happy to see that Asilvering has already made a start at unterriblizing this article. But there's much more work to be done on it; would you like to try your hand at it, TaraB1216? -- Hoary (talk) 00:09, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
My changes to Gold Coast Highrise have been reverted by Wikipedia! I spent hours researching and editing Gold Coast highrise Under construction/Approved/Proposed only to have it reverted back to incorrect information that is now being presented! I will never donate another cent of money to this botched website! Wikipedia is a joke where incorrect information is mostly printed and when its corrected the idiot editor reverts it back to the wrong information that is presented and wrong. Anthony_kd is my loin name! I demand that the corrected changes that made be reinstalled to give readers the correct information regarding Gold Coast Highrise!
I request that the reverted information about Gold Coast highrise be reinstalled to the correct information that I printed regarding Gold Coast highrise
Login name Anthony_kd Anthony kd (talk) 01:17, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
@Anthony kd: Sorry to hear about the frustrating experience. It looks like you're referring to your edits at List of tallest buildings on the Gold Coast. The changes you made are saved in the revision history, but it looks like they were reversed by @MelbourneStar, who noted "Tests, incorrect formatting, unexplained changes" and "Further unsourced". I've pinged them to this discussion so that they can provide some further explanation for you about why they did not find the edits suitable. We're all trying to improve the quality of the information on Wikipedia, but we have some requirements, such as proper referencing, and your edits may need some tweaks to ensure that they follow those requirements before we can reinstate them. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk04:58, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Hello Anthony kd, we're all volunteer editors here. I am (perhaps obviously) not the editor who reverted your additions. I would like to offer some guidance. You mention that the information is correct. I believe you, but if I wanted to check it out, I wouldn't be able to verify the information with your citations. I see that you added "<ref>{{cite web}}</ref>" in several places. For instructions on how to fill the "cite web" template, check out the {{cite web}} page. It's normal to at least use the url and access-date parameters. Url provides the link and access-date is helpful if the link dies. Regards, Rjjiii (talk) 05:23, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Anthony kd, if you think that your threat to withold donations will help you get your way in a content dispute, please be advised that you are completely wrong on that point. Experienced editors do not care in the slightest whether or not you donate money, and have no way of knowing in any event. The Wikimedia Foundation has annual revenue of US $155 million and net assets of US $240 million, plus an endowment of over US $100 million. They will survive just fine without your financial donations. We just want you to donate well referenced, policy compliant content. Cullen328 (talk) 07:58, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
MelbourneStar had already left a message on your Talk page, stating willing to discuss why your work was reverted. From above and looking at article, it appears you moved the future buildings table to the wrong place and added content without working refs. David notMD (talk) 10:00, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
I edited and I moved the page of George Addo Jr. from another users sandbox and when I published it, it seems that article does not exist after I have shared link with community members, but I can see that the page exist at my end. I need help on this. Thanks Jwale2 (talk) 08:07, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
@Hannahlucy100 That should be easy and I see that the article already has many (perhaps too many) images. General advice for the way to add them is at H:PIC. Come back here if you are still having problems after reading that Help page. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:04, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
??? That then I seemed to have to switch over from User: myname/sandbox to just myname/sandbox... but then it is there somewhere and how do I publish? I had initially pressed a button in the sandbox that said "Publish" and then checked back later but nothing seems to suggest that it was waiting for review or anything...
Would it count as more reliable if the newspaper articles had links to them? I could make that happen. All of the sources are published sources except the CWRC site which is an academic research site. Karyn Huenemann (talk) 14:53, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
The CWRC site counts as a published source. The bigger problem with the article is that most of it is sourced either to her own memoir or to her daughter's. If you're having trouble finding more sources, I suggest asking the helpful folks at WP:WIRED. They're very good at finding early 20thc newspaper articles for cases like this. -- asilvering (talk) 17:00, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
It's not clear what the level of oversight is at CWRC, and if you are selecting something to be posted on CWRC which you then cite, that is another thing to be concerned about. Fabrickator (talk) 22:11, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
What do you mean by "it's not clear what the level of oversight is at CWRC"? It's a research project based at the University of Alberta. -- asilvering (talk) 15:56, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
search for experienced art-lover
I'm at the moment busy with translating some articles on Concrete art from the German to the English wikipedia and i could use some help by an experienced writer of art-related articles. Someone willing to help? Kind regards, Naomi Hennig (talk) 12:12, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
@Naomi Hennig, a very important word of advice for you: the German-language wikipedia is happy with articles that have a bibliography ("Literatur") but no footnotes, but English-language wikipedia is the other way around. Patrollers and reviewers on en-wiki will often draftify articles or remove chunks of text if they aren't footnoted, so don't bother translating anything with long stretches of unfootnoted text! It's honestly easier to write an article from scratch than to try to find appropriate footnotes for a lot of de-wiki articles. Pick ones that are easier for you to verify sentence-by-sentence and you'll have a much better time. -- asilvering (talk) 17:58, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Dear Asilvering... i do have 50 footnotes in each of my articles... at least 50... :-), i used to work as a researcher for television and i do love to have good references to what i write! I do write for the German wikipedia for more than 10 years now - and up to now i did not find lots of German articles as you described, i rather did find lots of articles which have no reference-info at all...and when i come across this, i try to add reference-info. But it is good that you alerted me on this, i will keep this in mind, because i don't want my English articles with this "says whom" in blue or something like that. Kind regards, --Naomi Hennig (talk) 20:27, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi everyone. A friend of mine has recently created an account to learn about what we do here on Wikipedia, though I'm a little concerned that he'll be overwhelmed with the Wiki-jargon that we oftentimes throw around. Any particular advice on how to better familiarize a completely new editor with policy, without pointing too much to all the PAG pages? Thanks, The Night Watch(talk)16:32, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
If the jargon is the only problem, Help:Glossary explains a lot of them. Alternatively, Here's a tip for finding relevant policies, procedures and guidelines, and most anything else you hear mentioned by regular editors, or come across in Wikipedia's interface. Type "WP: (an easier-to-type alias of "Wikipedia:") into the search box, followed by the word or phrase you heard. Most of the time, this will quickly locate a targeted, behind-the-scenes information/help page, or how-to guide. See more at Help:WP search protocol. Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:33, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
(addressed at your friend) Honestly, the best way to get acquainted with P&G is to read the P&G. Start with the 5 pillars and core content policies, and follow the links. Also, when you see someone link/refer to a P&G, read it. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me;18:05, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
What are considered 'reliable sources', please?
I am confused as to what are considered reliable sources, I thought a website link or a newspaper link could be secondary source. Could someone give me some light on this, please? Thank you, guys!
Hi,
I am a mom and I love my daughter very much, she is going to be 36 years old and she was told that her husband' sperms are not good quality and couldn't swim unto her womb. so, she couldn't get pregnant with her husband.
she has tried to transfer her husband' sperms unto her womb, but were failed because the sperms didn't swim.
Now, she was told that take her eggs out and then put her husband' sperms unto her eggs by the doctor specialist. I am very worrying about this procedure that she is about to going through?
I have heard about the first lady, Michelle Obama has gone through somewhat difficulty pregnancy and she also needed help at the time.
I would like to ask Michelle if she would tell me what kind of procedure that she has taken more in detail:
did she has taken her eggs out and how long after the eggs were put back unto her womb? did she do any analyze of her eggs at all?
would it be possible to have her to reply to me question although, my question is very strange to others and yet, I am very worrying about my daughter and want to do anything I can to help if Michelle Obama would accept my request?
My daughter is getting older and she is worrying of course.
I love Obama, Michelle, Biden and Jill Biden.
I am sorry but the Teahouse is for asking and answering questions about editing Wikipedia. We cannot assist you in contacting Michelle Obama or any other famous person. Cullen328 (talk) 18:33, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
I just want it to display a big red error message like "DO NOT USE IN ARTICLE SPACE" when in article space. I just used {{User other}} and it does the job well. Thanks for your help! A diehard editor (talk | edits) 22:27, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Thomas Swann article name change request
I have been creating articles in part to disambiguate Virginia political figures with the same name. Using the link of the list of members of the Virginia House of Burgesses, yesterday I created a page for the Thomas Swann. The parenthetical refers to him as a burgess in 1645, whereas his importance was as a member of the Virginia Governor's Council during and after Bacon's Rebellion, after which his son Thomas Swann Jr. served more in a military capacity as local sheriff (but later became a burgess). A while ago, I created a couple of other Thomas Swann articles for 18th century political figures (probably descendants but I haven't finished the genealogy, since they returned to Virginia from Maryland and thus far I've only traced the descendants of the eldest Thomas Swann to North Carolina and Virginia). Because of the messy disambiguation page, I now realize I should have changed the title from "burgesss" to "councillor" before I created the article, and am requesting you do so. Thanks.Jweaver28 (talk) 22:25, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
"Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources. Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer."
I'd like to use a self-published expert source that was produced by a subject-matter expert. This is primarily academic/scientific literature published in scientific journals. However, I'd like to use them on a biography of a living person. So is this not allowed?
For example, I am writing a biography about a prominent scientist who is a living person, and would like to cite some of his own research to note that he did important research on a particular topic. Is this not allowed? Once he has died it will be allowed? I'm confused about this and need clarification.
Hello, Fugimus. You can list a scientist's own widely cited papers, but any assessment of their importance must be cited to an independent reliable source. Cullen328 (talk) 21:42, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Academic/scientific literature is not self-published! As you say, it's published in scientific journals. That's fine to use as sources and not what that guideline is referring to. (It's referring to things like a scientist's popular blog, a book someone wrote and sold through a vanity press, and so on.) Saying "he did important research" is something else - it's not WP:V you need to be worried about so much as WP:Wikivoice. Basically, wikipedia shouldn't be saying a person's research was "important", unless sources independent of that person frequently call their research "important". Saying "John Smith does research on DNA" and sticking a footnote on the end of that to a paper he's published about his DNA research is perfectly fine. -- asilvering (talk) 00:31, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
thanks, this clarifies things. Also, not going to state that he did important research... I was just trying to get the point across that he is a legitimate researcher so I want to know if citing his own work is acceptable. Such as: "In her early career, he did research on a given subject and described these species." Fugimus (talk) 00:49, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Yes, that's fine, provided you cite the peer-reviewed articles in which he published that research. If you haven't yet, have a look at WP:NPROF to see what can be used to show notability for an academic. If you make a Wikidata item for them, you can add various identifiers (like their Google Scholar profile or ORCID) that will get picked up by Authority control if you add that template to the bottom of your article. -- asilvering (talk) 01:21, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
For many academics, the article authors create a section "Selected journal articles" and limit it to about ten. The help portray the person's work, but contribute little to nothing as far as establishing notability. David notMD (talk) 01:32, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Requesting Feedback on Article
Hello everyone. I have recently edited the page for Provoke Magazine. I am fairly new to Wikipedia and I am reaching out to anyone who might be willing to provide some feedback on my edits. Thank you in advance. Andrew34jack (talk) 20:29, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Andrew34jack, you have been "reaching out to" a lot of people over this. One of these people is me. Yesterday, I put a lot of time into two long comments: see the lower half of this. Within each, I pinged you. Why not attend to the comments you've already received before soliciting more comments? (Of course, "attending to" need not mean "agreeing with and acting on"; you are free to disagree and reject.) -- Hoary (talk) 22:02, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Andrew34jack, As I said on the talk page: "I made a few minor changes, mostly shortening the section headings. I will come back after these issues have been resolved. My major thought is: the content could benefit from summarization and copy edits. I'll be back."–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:59, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Sorry but I'm new to this ... what does "Ping" mean? and how can I do that? b'art homme 22:29, 8 April 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by B'art homme (talk • contribs)
Hello, SCPLOWBOY. Is this a question about using or editing Wikipedia? If it is, then please clarify what the issue is. If it isn't, then this is the wrong place for it. You might find somebody at the Wikipedia Reference desk who can help you. ColinFine (talk) 12:26, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
what should i edit so that my page gets approved
I submitted my page for review but it got declined . I cannot get it that whats the case about?
Triman Ranvir Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia is not a place for people to write about themselves, please read the autobiography policy. It is not absolutely forbidden, but it is highly discouraged, in part because people naturally write favorably about themselves. My suggestion would be for you to go on with your career and working to achieve your goals, and forget about Wikipedia. A Wikipedia article is not necessarily desirable, there are good reasons to not want one. If you truly meet the criteria, someone will eventually write about you.
If you still wish to proceed, you must set aside everything you know about yourself, and all materials you or your associates put out, and only write based on the content of independent reliable sources. Any article about you must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about you, showing how you meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 09:50, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
I noticed someone posted a nonsense comment on a talk page filled with gibberish. I figured that I should warn them. However, none of the reasons are really applicable. What should I do? Starship 24 (talk) 00:43, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
In that case, you can always use subst:uw-disruptive1. Alternatively, you can use a custom warning message you write yourself. These can be even more helpful because you can explain what talk pages are for. Welcome to the Teahouse @Starship 24! - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆(𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 01:27, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
I have tried to publish a new article Draft:Vaishnavi Chaitanya, my article has been declined twice stating that 'This submission's references do not show that the subject - that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject'. I have added new and better references, but the same reason. I don't know how else to improve my article. Please help me out with improving and publishing this article. Ashrit918 (talk) 13:41, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for your earlier feedback. I have made some changes and added references in the YouTube and Awards section. Pls let me know if the article is better now.
Hello, Komodobite. We can only use photos that have an acceptable free license or that are in the public domain. Photos that you find online are presumed to be restricted by copyright, unless you have written evidence to the contrary. Cullen328 (talk) 21:38, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
@Komodobite I don't see any problem with the current image. However, at the URL for the image search you provided, there is a tool under the drop-down "All licenses" which will restrict the hits to acceptable files for Wikimedia Commons. Either public domain or CC BY. Using that tool, I can't see any usable pictures for Makino, which is odd since the existing Wikipedia one should be there. Google images does have it when you do the same search: but again no others. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:22, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
I want to write a bash script that notifies me on the desktop (using notify-send) when I have a notification on Wikipedia or when something shows up on my watchlist. Is that possible? Is there an API I can use for that? 〜 Festucalex • talk20:06, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Can someone please tell me if I'm allowed to copy and paste material from one Wikipedia article to another Wikipedia article if I was the writer of the first Wikipedia article? ThanksLJA123 (talk) 22:55, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
It's not like anybody's dyin or somethin. It's just that I would feel better if thing's that I have spent time doing are done Shashy 922 (talk) 10:19, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Each time a draft is submitted it goes to volunteer reviewers who each decide what they want to review next. The system is not a queue. So, could be days, weeks, or sadly, months. David notMD (talk) 10:55, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for the advice. I mainly wanted more help on the article but thanks for the advice on the reviewing process. Shashy 922 (talk) 03:27, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Issue with short descriptions
When I have the page for Worm's-eye view (and some other pages, including Orthographic projection) open in the Wikipedia app, the short description displays under the title as "Consumption of feces."
This clearly isn't actually the short description, as if I go to edit the page, I see appropriate text (in the case of Worm's-eye view, "View of an object or location from below"). Moreover, if I look at the preview of all of the Wikipedia tabs I have open in the app, the normal short description is what displays. It's not a problem I'm happening in my browser on my PC, and it's also not happening with all short descriptions.
Nonetheless, I feel like this "Consumption of feces" description should be fixed. I'm happy to try and do this, but I can't figure out how. Could anybody give me any advice, or direct me to a better place to ask this question? – Insincere Giraffe (talk) 02:13, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
It is almost surely a lingering effect from some template vandalism a bit more than a week ago and talked about in Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Incorrect preview images. I have gone ahead and done a null edit, then even a minor real edit, to Worm's-eye view and then cleared my mobile app storage and cache. But it's still showing the vandalized short description. Something is weird since it says the article was updated 108 days ago yet I made an edit ~10 minutes ago, so some extra caching is happening on the Android app. Skynxnex (talk) 02:43, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi @Insincere Giraffe, apologies I forgot to ping before. I waited a bit above and it seems that Worm was resolved a bit after I did a page edit (so just extra slow to clear). So I went ahead and did a small fix to Orthographic as well and now, for me at least, it's showing correctly on the Android app, Reading Wikipedia:Purge might be interesting to learn more. Hope this helped. Skynxnex (talk) 04:33, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Oh that's great! I'll try null edits/small page edits in the future if I see the same problem on other pages. Thanks so much for your help. – Insincere Giraffe (talk) 05:41, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Because if you're unable to log in, something is going wrong somewhere. Don't you want it fixed? As for asking other people to add an image, that's a very odd request to make here. And that image itself is dubious. The uploader says that it's her own work, and that it's somebody else's own work. If it's her own work, why is it so small, and why is its quality so bad? -- Hoary (talk) 00:19, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
You didn't "try" to log in, or you didn't try something else? If you didn't try to log in, then how do you know you are not able to? Your comment confused me, but maybe it was just me. David10244 (talk) 06:13, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Judging by their comments, I expect they're editing from a mobile browser. I wouldn't be able to log in on a mobile browser either - and I know that in advance, so no need to try, and no reason for concern. -- asilvering (talk) 01:25, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
The file uploader's account name is the partial title of the article subject's book. The other party in the IRL dispute just had an image uploaded to the article about her.
Hi There... I've made suggestions to improve the Art Intervention description on the talk page - but have received no responses from editors... should I simply "Be Bold"?
B'art homme, the lowermost comment within Talk:Art intervention is by you and is dated 29 March; it comes below another by you dated 6 April. Their relationship to each other isn't obvious. Each is bulky; their combination is very bulky. Of those people who have Art intervention on their watchlists, I suspect that a number glance at the bulk, reflect that there are only 24 hours in the day, and move on to other matters. If a suggestion you've made on a talk page hasn't yet received any response, it's quite OK to make a radical revision to it. I suggest that you reorganize this suggestion (or set of suggestions). You might then revise the brief note you posted about it on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts (a note in which you failed to link to either the article or its talk page), to say that you've revised and streamlined your presentation of your suggestion(s). Incidentally, I don't know what you've done to your signature in order to avoid linking; but restoration of the link (which is included by default) would be helpful. -- Hoary (talk) 23:19, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Thank you Hoary. I have edited the talk page suggestion down to one thing on your helpful advice. Thanks again. I've also failed to add a/my signature sorry - I tried but nothing happened Art Intervention. BTW what is a ping? b'art homme 00:11, 9 April 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by B'art homme (talk • contribs)
@B'art homme: A "ping" is a cute name for a notification, like the one I did using {{ping}} to notify you of my reply. See WP:PING for more info. Happy editing!
B'art homme, if I write a message in which I simultaneously (A) use any one among [[User:B'art homme|B'art homme]] and {{U|B'art homme}} and {{Ping|B'art homme}}and (B) sign my name, then you'll be notified of a message (you'll be "pinged" [Wikt:ping#Verb, #4] about it). However, if you try to do the same, it will fail (there'll be no notification), unless/until you restore the link to what's currently merely a quasi-signature, -- Hoary (talk) 00:36, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
@B'art homme Yes, it would be nice if your signature wasn't mangled so much that Sinebot is auto-signing after you, and nothing in your modified sig is clickable. Can you fix that, or do you need help? David10244 (talk) 07:21, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Operation Blackleg Article
Hi Editorial team,
Here's the link to the page that was declined publishing to Wikipedia Draft:Operation Blackleg
Asking where the information came from. I did reference both the author Royal Navy Lt. Nick Hawkins and the publication. The official Record of Procedure was submitted to Commander-in-Chief Fleet on 8th July 1983.
The Wikipedia entry for HMS Coventry sinking in the Falklands War references Operation Blackleg on the Wiki page; this article will eventually link to the Coventry entry.
I be happy to make the narrative a more neutral tone but do feel other than a few " flowery " references just factually stated exactly what was achieved.
regards Devargo007 (talk) 02:13, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
The whole thing is sourced to "Hawkins (8 July 1983). "Operation Blackleg" (1): 12–15." What is this -- part of a book, a magazine article, or what? Here, in this discussion thread, can you point to two other substantive sources for the subject of the draft? Why is each heading at the same level? I didn't attempt to read the draft: I stopped reading with the introduction because the introduction isn't even written in sentences. (Wikipedia articles are written in sentences, any one of which has a verb as well as a subject.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:43, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
I had a similar experience to what Hoary described above. Wikipedia has a lot of quirks and rules, so I'd like to offer a brief outline of the standard way to write a new article:
Find at least 3 reliable, secondary sources that cover your topic. For Operation Blackleg it would be stuff like this: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-18195170 Primary sources are fine if you're citing undisputed factual statements, like dates. To meet Wikipedia's threshold for notability though, the general rule is 3 reliable, secondary sources.
After you've found sufficient sources, then write your article as a summary.
Use primary sources only to fill in straightforward, factual details.
And there are several ways to source an article, but I'll describe the most straightforward way:
At the end of a paragraph, sentence, or clause, place a "<ref>your citation here</ref>"
You can cite a source multiple times using named references. For instructions see: WP:NAMEDREFS
If you are citing multiple times from a longer work (books, long journal articles, etc.), you can add page numbers to a named reference using the {{rp}} template. (If all of the sources are very long, it will make more sense to use shortened footnotes, but this will likely not apply to "Operation Blackleg")
You are of course free to ask more questions here. I think something that may be helpful though is to check out the Military History project's talk page, and ask if there are any similar events to Operation Blackleg that you could look at as an example of what may be expected: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history
On Bonadea's talk page, Devargo007 has elaborated: the Ministery of Defence extensive Record of Procedure, submitted to Commander-in-Chief fleet on the 8th of July 1983. The record is a comprehensive document which was subject to the Official Secrets Act for 30 years. I referenced the Record of Procdure and the author. Royal Navy Lieutenant Nick Hawkins. I infer that it's a primary source. If it indeed is, then this means that it's unusable (but for details, see this). ¶ Additionally, the language is inappropriate. From the last paragraph alone: faced incalculable odds ... never in its history undertaken such an audacious and dangerous operation ... their resolve and dedication to the task ... ambitious objective. -- Hoary (talk) 04:21, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Thank you, I as a Bachelor of Journalism have used the primary source in the writing as a secondary source as referenced.
Hello, Devargo007. I am sorry to say that your draft is a very long way away from an acceptable encyclopedia article. We write in a clear, informative, neutrally written prose style, in full expositive sentences and paragraphs. Your lead section fails to adequately summarize the topic, and a reader who stopped reading at that point would have no idea that this pertains to the Falklands War or that an important ship had been sunk in combat. You cannot assume that your readers are mind readers or well informed about that war . Vast swathes of the article are unreferenced, forcing readers to either trust that someone who cannot write an encyclopedic lead should be trusted to provide accurate content, without any evidence that you are summarizing reliable sources. I recommend that you read and studyYour first article, and modify your draft accordingly, once you fully understand what you have read. Cullen328 (talk) 07:29, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Devargo007 You claim that the group photograph and a photograph of a painting are your own work. If the first is true, that suggests you have a personal connection to the topic. See WP:COI for how to declare this on your User page. You are not prevented from creating an article despite a personal connection. If you were not the photographer, what is the source of the group photo? As for the second, a photograph of a work of art is a copyright infringement. As a separate concern, is any of the content copied verbatim from the source, and if so, what is that country's law pertaining to government documents being copyright protected? David notMD (talk) 08:49, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Thanks David, yes I’m am connected to the photograph , but it’s a stock standard Creative Commons image.
The painting is a commission by myself , I’ve credited the artist , Dave Coburn, I don’t see this as an issue?
There are no copyright laws pertaining to the Record of Procedure, I’ve referenced the main author Lt Nick Hawkins ?
Simply, everything as young as this must be assumed to be conventional copyright ("All rights reserved") unless there's explicit evidence to the contrary. The copyright holder of a photograph is the person (or organization) that affixes this or that Creative Commons license to it. Who's the copyright holder, and where can we read about the particular CC license? -- Hoary (talk) 09:44, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Advice left on your Talk page about declaring your conflict of interest. Required before you do any more editing of the draft. David notMD (talk) 15:51, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Wikipediocracy
Will taking part in discussions on Wikipediocracy result in sanctions/bans here on Wikipedia? Not a current Wikipediocracy user but may register in the future. -- Shadowof theStarlit Sky22:05, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
A user came to my talkpage and told me that my recent changes on February 29 talk page is undone because it didn't appear constructive.
But why didn't it appear constructive?!
I write that post here for your judgement.
"Iranian actor, Saeed Poursamimi was also born on February 29, 1944."
If I were another person seeing this post, I would quickly figure out that it is a suggestion to include that actor on the births section.
If a user just saw the births section after seeing the talk page post, they would see by themselves that there are a few persons born on February 29, 1944 but Saeed Poursamimi isn't among them.
I honestly can't understand why my post didn't appear to be constructive.
Actually, Aminabzz, John Maynard Friedmanremoved it as "nonsense". This surprises me, as your comment makes sense to me. (Whether your suggestion is factually correct, or whether it deserved incorporation into the article, are other matters.) Perhaps Friedman would care to comment here. -- Hoary (talk) 21:57, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
@Aminabzz: Ok, "nonsense" was a bit harsh but it really just seemed without purpose. A more accurate description is "so what?" What point were you trying to make? And why? Saeed Poursamimi appears to be WP:notable (as in there is an article about him), so why did you not add the entry yourself rather than leave a seemingly random remark at the talk page? Or do you not have a citation for his DOB? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 22:43, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
𝕁𝕄𝔽, in your place I'd have taken it to be a suggestion for an addition. Yes, "Be bold" is a much touted slogan hereabouts; but, as is widely recognized, it's very often no more than the first half of "Be bold and thereupon be reverted". -- Hoary (talk) 22:51, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
I completly agree with you @Aminabzz. Be bold might be nice, but you certainly shouldn't be penalized with a removal for nonsense for wishing to discuss first. In fact, if you are unsure, discussing is often the best tactic @John Maynard FriedmanStarship 24 (talk) 12:54, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with you too.
No one should be penalized for wishing to discuss first.
True, not factually wrong but without evident purpose. I'm not a mind reader. (The background to this is a silly internet meme to "spray tag" WP with pointless posts, seemingly a bet on whose lasts longest. Deletion of your post was collateral damage. Yes, I could have and probably should have just ignored it.) --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 08:26, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
I thought we mostly left talk page comments alone, unless they were (for example) copyvios, atracks, etc. I didn't see anything at WP:TALK that would argue for the removal of that comment, even if it wasn't an extremely valuable comment. David10244 (talk) 07:15, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
I completely agree. I would remove it if it wwas utter nonsense (ex.fdalkjfdslkjfadskjds) but other than that dont remove it. You are allowed to express youir opinions and ask (that is the purpose) @David10244Starship 24 (talk) 10:46, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
How to submit my first article?
Hi Wikipedia team,
This is Lekshmi VG one of NEW INDIA ATTESTATION company member, we would like to submit an article of our page in Wikipedia so we need to know few concerns on below listed:
1. What are the procedures to follow in submitting the article and how to submit?
2. Is there any payments for publishing the article?
3. Do we need to contact anyone before submitting the article.
4. Is there future edit and content add option to the submitted article?
5. How the evaluation procedures takes place for the article approval?
Hope for a fast and accurate message for the above concerns we have.
Hello, Newindia2023. Please be aware that promotional and marketing activity is not permitted on Wikipedia, and neither are account names that are company names. Please do not write as "we" because a Wikipedia account is for one person only. As an employee, you must make the mandatory Paid contributions disclosure. Read the Notability guideline for companies, and also read Your first article. There are no fees to publish. Because you have a conflict of interest, you need to write a well-referenced, policy compliant draft, and submit it to the Articles for Creation review process. Any Wikipedia draft or article can be improved by anyone at any time. Cullen328 (talk) 05:56, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Okay thank you team, I will make the changes to the account name and will follow as mentioned. Incase of any clarifications will reach out here, please be kind for helping me out.
In answer to your other questions, WP:YFA describes how to create and submit a draft for review. This is no cost. Given you are a new editor, you cannot create an article directly in mainspace (Wikipedia), hence the requirement for a draft process. Once you have a new User name, you must declare your paid relationship on the User page. See WP:PAID. Because PAID applies, if you do succeed in having an article accepted, you will not be allowed to edit it going forward. Instead, you will be required to propose changes on the Talk page of the article. Last, submitted drafts go to a group of thousands of submitted drafts. The system is not a queue, Reviewers select what they want to review. Hence, could be hours, days, weeks, or sadly, months, before a review. The decisions are accepted, declined or rejected; the last only if the reviewer is of opinion there is no potential to succeed. More last, if the draft is perceived as promotional/advertising/marketing unstead of worded in neutral, encyclopaedic language, an Administrator may decide to Speedy delete it, leaving no record of it having existed. David notMD (talk) 14:19, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
@David notMD this is not 100% correct. If an administrator (speedy) deletes a page, a record of that will be visible in the deletion log and when people try to recreate the page. The only case where pages "silently vanish in a black hole" so-to-speak is when it's so inappropriate as to require oversighting, as the oversight log is invisible to non-oversighters. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 14:54, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
I noticed that in the plot summary of Headlong (Frayn novel), an editor added [citation needed] in two places. I know that Wikipedia does not permit original research but requires citation to a published source. But the only way to summarize the plot of a novel is to read the novel. Does it really matter whether a Wikipedia editor has read it or cites someone else who has read it? I don't see what adding a citation to a previously published plot summary would accomplish. In fact, a Wikipedia plot summary might be inaccurate. If it is, then surely a Wikipedia editor who has read the novel may correct it without citing a previously published plot summary, I would think. I'm just curious; I'm not seeking to make any edits or to alter Wikipedia policy. Maurice Magnus (talk) 14:17, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
WP:PLOTSOURCE says The plot summary for a work, on a page about that work, does not need to be sourced with in-line citations, as it is generally assumed that the work itself is the primary source for the plot summary.Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 14:33, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
I am writing about the wombat man in bundanoon NSW Australia. all of the information is true and reliable. some of the references like the reference to the New York times are no longer available on the internet (2020).
i create a article with reliable citations and reference
hey wiki team hope you doing great i created a wikipedia artcile in usertalk with citations and references and its notable topic to create here right now i help to look forward to my article and list in notable Thetaiba11 (talk) 13:45, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Thetaiba11 You put content on your User page. That is the wrong place to attempt to create an article. It was Speedy deleted, leaving no trace of it having existed. See WP:YFA for guideline on how to create and submit a draft for review. David notMD (talk) 14:32, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
@Alan Adhikari: it wasn't rejected (meaning you cannot resubmit), it was only declined (meaning you can), but if you keep resubmitting it without any attempt at addressing the decline reasons, it will eventually get rejected.
All factual statements need references - inserted into the text - verifying the facts. The refs you have put at the bottom (wrong place) do not support any of the content in the draft. David notMD (talk) 14:27, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Good day all, please I need help and review on my article which has been rejected twice, I don't know what else to add and can't identify the issues or what I missed. Dilibe Pius (talk) 17:20, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
@Dilibe Plus: Your draft Draft:Rord Kelly wasn't rejected, it was declined. The difference is that rejected means you are done, stop working on it, it isn't suitable for Wikipedia. Declined means you can keep trying to improve it.
Answer the questions:
Exactly which criteria in WP:MUSICBIO does this artist meet? If none, then it is WP:TOOSOON to merit an article on Wikipedia.
What three sources did you cite that meet all of the criteria in WP:Golden Rule? If you cannot find multiple sources meeting all of those criteria, then he doesn't merit an article here.
For more than a year, every edit from this IP address has been reverted, mostly for malicious vandalism. If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices. If you, shame. David notMD (talk) 20:15, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Collage help
Hi I made a new collage to share on the West Yorkshire article but it's not correctly formatting the captions and as a result the photos and captions are detached. I'm not sure what to do as I was hoping to add it but can't use it in either the lead or any content tabs. Could an editor look at my sandbox and tell me what I'm doing wrong?
Thanks, I wouldn't mind letting anyone edit my draft on the sandbox just to demonstrate what to do and I can then try it again before adding it to article pages. Thanks DragonofBatley (talk) 21:38, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
How and who do I E-mail to correct my Wikipedia page.
I attempted to do so and received an E-mail from Wikipedia not to edit it. I did not know how to do this myself or who to contact with the documents to help you update the page.
Who can I E-mail with attachments at Wikipedia to update my page?
I would like the photo on my page replaced with a more famous fight I refereed with Evander Holyfield, how can this be done?
Thank you kindly,
Ron Lipton
NY State Boxing Hall of Fame Inductee 2022, New Jersey Boxing Hall of Fame Inductee former fighter, pro referee and boxing historian.
Retired Police office
Marist College teacher.
My Wikipedia page does not include some of my main accomplishments, e.g. I was inducted into both the NY State Boxing Hall of Fame 9/21/22 and the New Jersey Boxing Hall of Fame on November 13, 2014 as a former record setting fighter, pro referee and boxing historian. I have all the documentation to validate all of that.
Additionally I was awarded a Lifetime Civil Right Achievement Award and a N.A.A.C.P. Man of Distinction award and have that documentation also. On the Wikipedia page it asks for "Citation needed" I have it all but have no E-mail address for Wikipedia to send it to so it can be included on the page.
On the page it says "Ron Lipton trained with Cunyiso Crumalo in 1969." I have no idea who that person is and this should be deleted as I have no idea how this has appeared on my page.
I have the documentation from the Halls of Fame, the civil rights awards, the boxing magazine article from World Boxing stating what is mentioned on the page when citation needed is asked for.
Lastly I have taught a Physical Education Course for the School of Science at Marist College for 21 years and have that citation needed also. Middleweight (talk) 01:14, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Middleweight I see there is a lot of WP:UNSOURCED and promotional material, which I have removed. I don't understand what you are saying for much of your question, it would be helpful if you gave clear sources for each of the things you are adding. The best place to ask for addition/removal of content would be at Talk:Ron Lipton as a Conlfict of Interest edit request. To upload a new photo, see the instructions at commons:Special:UploadWizard.
Hello, F07zeiss. Your draft has two references. Both are brief album reviews that fail to devote significant coverage to the performer. Please be aware that Wikipedia is not a venue for promotion, marketing or advertising. Language such as "recognized worldwide for her experimental and versatile style" and "highly praised" is not permitted unless atrributed to a specific professional music critic. Cullen328 (talk) 23:42, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
What is the threshold for need to site "obvious" facts?
I'm currently gathering sources for a prospective page on the Marvel Comic Misty and it's thrown up a question I've been meaning to ask for a while - at what sort of threshold do we need to find citations for 'evident' facts?
In this case the comic is frequently referred to as Meet Misty in contemporary sources due to the strap-line on the cover, but the publisher's indicia calls it Misty, which is a minor point of trivia I feel would need explaining to show readers why an article on a comic called Misty kept referring to sources that call it Meet Misty. For encyclopaedic reasons you go with the indicia for various reasons I won't bore you with, but the long and short is comic nerds like myself will know what's what or at least be able to join the dots but potential normal readers won't.
As it's a minor point of trivia no source really bothers addressing the issue. But if you look at the covers, and look at the publisher's indicia it's evident. We don't need to cite things like "London is in England" (right? =0) but at what point does it cross over to needing citing for something that's inarguable but obviously a lot, lot more obscure. So would I need to find a citation for the above thing before putting it in the article?
Hello, Boombox, and welcome to the Teahouse. It seems to me that there are two separate issues here.
One is about the name of the article. If the sources mostly refer to it as Meet Misty then that should be the name of the article, with Misty being a redirect to it: in Wikipedia you don't "go with the indicia". Please see WP:COMMONNAME.
As for the other question, see WP:SKYISBLUE. General knowledge of something among people in the comics world is not enough, it seems to me. However, I don't think you'd need a secondary source for the identity. ColinFine (talk) 12:43, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Thanks! Most sources was probably an exaggeration on my part; casting around there are probably enough referencing sites that use the 'right' name that it can also be taken as the 'common' name, even if the coverage on those sources is less in-depth than others. Though when I get to writing the article I will probably still address the issue, if nothing else to clear up any potential confusion as to there being two books (like X-Men and Uncanny X-Men, etc.) BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 14:35, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
@BoomboxTestarossa:WP:BLUE is somewhat subjective and of course you have to use some judgement. The way I would do it is similar to WP:ONEDOWN, i.e. apply in context - certain citations are not needed for a reader of that article.
For instance, one (unreferenced) sentence of adiabatic process reads
The adiabatic compression of a gas causes a rise in temperature of the gas.
...which roughly means "compressing gases makes them hotter". I am not sure that is a well-known fact among either the general population or the average Wikipedia reader; it would definitely require a citation (per WP:V) if it appeared on the article gas. However, the readers of that specific article (about a subtopic of thermodynamics) probably have a rough idea of stuff like the ideal gas law, and "compressing gases makes them hotter" is about as natural for them as "the sky is blue" is to most humans.
Hello there! I am very new to Wikipedia. I was inspired to start an account by Depths of Wikipedia, a.k.a Annie Rauwerda. I think the concept of Wikipedia is great as everyone contributes bits of knowledge (which leads me to advocate the use of Wikipedia in academic settings, as it is actually quite reliable.)
Therefore, I would like some basic editing tips (i.e. how to add references, how to link to another page that has a thousand different meanings, etc.)
Hi @GeoGuru32 - I find that Help:Intro covers these bits well. After an initial summary, it splits into two paths - most new editors use the Visual Editor (and so you'd want that pathway). Perhaps unsurprisingly referencing covers referencing, and editing also includes linking. Those are the two most key sections and are well worth a read :) Nosebagbear (talk) 08:15, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
I am in a chicken and egg situation. I represent a music society that was founded in 2006. It has hosted and facilitated 80+ intimate concerts in Johannesburg. Since they were mostly mostly private affairs, very little online information, except what is available on Facebook, is available. We would like to improve its overall status as a 16 year old organisation online. I need someone who can help me with the necessary steps to publish a legitimate article on the organisation. I am a first-time publisher. Kalaharikudu (talk) 19:45, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
I did some research, a reasonable way forward for me is to contribute to article "Music of South Africa". Also, these events were not "private affairs", they could be better defined as "privately hosted affairs, mostly open to attendance by the public". I since discovered a similar French organisation who is featuring on Wikipedia, it is legitimised by a WikiProject about France. It also does not meet some of the WP guidelines. Kalaharikudu (talk) 21:00, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Hello, Kalaharikudu, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid that to improve its overall status as a 16 year old organisation online is a very clear example of what Wikipedia calls "promotion", which is forbidden anywhere in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not here to enhance (or detract from) anybody's online presence. Please put your effort to a site where promotion is allowed. ColinFine (talk) 21:26, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Teahouse hosts are here to advise, not co-author. Your draft, declined, at User:Kalaharikudu/sandbox has no references. Any content must ber verified by independent, reliable source references. A search at Google did not discover any publications that could serve as references. "Other stuff exists" is never a rationale for a non-qualifying draft. Given all this, I recommend you delete the content of your Sandbox. David notMD (talk) 02:25, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
I am mustering support from other societies and academic institutions to ensure we meet the guidelines, I will be keeping this sandbox draft for now as an example. Kalaharikudu (talk) 18:10, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
@Kalaharikudu: I believe you have a (common) misunderstanding.
One of the basic guidelines of Wikipedia is that only "notable" subjects can have articles. "Notability" is defined, roughly speaking, by "has been talked/written about at length by multiple independent reliable sources". That is a property of the subject, not of the article.
Any external source you can create by your actions (because you pay them money to publish what you want to say, or because the journalist is your aunt and will write for you as a favor, or because...) is going to fail the "independent" part of the test. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact)09:34, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
As mentioned, I have read the guidelines regarding notability, I will be grateful if there won't be anyone chiming in on that topic.
It is presumptuous of you to think that we will be paying someone unduly or getting an "aunt" to say "what I want to say", if you represent this collective fully, I am going to start referring you to guidelines covering the opinion topic. You don't know anything about the organisation that I am representing, as was also previously stated due to the lack of on-line information. See chicken and egg statement. I think everyone should heel now, until we have strategized an approach that will meet all the guidelines. We are not an island, please refrain from assuming that we are. Maybe wait until there is an update on the page or a new one created. Kalaharikudu (talk) 09:47, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Kalaharikudu, when you wrote I am mustering support from other societies and academic institutions to ensure we meet the guidelines, I assumed you were talking about either (a) getting help writing the Wikipedia draft, or (b) publishing off-Wikipedia stuff that you would then use to source the Wikipedia draft. My answer explains why (a) requires to find sources before worrying about polishing the draft, and why (b) does not produce usable sources. If you meant neither (a) nor (b) please clarify.
I do not know anything about your organization, true, but I don’t need to - that advice is valid for any attempt at writing a Wikipedia article.
Finally, you seem offended at the suggestion that you would [pay] someone unduly... to say "what I want to say". Well, by your own words, you are the representative of a music society. It would not be a stretch to imagine that you are paid to edit Wikipedia (if you are, please read WP:PAID and do the mandatory disclosure). If you are not, you are still here because (presumably) you like that organization and want to say good things about it. Of course your natural inclination will be to write in a way that paints the organization in a better light than would be warranted in a neutral encyclopedia entry. That is just a fact of life, not a reflection on your moral character.
Unfortunately, as I said, that level of quality is sadly lacking in the majority of cricket articles. For example, I also read Bill Bradley (cricketer) today and that is, frankly, a complete mess. It reveals an inability to understand article structure and to compose coherent prose. The references section is unreadable. The grammar and spelling are poor: "Bradley worked in property management for the rest of his working life, managing Brittanic House in Finsbury Circus" is a ridiculous construction and the failure to spell Britannic properly is appalling.
Wikipedia can produce some articles of quality, subject to who works on them, but the contrast between Beldham and Bradley is wheat and chaff. You need to encourage your good editors and remove the incompetent ones who wreck your credibility. 2.99.213.247 (talk) 21:38, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
What a stupid response to a reader's feedback which any publisher should always welcome. When I said "you need to", the "you" was plural meaning Wikipedia as a whole, not you personally. I have other concerns too and, no, I do not care to clean up someone else's mess. I don't think you are an appropriate person to be fielding questions in this venue. As you have an obvious attitude problem, you might care to improve that yourself. 2.99.213.247 (talk) 22:12, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
The English Wikipedia is written by volunteers who choose what to work on. We have more than six million articles and the quality does vary a lot but we don't remove (block) good faith volunteers unless they cause serious damage or disruption. The alternative to a poorly written article would usually be no article. It also takes time to write a good article, even for the best of editors. Anyone may improve an article at any time. Editors aren't hired but just start editing. They don't even have to create an account. Talk:Bill Bradley (cricketer) shows it's rated Start-class, like around two million other articles. Billy Beldham is rated Good article. Less than 1% of our articles have that rating or the better Featured article. It's not realistic to bring millions of articles to that standard. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:32, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi there, and welcome to the Teahouse! Constructive criticism should always be welcome. For suggestions on a particular article such as Bill Bradley (cricketer), I suggest posting them on the article's talk page: Talk:Bill Bradley (cricketer). Feedback for the cricket project in general can be given at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket. Thanks for the edits you've made over the past few days to improve articles. I hope you'll continue your contributions. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 00:46, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
See WP:CIR for Wikipedia policy on editors who are editing in good faith, but clearly not competent. Editors are also blocked, in some instances indefinitly, for vandalism, disruption, threats, incivility, etc. There is no "Wikipedia as a whole" that monitors itself. Each article stands alone, and can be improved or deleted on a case-by-case basis. David notMD (talk) 11:01, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
@Schminnte looks good to me! In general red links CAN be included too, if they form a coherent/complete set and have likelihood of being developed. Your current usage is appropriate. See WP:EXISTING ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 14:37, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
If I can't find information on whether or not a logo is free or non-free, is it okay to upload it under the assumption that it's non-free, or should I just not upload it?
Yesterday I uploaded two complex-looking logos for nonprofit organizations (here, and here). I assumed they were non-free as I couldn't find exact licensing information about the logo; all I could find was a general copyright mark at the bottom of their websites. Is it okay to do this going forward or should I remove them? Kaasterly (talk) 18:56, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
@Kaasterly: You can assume that any logo that is complex (more than a few simple shapes and text) is non-free. You uploaded them properly, at low resolution, and the fair-use rationale permits each of them to be used on a single article. I don't see a problem. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:11, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
@Kaasterly: going back to first principles, copyright arises automatically the moment something is created, without anything needing to be done to 'claim' the right. From this it follows that everything is in copyright, unless it has been expressly released from it, or it is old enough for the copyright to have expired. Hence, if you're not sure that something is free, it's best to assume it's not. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:11, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Thank you! I would agree now; someone tagged it as such shortly after I made this post, I might upload a high-resolution image later if I can find one. I appreciate the affirmation. Kaasterly (talk) 09:29, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Well, This page is a mess.. The people edit the views from different people and nearly engage in edit wars because of this page. They remove any content going against the pronouncing of Yahushua as yeshua even though those two are different i dont know what to do anymore. Could anyone help? Yahshua2603:8080:200:5519:45F3:BBCF:9927:93BA (talk) 15:09, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Hello IP user. You are engaged in a WP:content dispute about religion, so not surprising there are different views/sources out there. What you have not done, is provide scholarly/academic sources. You linked to two different religious blog posts. We are an encyclopedia, and can neutrally explain discrepancies in pronunciation, but we are not here to advocate a particular religious belief. Please seek consensus on Talk:Yahshua per WP:BRD. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 15:36, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Since the default theme of Wikipedia is very bright, what would I do if I used a light logo? Would I change it, give it a black background, or just not include it? LeGoldenBoots (talk) 14:24, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
I don't think Draft:Doors (video game) will be accepted in its current state. The references don't establish notability (particularly Twitter and the Doors wiki. User generated content is usually not a reliable source).
Hi everyone! I'm a student wikipedia editor. The article that I'm working on for my class is He Jiankui Affair. I added a section called "medical ethics" to discuss how Dr. He violates those ethical elements. I would love to have some more experienced Wikipedia's to help me review my section and provide some insightful suggestions. Thank you so much! Zhifanfu (talk) 14:54, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Zhifanfu In my opinion, the last paragraph can be deleted. Having it presents the stated opinion as a medical consensus, whereas the citation makes clear this is the opinion of the authors. David notMD (talk) 15:44, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
@David notMDThanks for the suggestion! I will re-read the last paragraph that delete the unnecessary information to make the whole structure more organized. Zhifanfu (talk) 17:19, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
@Zhifanfu: Welcome to the Teahouse! Some of the sentences in the section are "According to ____ ..." or "The researchers criticized...", which state facts. I suggest you continue this tone to other sentences in the section, instead of writing in Wikipedia's voice (e.g. "He's intervention in the twins' genes cannot be justified"). Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 15:44, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi @GoingBatty Thank you so much on the feedback! I was struggling about the style of the tone I should use in this paragraph and your suggestion is really helpful! Zhifanfu (talk) 17:17, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Reference tool
Is there a reference tool that I can down load that will take a bare url and turn it into an acceptable wiki reference?Johnsagent (talk) 16:46, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
@Johnsagent: Welcome to the Teahouse! There are multiple online tools you can use, such as reFill, Reflinks, and Citation expander. However, no tool is perfect, and you must double check whatever the tool suggests and make the appropriate fixes before saving the reference to Wikipedia. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 18:36, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Italicizing an article's title after it's been published
Can someone tell me how to change an existing article's title so that it's shown in italics? I've looked through the MoS but can't seem to find an answer that works (or that I can clearly understand). The article in question is Bibby Stockholm, an accommodation vessel. Many thanks! Mmberney (talk) 18:42, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Rejected article on the Brownian Snake (mathematics)
Hi everyone,
I'm verry sorry to bother you with this, it just so happens that my article for a sophisticated mathematical object was turned down and I'm not sure how to make it acceptable. The draft is here [[18]]
The draft was turned down because "not adequately supported by reliable sources", but the two references I based it upon are academic books of top quality, one of which is partly accessible on Google Books.
I'm a PhD student working on something similar and I believe this article would be an important addition to make to Wikipedia, in particular because it would help people who just found out about this object to discover what it really is intuitively (I even made animations).
Bobbywatsonicus, Draft:Brownian snake has two references for the statement "It has been extensively studied", one them repeated later; but none in the longer sections of the article. Its attempt to explain what a Brownian snake is starts "Let be the space of càdlàg paths from to ". That's pretty technical, but maybe I can manage − I clicked on the càdlàg link, and found an article about càdlàg functions. Ok, I now know what a càdlàg function is. I've still no idea what a càdlàg path is, let alone a Brownian snake. Maproom (talk) 10:40, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Hello, Bobbywatsonicus, and welcome to the Teahouse. You'll need to ask Compusolus about why they declined your draft (not "rejected", which would be saying that they didn't believe it was possible to make the draft acceptable): I have pinged them, so perhaps they will respond here.
My guess is that it was because almost the whole article is unreferenced - you've cited two papers in the very first sentence, and that's it. You have not sourced the detailed mathematics: is it all in one of your sources? If even part of it is your own development, then it is original research, and does not belong anywhere in Wikipedia.
The other thing I notice is that your draft does not say anything about the development of the snake: who, where, when, how, and what it drew on: in an encyclopaedia article about it those are at least as important as the content, and should be included and sourced. Furthermore, if Li or Le Gall were involved in the development, then the references are not indepedent, and cannot establish that the construct meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability, which are about reliable sources independent of the subject.
I suspect that you have done what many new editors do, and written the article BACKWARD. First find the independent sources, and then summarise what they say: that's all ColinFine (talk) 10:48, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
"Brownian snake" has about 560 hits on Google Scholar. ColinFine, while I agree that an article about a mathematical concept is suspect if every reference is from a single research group, it would not be reasonable to consider all math researchers publishing on the topic as "connected to the subject" for the purposes of notability, and/or demand a scholarly article about the story of the concept. By that definition, stuff like nuclear magnetic resonance is not notable (super well-known, tons of application, but hardly known to a general audience, hence all sources are textbooks / research articles).
Bobbywatsonicus, please try explaining the concept in English with as little mathematical notation as possible, at least in the introductory paragraph (the "lede"). The usual advice is to "write one level down". I cannot make heads or tails of it (well maybe a little bit but the joke was too good to pass), even though I aced my master’s class of statistical physics. I am pretty sure it could be brought down to a level where I can kinda sorta understand the general gist even if not follow all the calculations, and graduate math students can understand it fully with a bit of concentration. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact)20:15, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
There's a guy who I stumbled across the other day when adding a couple of music credits from a film for him on IMDB.
He was credited as a performer by his stage name.
He was credited as a songwriter by his real name.
However, Wikipedia, his own verified website (he's dead, so it's obviously not him running it), and most news articles on the internet claim his middle name is different.
I believe those news articles are incorrect, as I'm fairly sure that the name they claim is his middle name, is actually just a nickname, just like his stage name. There's also 2 different spellings of this apparent middle name, even though it's obvious which spelling is correct, as it was in tribute to another famous person.
I will be adding the birth name which I believe to be correct soon, but should I move the current "birth name" to the nicknames section, or leave it as another alternative "birth name," seeing as there's news sources which claim it's a fact? Danstarr69 (talk) 19:02, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Danstarr69, if most news sources agree about his birth name, then Wikipedia should reflect that. What you personally "believe" or are "fairly sure" of is your original research which is not permitted on Wikipedia. I suggest that you explain your concerns on the article talk page. Cullen328 (talk) 19:17, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Cullen328 my beliefs are also backed up by sources.
Danstarr69, nobody can possibly give you a definitive answer until you identify the article in question and describe your thinking on the article talk page. Will you do so? Cullen328 (talk) 21:04, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Do I add a posthumous portrait to an infobox?
Hi! Dialuanny0 here! I’m working on this Wikipedia article about a royal member from the 15th century (1400s) and I can’t find much images of them besides this posthumous portrait from the 19th century. Should I put that image into the infobox? The image is used on Wikidata. Here is the link to the image on Wikimedia Commons: https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:La_reina_Blanca_II_de_Navarra_(Museo_del_Prado).jpg
Thank you for reading! Have a great day/night/afternoon!
Hi, I could do with more eyes on this in case I've taken the wrong action. I've reverted two edits to Cherie Bennett because they added unsourced information announcing her death. On the one hand, I don't want to add to the stress of a family member who is trying to update the article; on the other, I'm aware that we don't have proof without a published source (I've looked and can't find one). If anyone wants to revert my reversion, or can find a reference to add, please do so. Thanks. Tacyarg (talk) 00:17, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
It doesn't look to me like it's even the same woman. The addition was for a woman apparently named Cherie, Sharon (Sherry) Berman? Valereee (talk) 13:21, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, both. The edit summary gave the person's occupation which fitted with the article; the DoB was out but that was explained in the edit summary, and the DoB is unsourced in the article in any case. I'll try to remember to look for an obit in a reliable source in a couple of weeks. Tacyarg (talk) 01:54, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
How do I go about reporting vandals?
I've come across a guy whose entire edit history over the past two years consists of petty vandalism and breaking pages, so I'm wondering how I, a regular user, go about reporting this/getting something done. Vulpicula (talk) 19:45, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Hiya! I saw that, but was hesitant to report there as I am unsure if the guy had received any prior warnings. If it's just an IP and a dozen edits over the course of two years, is that something that is enough for a report there? Vulpicula (talk) 19:51, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
An IP affiliated with a school could mean that over years more than one student used Wikipedia access to vandalize articles. David notMD (talk) 03:21, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Trying to add a genuine actual Romanian Recipe for Sarmale on the Cabbage Roll page
Hello, Ionescu Razvan. Wikipedia is not an instruction manual or cookbook. Articles about culinary dishes should not include precise recipes, at least in part because there is no such thing as an actual, authentic recipe for anything. There are always disagreements among chefs. I am the main author of Salade niçoise, which is officially rated as a good article. Please note that the article does not spell out the best recipe, but describes the wide range of approaches by notable chefs when preparing this iconic dish. Everything you add must be referenced to a reliable source. Please note that there are 47 references in the article I mentioned, Salade niçoise. Please also be aware that the vast majority of YouTube videos are not reliable sources and are unsuitable for use on Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 07:25, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to answer my query, but I can't stop myself from noticing that you are contradicting yourself in your statement. You are using the term " iconic dish " which you can put next to " best ". Also, you said culinary dishes should not include precise recipes. Then how is a recipe, a recipe? If you talk about a recipe, then you better make it a recipe because we know what happens if we don't. Yes, of course, we can talk about variations, additions, etc... but there is ALWAYS a base to build upon. And if the majority of people like that content, we can safely say it's authentic, loved, vouched for, recommended, and in some cases traditional. The bottom line, I am not submitting your answer at all. I am a man of data and facts and I will always stick to the data. 95% will say yes, and 5% no. That applies to blogs, youtube, stories, TikTok, you name it. Yes, I do have the source of the recipe, it's my wife. Which has plenty of culinary expertise. And 100% of people said yes to her recipe for more than 15 years now. People are always asking for her recipes which is why I decided to make them public. And Wikipedia is a database that is in the grey area. You can't talk about Wiki as if it's the place to go when you need to know something with 100% certainty. The same goes for youtube. Or blogs. Or etc... Ionescu Razvan (talk) 08:42, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
My wife is a reliable source. She just created a blog and a youtube channel. Wikipedia is hardly a reliable source because most people that write here have no clue what they are talking about and I mean no offense. That is why I said that Wiki is in the grey area. And this is why people need experts like my wife actually bother typing here.
My wife fully submits answers via me, if needed and that is why she has those 2 postings "channels" created. To be used as guidance. Wikipedia is just a generic form of everything when it comes to defining things.
Also, you didn't answer my other statements where I've shown how you contradicted yourself. This is why I can't take you seriously.
The bottom line your comments are not related to my question, it's more about your opinion. I honestly don't care. No offense again. I care to find a way to post here valuable content that people can actually learn from.
Also, Romania for example, is not a small country. There will always be some additions to all sorts of recipes, but then again, most Romanian culinary experts will agree on the base of a recipe. Recipe. Yep, with specific instructions.
Oh and, Wikipedia IS a database, a blog, IS social networking source, a guidebook, a battleground, etc... and so many other things. That link is there because it just needs to exist. If you don't understand what I've just typed then you don't understand how this whole invention called the internet works and how actual data is being thrown in it and evaluated.
I don't need any advice anymore. I am good now. Stop replying. Thanks for the effort. When I'm free I'll take a look at these platform rules. Ionescu Razvan (talk) 10:01, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
@Ionescu Razvan: You're taking this too personally. You (and your wife) are more than welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, but you must follow the guidelines. As for reliable sources, there's a full explanation at WP:RELIABLE. As for what Wikipedia is and isn't, see WP:NOT, because your idea of what Wikipedia actually is seems to be incorrect. Happy editing, and again, don't take any of this personally. 〜 Festucalex • talk10:49, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
I'm sorry, you are right, I've encountered some real life issues this morning and I kind of had my tone set for the previous event that had nothing to do with our thing here on wiki. Yup thank you, for the time and for you trying to aid.
Our intention is just to make share knowledge on the culinary area for the sole purpose to learn people how to cook properly. Because every tourist that come to Romania ( almost ) are shocked by the taste. Thank you a million and sorry for my tone, again. Ionescu Razvan (talk) 11:08, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Ionescu Razvan:Yes, I do have the source of the recipe, it's my wife. "Wife said so" is not a verifiable source. It will be impossible for readers to check that your wife does approve of what you wrote on Wikipedia, or what the article will say after others have modified it. It would not be reasonable to expect your wife to answer English-speaking questions by strangers about a Wikipedia paragraph twenty years into the future, hence we insist on written sources.
In addition, one might wonder if your wife is a reliable source. Unless she is a historian, the only thing she’s a reliable source for "in this household, we do it this way" - but obviously, we want something more general on Wikipedia (in the lines of "West Romanians use ingredient X, but East Romanians use Y instead". TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact)09:05, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
hello there, I am trying to create an article about a Maltese politican, and obviously, I gathered information from open source, such as his website. however, unfortunately, I am being continously told that I am copying word for word, and even after that I paraphrased the sentence, I have been told that I cannot upload the article
cn you kindly help pls? Mammu1983 (talk) 09:58, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I wrote an article about a Turkish actor about 3 months ago. I took the information from the Turkish Wikipedia article and translated it. But for a very long time no one cared. Can you please check this?
Coshua23 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You have submitted it for a review and it is pending. As the box at the top of the draft states, "This may take 4 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 3,832 pending submissions waiting for review." I realize it can be frustrating, but there is no way to speed up the process. Please continue to be patient. 331dot (talk) 09:40, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
@Coshua23 Did you really mean to write "He is the wife of..."? One of the reasons the review of your draft will be taking some time is that all the citations are in Turkish, which few reviewers will be able to verify. Can you find any English-language sources to add to the draft? Mike Turnbull (talk) 09:48, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Merhaba @Coshua23: it's great that you're translating articles from the Turkish Wikipedia. Just be aware that the English-language Wikipedia has higher standard of notability than most others (that I've come across, at least), therefore my advice would be to first make sure that the sources cited in the tr.wiki article are sufficient for notability on en.wiki, and if not, see if you can find additional sources that would get it over the line. Otherwise you may find you're wasting your time translating articles that won't be accepted for publication here. One case in point: the 'kimdir?' type articles, which are common in Turkey, don't usually provide the sort of significant coverage required for WP:GNG notability. (This is a general comment, not specifically with regards to the İlbey draft, although I do note that you're citing a couple of such sources in it, too.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:06, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Darrin Gray Rejected Article
Hello, In order for this to be approved, what must I do to make it notable? As of now, I do not have any more sources to link to. The sources I have are from a couple of the sources are from the Indianapolis Star Newspaper and the Canton Ohio Respository newspaper and many more. Is this considered notable? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Darrin_Gray. Thank you. Renee530 (talk) 10:27, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
@Renee530 The draft was not "rejected" (which means "Stop, this will never be acceptable for Wikipedia") but "declined", which means the reviewer thought that further work might make it acceptable. However, you have a long way to go. For biographies of living people, all statements need to be backed up by inline citations, yet all of the "Early life", "Influences" and "Personal life" sections have no sourcing. In some cases you have external links in the body text, which is not how citations should appear. You need to remove WP:PEACOCK wording such as "Gray has a unique window into the NFL" unless this is a direct quote, with a source. Please read this essay. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:39, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Hello, FatalSubjectivities. The en and sr articles were linked to Wikidata d:Q12751593 and the fr article to a different Wikidata item d:Q3589085. Since they seem to be on the same subject, I have simply merged the two Wikidata items, using the Wikidata Merge gadget. DoneColinFine (talk) 14:59, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
I don't exist?
I clicked on my own username and it said this user doesn't exist? Even though I'm logged in? I'm trying to take part in editing pages that two of my friends have created, but it's giving me the same message saying neither of them exist either. Has anyone encountered this before? My friends usernames are Rosesav and JustinJacksonGeorge
Please help!! Unionstuart (talk) 15:52, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
The policies on this are a unclear, so I thought I would ask. I have been writing some articles related to fashion and fashion photography, and the fair use rationale is not anywhere I can find. I will pull from the exemption clause I saw for albums. The non-free content fair-use rationale.
"In general, non-free content uploaded under the Exemption Doctrine should be used only when the specific image itself is significant to the article, not merely what it depicts. The image must be not replaceable by a free content alternative that depicts the same thing.
In other words, a screenshot from a movie is acceptable to use when talking about the movie itself — it is not acceptable to use it to talk about the actress who happens to be in the picture. (It is possible for a free content picture of the actress to be taken.)"
1. I was editing the Michael Fish (fashion designer) article and trying to add a gallery of images. One of his most famous creations is a dress that David Bowie wore on the cover of The Man Who Sold the World. This dress is externally notable - The Smithsonian is seeking it as it disappeared from David Bowie's archives. It's mentioned in a discussion of Michael Fish in the New York Times. You will see it mentioned in basically every article about Michael Fish. There are no fair use photos of the dress that exist. Yet, as I predicted, a bot removed the photo after I posted it. Why is this different than a screenshot of a movie or an article about an album?
2. Photographer Tim Walker shot the cover for Harry Styles' 2019 album, Fine Line. There's articles about his technique and someone included analysis of the photo in their dissertation on Tim Walker's work - arguably the photograph is independently notable. There are no photographs of Tim Walker's that are in the appropriate creative commons licensing (except for one person who has stolen them and incorrectly uploaded them). Again, a bot removed the photo. Why is this not fair use based on the Exemption Doctrine for album covers? If it is not, is it fair use based on the logic for the Tracy Emin photograph for her work, My Bed? Or would that only apply to an article about the album cover itself?
3. Many articles for individual items of clothing (such as red carpet outfits) do not have photographs that are fair use, and probably never will. Nevertheless, they are notable - some are even in museums. What is the protocol for this? Obviously, many people will have photographed (and videoed) the outfit, and usually none of them are creative commons licensed. However, it would help to have an image for an article. I couldn't find anywhere that discussed how to handle this situation.Computer-ergonomics (talk) 18:12, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Hello, Computer-ergonomics, and welcome to the Teahouse.
It seems to me that NFCC item 8: Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding would justify an image of the dress in an article about the dress, but not in an article about its creater.
Note that the non-free content criteria have absolutely nothing to do with notability. If a costume is notable, then there may be an article on that costume, and in that case a non-free image of the costume is likely to be justified. But the costume's notability has no bearing at all on whether an image of the costume may be used in an article on a different subject. ColinFine (talk) 18:42, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Hello again. I have no idea how to advise you on choosing which image to use. I suggest you either make your own selection, and upload it, or (given the hassle when a non-free image is removed from an article) you get consensus on the choice first, on the article's talk page. You can't insert images that aren't in Wikipedia or Commons, but (on a talk page) you can link to them, as long as they are not themselves copyright violations, or on blacklisted websites. ColinFine (talk) 19:58, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
@Computer-ergonomics, if you include in the article detailed discussion of the dress, it may qualify for fair use. And if the dress itself is that notable, it may qualify for an article, which would almost certainly qualify the image for fair use. Valereee (talk) 19:09, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Hello. Can a Fandom site be a source IF it is officially approved by a company/studio/etc. and it is edited by only one person (there may be other registered users but they can only comment on pages and not edit them)? For example, if Lostpedia gets approved by ABC and only guy officially appointed by ABC controls it. -- Batman tas (talk) 23:14, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Batman tas Hello and welcome. I wasn't aware that any Fandom wiki operated like that, since it defeats the purpose of being a wiki. In any event, I think the short answer is "no", as a representative of ABC(to continue your example) on an officially sanctioned site would not be an independent source about the program. I suppose it would depend on what it is you want to cite, it might qualify as a primary source if I understand this right. 331dot (talk) 23:18, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi, does anyone know how to create kits? It's for the Egyptian Premier league teams. I have a source providing them all but I have no idea how to upload them here. Sakiv (talk) 21:08, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Ok, but what you are proposing is very generic, the kits should at least include the sportswear brands. [20] See here.--Sakiv (talk) 22:19, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
If I am learning about a Football club, what exact logos are on their uniforms feels like a case of Wikipedia:Too much detail, unless you have/want to extensively document in the article text about the sponsors who are notable for some reason. Otherwise, your kit database seems like the right place for collecting higher resolution photos of every kit. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 07:50, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Title
Hi, dear people. If you translated an article from the German wikipedia, which is on an Art collection - but is only named "Collection of XY(=Name of the Collector)" - would you as an English title use "Art collection of XY" instead? I saw that there is a category on the English wikipedia "Art collection" and i find this title more appropriate than just "Collection of XY". Naomi Hennig (talk) 13:07, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
It really depends, but when trying to title something, we try to remain consistent between titles on similar subjects (WP:CONSISTENT). Since there are quite a few articles styled like "Art collection of XY", I think it would be best to title the translated article likewise The Night Watch(talk)13:34, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
For example, there's one in userspace as "Art Collection Peter C. Ruppert" presumably pending the answer to this question. That one should definitely be "The Peter C. Ruppert Collection", not "Art collection of Peter C. Ruppert". -- asilvering (talk) 19:11, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
It's not as complicated as it seems. There is actually a rule. If the collection is a collection that has acquired its own notability, by being written about by critics, newspapers etc., then we use the name that the critics and newspapers give it, which will generally be the name that the institution now housing it has decided to use. Most museums select a name like "The Smith collection" to indicate that Dr Smith bequeathed or donated to them. If the collection is primarily notable because of who amassed it, and is written about in those terms (e.g. a dictator's personal collection pillaged or bought with his ill-earned gains) then it is "The art collection of Smith", emphasising that this is a spin-out article from the article on Smith himself, dealing with one aspect of his life and reign. Elemimele (talk) 07:30, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi, dear people, unfortunately wikipedia didn't inform me on your answers, although i have bookmarked the site with notifications. So, i'm sorry that i do react so late. Thank you all for your info, it helps a lot. Kind regards, --Naomi Hennig (talk) 10:17, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
How do I get a category name changed on Wikimedia Commons
@Immanuelle Uou state it as fact that the word has negative connotations, but I disagree. To me, the word is mostly religious. I added my opinion to the (short) discussion. David10244 (talk) 11:30, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Dispute, from the sideline
The article sapeh seems to be in constant flux, between people with a racial/ethnic bias towards one another. It's fairly ugly and the refs I have on hand will not work to sort out whether one side is right. I don't know what to do at this point. Hoping an administrator can step in. We need an expert for this one. Jacqke (talk) 04:59, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
That sort of nationalist back and forth is unfortunately quite common in that region, and it's not something the community has been able to tackle. First time I've seen "Malaya-occupied state of Sarawak" in the wild though. CMD (talk) 05:13, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hi Jacqke. I'm not sure what you mean by expert, but generally disagreements over article content are expected to be resolved in accordance with Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Edit warring is never considered acceptable no matter how right one believes they are, and almost always ends up with one or more accounts being blocked. I'm not very familiar with the subject matter, but in cases like this one option is to revert back to the last stable version of the article (i.e. the version prior to when the edit warring began) and then seek a consenus via talk page discussion. If this is done and one of more users continue edit warring, then seeking administrator assistance via WP:AN3 or WP:RPP is often the next step. Perhaps this is a case where both sides might be somewhat right and only through discussion can they find a solution which might not give each side everything it wants but will turn out the be the best for Wikipedia. If you think you've got a way to bring the two sides together, try proposing it on the article's talk page. You can then notify relevant WikiProjects and each of the individual users involved in the dispute about the discussion. Maybe this will get things going and lead to the end of the disruption. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:18, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
I appreciate. I'll see if I can begin a conversation. By expert, I meant an ethnomusicologist or anthropologist, someone who is likely to not get involved (wishful thinking). Thank you, Jacqke (talk) 14:53, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
How to Get to a WikiProject Page
Hello. If anyone is available, I have a question. How exactly do you get to a WikiProject page? I'm trying to get to the military history WikiProject page and just realized that I don't know how to get there without someone else linking it. Lol. Faith1514:24, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi @Faithful15. Here's another handy tip: in the search bar at the top of the page, type in "WP:Wikiproject military", and check out the list of results. You can search many different namespaces this way (Wikipedia, Template, Talk, etc.). 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:29, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
There are also shortcuts to it WP:MILHIST will get you there with less typing, change WP to WT if you want to go directly to the talk page. - X201 (talk) 14:56, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
BTW IP user, the guy that recommended the FAQ page? I actually know him. Not irl but still. He helped me a bit last year. Faith1515:09, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Dumb question alert: alphabetising fictional characters whose names could be interpreted as titles
I just want to check something before I potentially do anything dumb... if a fictional character has an alias that 'sounds' like a name, you alphabetise by the first letter, yes? So Mr. Incredible from The Incredibles goes under "M" for "Mister" rather than "I" for "Incredible" because it's not like it's a family name (well it kinda is but it was the closest thing I could find to a non-alliterative unconfusing example!), right? So a character whose fictional supervillain identity is "Doctor Synne" would go under D for doctor when being referred to under that fictional identity? BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 14:55, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Can someone please advise? The images i posted to my wiki page I was given by The picture desk at the scottish sun newspaper and I expressed it was for my wikipedia page and was told i can use.
This is what i recieved on e-mail from the picture dest at the Scottish sun newspaper
Hi Paul, I can confirm that all the pictures that were sent to you are copyright of The Scottish Sun and can be used by yourself on Wiki page and that you can use.
Hi @WBOCHAMPx2, welcome to the Teahouse. In order to release images for use on Wikipedia, the copyright holder must email Wikipedia. See WP:Donating copyrighted materials for details. You will need to contact the newspaper again and ask them to send a consent form; an example form and the email address to use is here. Be sure to tell them that any pictures they release will become available for anyone to use for any purpose, including commercial ones. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:32, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
im still somewhat new to wikipedia and one detail has confused me : do you need new page patrol rights to properly use page curation? if not can someone help me out with activating it in my account? im not really a knowledgeble person when it comes to code and tech so if anyone can lend me a helping hand i would appreciate it. cheers. Gurther (talk) 10:04, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse @Gurther! Yes, New page patroller rights are required to use the page curation tool. You do currently meet all of the requirements, so good luck as I have seen you have already applied! - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆(𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 10:15, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I'm in the AfC queue for a technical article about "confidential computing". It's a notable topic in computer security today. At the same time, I have a disclosed conflict of interest since my employer is active in the space.
An editor visited the draft, saw my disclosed COI, and commented that it is virtually impossible for me to create an article with a neutral point of view (though they hadn't had time to read it). I assumed the article would be viewed skeptically, so I took a lot of care to write neutrally including the following steps:
The article is written using industry-standard definitions, mainstream publications, and well-known, reputable sources including 76 citations. I only included information I could source via quality references, not from my own point-of-view.
I reviewed and received feedback from dozens of computer security experts, including companies and vendors with differing or competing interests.
The article includes criticism and vulnerabilities of confidential computing.
I made a very deliberate effort to describe the pros & cons of confidential computing compared to other privacy-related technologies.
I'd really appreciate if someone checked the article for any neutrality issues. I believe the draft is solid and would be helpful to the Wikipedia community.
If a company has an annual award and lists past winners, can tbe company site describing tbe award s as d listing the winners be used as a reference indicating that the award exists? FSeg500 (talk) 14:35, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I am a first time wiki editor. I am trying to get a page posted for the company I work for. I have declared this. About a year ago someone else at the company tried to get our page established but it was denied because it was not "notable." I have added sources since then but still do not know what makes a topic notable as the criteria is very subjective. I would appreciate it someone could look at my draft and let me know what needs to change in order to ensure it is considered notable. Klange2000 (talk) 17:30, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Klange2000, your references look pretty solid. The only fault I can find is that almost all of them are from the Phoenix area, with the exception of the Eat This, Not That source, which is a listicle with just three sentences of coverage. If you can find significant coverage outside of Arizona, that would strengthen the case for notability. Cullen328 (talk) 17:49, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi @Zwphyr, welcome to the Teahouse. An "edit conflict" means that two people were trying to save changes to the article at the same time. If an article is being edited rapidly (for instance, if the article is about a current event which is attracting much attention), edit conflicts can happen frequently. You just need to check what has been changed and try again. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:15, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
The topic is likely notable, but the article is a mess, likely having been polluted by undisclosed paid editors. There are single-purpose editors participating in the AFD also. I say blow it up and start over. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:45, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
How do you give the page number of a page that's between two pages?
I'm translating an article from German, where the subject's dates of baptism and death are taken from a table that is bound between two pages in a book. The German article doesn't use a templated format for its citation, but has helpfully given the page numbers of the pages preceding and following the (presumably un-numbered) table. I think this happens quite commonly in older books, where plates etc. would be printed separately on glossy paper and inserted at suitable points without page numbers. But I have no idea how to do this properly in a cite book reference template! Is there a correct way? At the moment, I've just given pp 16-17 as it's bound between the two. Not sure if this is very "professional" or correct? Elemimele (talk) 21:13, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
  Hello there, I have my account created recently. I'm new to Wikipedia, even though I have the ability to edit articles on this site. This means I'm a new editor, plus I really need to make more edits in order to become a registered editor in the next few days. Despite I have created my user-page, does that really mean I have the ability to create articles on Wikipedia? Also, can you guide me through a Wikipedia tutorial? I did try editing on sandbox though.
Hi @ChronicleBooks885, welcome to the Teahouse. Here are links to some hopefully helpful tutorials: Help:Introduction and The Wikipedia Adventure. By signing up for an account, you have become a registered editor. You have the ability to create draft articles and submit them to Articles for Creation - this is a much better avenue for new editors than trying to create and move a new article yourself (for which you'll need to be autoconfirmed). Creating articles is harder than it looks. If spend a few weeks or months reading and editing existing articles, you'll become much more familiar with how Wikipedia works, and will be better equipped to start writing an article yourself. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:12, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 If I became an auto confirmed user, does that definitely mean that I have the ability to create articles directly on Wikipedia, without creating it as a draft as a submission? May I add a lot of content with sources if I found many of them? Will admins notice me I created an article through recent changes? -- ChronicleBooks885 (talk) 18:25, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
@ChronicleBooks885, you will have the ability to create articles, but your creations will definitely be noticed (by admins and non-admins). If they are poor, they will be moved to draftspace; if they are very poor, they may simply be deleted. Why do you not want to use Articles for Creation?
You're always free to add reliably sourced content, but there are often other considerations beyond sourcing. If you find that your additions are being challenged, you should talk to the other editor(s) involved in order to reach consensus on the content. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:33, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
However, explain why would my creations will definitely be noticed (by admins and non-admins), although I add numerous content in these articles if I created it? Does this count drafts and user-pages? -- ChronicleBooks885 (talk) 18:38, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
@ChronicleBooks885, fewer people monitor draftspace and userspace, but there are still eyes (and edit filters) on edits made in those areas. Many more people watch almost everything that happens in mainspace (where articles live). When you edit Wikipedia, you put yourself under a microscope to some extent, and by design. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:42, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
All new articles in the encyclopedia are reviewed by New pages patrol, and if you go through AfC (which is preferred) they are also reviewed by Draft reviewers. This ensures that all content is seen by more than one set of eyes. Why do you want to avoid the AfC process? casualdejekyll18:52, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi @ChronicleBooks885. When a new article is created, it goes into a process called New Pages Patrol, in which every single new article is listed for a period of 3 months until one of our patrollers marks it as 'patrolled'. Until either that happens (or 3 months has passed) we do not allow search engines to index that article. Once patrolled, it is released for indexing by outside parties. If you start creating a new article 'from scratch' directly in mainspace, we expect it to meet minimum encyclopaedic standards and be of encyclopaedic quality, even if short. If it's not good enough, it will either be speedily deleted, or turned into a draft for you to work on outside of the 'mainspace' of Wikipedia. For that reason, it's best to start a draft and then to submit it to Articles for Creation to be reviewed and for you to receive critical feedback if things still need doing. You might like to read this article about creating your first article.
You edits - and everyone else's - will also appear in a list called Special:RecentChanges where anyone can look for live updates to articles and assess whether or not they were validly made. All these checks and balances help to keep our 6 million+ articles in good state. Hope this helps, and good luck as you start out your editing journey with us. Nick Moyes (talk) 18:57, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
@ChronicleBooks885, as an encyclopedia we don't have articles about things just because they exist. They need to be already well-known as shown by having been written about in depth in reliably published sources which serve as references in the article. If an article does not show this, or isn't finished enough to show this, it will be removed. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:26, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
@StarryGrandma How do you know that if editors are monitoring pages in order for 6 million+ articles to be in a good state? I knew that 6 million articles are just high in quantity. But how do they make sure the quality of these articles from Wikipedia are prominent and well-made? And that is too many edits being made in each article right now. -- ChronicleBooks885 (talk) 21:31, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
@ChronicleBooks885, click [21] and see. This is monitored by automatic programs called "BOTS" as well as by people. Why are you concerned about this? Start your articles in your sandbox, and when they are finished and meet standards move them to article space. The tutorial I put on your talk page will help you do this. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:37, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Welp but anyway, that advice was finished, so I would definitely have good luck on my start out of my editing journey with other editors. At that time in the upcoming days, I will become much more familiar with how Wikipedia works and how to edit an article. So, that will change in the near future and thanks for the posts on Wikipedia Teahouse. I would enjoy browsing and reading Wikipedia articles at the same time. -- ChronicleBooks885 (talk) 22:00, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Hello. I have added new references to independent sources. These sources disclose information "Draft:1987 Wrestling World Cup", in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject), These sources is reliable, secondary, independent of the subject.
I accidentally started contributing to an article that uses citation templates, which means I'm spending about as much time writing citations as I spend on actually writing content. I don't understand how to use {citation}/{cite book} to cite to an article in an edited volume. I can't seem to find any example for that on the help pages that I checked (is there a good one). What I have come up with using the Template:Citation documentation is this:
{{Citation |last1=Wagner |first1=Walter |last2=Willms |first2=Günther |editor-last=Krüger-Nieland |editor-first=Gerda |year=1975 |title=Der 6. Strafsenat – Legende und Wirklichkeit |work=25 Jahre Bundesgerichtshof |publisher=Beck |publication-place=München |pages=265–272 |isbn=3-406-06175-3}} Wagner, Walter; Willms, Günther (1975), Krüger-Nieland, Gerda (ed.), "Der 6. Strafsenat – Legende und Wirklichkeit", 25 Jahre Bundesgerichtshof, München: Beck, pp. 265–272, ISBN3-406-06175-3
This arguably looks quite bad, so how do I do this right? I mean, for starters, I suppose the editor of the volume should be somewhere next to the title of the work... I'd really appreciate your help. — Pajz (talk) 22:43, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
@Pajz You could perhaps use this: Wagner, Walter; Willms, Günther (1975), "Der 6. Strafsenat – Legende und Wirklichkeit", in Krüger-Nieland, Gerda (ed.), 25 Jahre Bundesgerichtshof, München: Beck, pp. 265–272, ISBN3-406-06175-3. I have simply replaced your |title= and |work= with |chapter= and |title= respectively. Shells-shells (talk) 01:12, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
@Pajz welcome to Teahouse! I would not worry how it's displayed, it's correct/you get used to it. Rather I would focus on what information may be missing. I would additionally include translated-title (correspond with work) and translated-chapter-title (for the translation of the title). Additionally, do you have any better links to the book itself? I could not find any myself.
Are there surviving non-avian dinosaurs from the Paleocene? I have heard of trodons, hadrosaurs, surviving microraptors or even small oviraptors that lived long after K-T. BristiBoop78786778 (talk) 06:40, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Am I insane or are none of these women wearing belly chains
I'm looking at this article Belly chain and although a lot of the women are described as wearing belly chains, only the first one seems to be wearing one over a jewelly belt. Is my idea of a belly chain wrong? The first one was added by me because she's wearing what I imagine as belly chain as looking like Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian)06:15, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Hello, Immanuelle. This seems to be a vague term without a clear, generally accepted definition. Plus, some of the references are low quality, like the Times of India article. So, who is in strong position to say, "this is not a belly chain"? Nobody, I submit. Cullen328 (talk) 06:35, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Everyone is wearing a belly chain. In second photo, the child. In third photo, all four women, over their skirts rather than against bare skin. David notMD (talk) 09:50, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Talk page anchors(?)
Is there a way to prevent individual talk page threads from being auto-archived (without them having to be regularly edited)? Sort of like "anchoring" them to the top of the talk page. I've been trying to find a template for this purpose but have not been successful. Throast{{ping}} me! (talk | contribs) 11:51, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
After posting this question, you made this set of edits to another article. Perhaps you meant well; but if you did, the result was garbled. I have therefore reverted it. What to do? Before you submit an edit, preview it. Read it, slowly. Make sure that nothing is amiss. If it seems OK, read it aloud, slowly. If the edit needs fixing, fix it. If fixing the edit seems complicated, press "Cancel". -- Hoary (talk) 08:14, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
thank you. I am new to wiki and therefore I am not used to editing pages. I shall do some more research before I do any more edits. Are there any pages that you recommend? Your advice is helpful thank you. 2A00:23C5:7D86:9901:F4CB:FE3C:F212:54BE (talk) 08:33, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Effectively, you're asking whether it's constructive to add within the infobox of the article Ministry of Magic that Lord Voldemort was formerly an enemy of the Ministry of Magic. As I know nothing about the Harry Potter books or their films or other spin-offs, I cannot comment. Perhaps somebody else here will. -- Hoary (talk) 13:24, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
I wish there was some way to figure out what folks who make these posts are doing (or think they're doing), but they never reply.... 199.208.172.35 (talk) 13:50, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Photo caption
Hi, I didn't know myself how to get to the editing regime for this photo.
The photo link is
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gastropoda#/media/File:Gastropod_collage.jpg
--it's the title collage for the Gastropoda article (as I recall). I find 2 problems of detail in the caption:
(1) at the beginning, it says "an collage";
(2) within the caption, in the section naming the abalone, the word "abalone" is misspelled "abalore".
My email is still <redacted>, i'd welcome communications there, or else reminding me how to use the built-in communications pathways within wikipedia.
Sorry to be a dud, age is somewhat clouding my former skills...Jerry Brown Geodejerry (talk) 14:59, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi @Geodejerry. You can set your preferences to allow folks to email you, but it's best not to post your actual email address in a public forum like this. I've removed that, hope you don't mind. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:13, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Wiki Markup
Hello, Teahouse. I'm a new editor. Usually I stick to Visual Editor, but I want to learn Wiki Markup. Are there any tutorials on it? Thank you. Candylinsky (talk) 10:25, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
@Ranicher Welcome to the Teahouse! The carriage return symbol in your screenshot indicates that there is a line break in the wikicode between the words "the" and "Federal". When you are editing an article and see this symbol in the middle of a sentence, you can replace it with a space. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 18:46, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Is there someone I can hire to help me publish a page.
@Mountainbliss8 welcome to Wikipedia. Most paid editing is a scam, because they cannot guarantee you that an article will remain or not, or there are even more elaborate scams where THEY request to delete an article, unless you cough up money. In short, Wikipedia is worsened by WP:PAID EDITING. Hire a quid-quo-pro puff journalist if you want paid promo. They will write exactly what you want, whereas on Wikipedia we don't care to publish what any one individual wants. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 07:46, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Mountainbliss8, in my abundant experience, a large majority of paid Wikipedia editing services that you can find online are unethical liars and scammers who are just out to take as much of your money as you are prepared to let them take away from you. The small percentage of ethical paid Wikipedia editing services are quite expensive and work mostly for large corporate clients. Be very careful. Cullen328 (talk) 09:03, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
@Mountainbliss8 You don't need to hire anyone, just seek collaborators from more experienced editors who are members of Projects likely to be interested in the topic. Your Draft:Amigo Bob Cantisano has plenty of content but needs converting into a neutral account written in Wikipedia's standard format for a biography. You could seek interested volunteers at WP:DRINK, WP:FARM and/or WP:ENV. Good luck! Mike Turnbull (talk) 09:47, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Hello, Moumtainbliss8, and welcome to the Teahouse. I don't want to be rude, but if you are even considering paying money to get an article added to the encyclopaedia, it is almost certain that your purpose is promotion, which is forbidden on Wikipedia. You probably don't think of it as promotional, but the fact that you are willing to pay suggests that you have a strong wish to tell the world about this subject. But Wikipedia only summarises information which has already been published, so this has a chance of success only if the world has already been told about the subject, ie if sufficient independentreliably published sources discuss the subject in some detail. The Wikipedia jargon for this criterion is that the subject is notable.
If your subject is indeed notable in Wikipedia's sense, then there could be an article about it. The preference would be that the article would be written by somebody without a conflict of interest; but you or an editor paid by you would be allowed to create a draft and submit it for review. But if your subject does not meet the criteria for notability (i.e. has not already been written about sufficiently in independent reliable sources), then no article is possible, and you or anybody you paid would be wasting their time. ColinFine (talk) 19:37, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
First article on Banking CEO rejected, please advise
I recently wrote a draft article on the President and CEO of one of the largest and last African American owned banks in America. My article was first declined for not being written in a formal or encyclopedic enough language and being too much about the company and not the executive himself (which I understand why and accepted). I went back to edit it to adhere to the feedback I was given, but it was declined a second time for apparently reading like a resume. I want to follow Wikipedia's guidelines but am lost with next steps.
Could someone review my draft and give me tips on how to improve my article? TIA!
Hello CWADEC. I agree that it reads like a CV or profile.
To take just one example: In 2012, Pugh joined Carver Bancorp as Chief Revenue Officer, focusing on redesigning its business strategy, management structure and related processes, cited to BlackEnterpreneurProfile.com. Without a strong indication to the contrary, any such collection of "profiles" will have been written by the subject, or by their employers. It is therefore not indepedent, and should be used only in the limited ways listed in WP:ABOUTSELF. That might justify a short statement "in 2012 Pugh was appointed Chief Revenue Officer of Carver Bancorp" (though an independent source would be preferable) but certainly does not justify the rest of the sentence.
What I would suggest is to remove every citation that is not reliable (eg Linked in) or is not independent (anything written or published by Pugh or his associates, or based on an interview or press release) or does not have significant coverage of Pugh himself; and remove all text that is now uncited. Then see if you still have an article. If so, you may add a small number of non-independent sources where basic uncontroversial factual data can be added to round out the article (eg dates and places) - but not to add any substantial information. ColinFine (talk) 19:55, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
There is a good summary of reasons at WP:ACCOUNT. You get your own sandbox and no-one except a checkuser can know where you are from using your IP address, among other benefits. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:20, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
I "signed up" with a Wikipedia account so I can keep track of the referenced edits I make to articles that interest me. When I check an article's edit history and see my user name I know what I've contributed.
I signed up because that lets you participate in blitzes (it lets you show what you've done and receive barnstars accordingly). It also shows you what edits you've done so you can know how you've contributed. If you sign up, it will give you a page that shows you what's to be done on Wikipedia (you put what topics you're interested in and what you're willing to do - editing, adding references, etc. and then it shows you what articles you could work on). Spaceeditor123 (talk) 20:53, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Reliable references
Hey everyone, my draft got declined a few days ago as reliable sources were not strong enough. I added now a bunch of additional public references I could find and would be happy if someone could double-check them before I press the resubmit button. I'm not always sure btw when to use Cite news and when it is Cite web – hard to say as media outlets are often only online available these days. So would appreciate some feedback here as well.
Looks good to me; good luck. I'm not sure if the iOS app store and Google Play store references (17 and 18) will be counted (mught be considered original research), but other than that, the sources all look good and the article looks great. :) Spaceeditor123 (talk) 21:15, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
HOW CAN I ROLL OVER TO A NEW BLANK PAGE?
I am drafting an article about The Seven Stars (1602), an ancient London pub in Holborn. (Incidentally, I see there exists a "stub" for what is probably the same pub, but with a couple of very old photos and the few bits of information are entirely wrong, so I've started over.).
I'm trying to use the Wiki format, but my ignorance of the conventions may overwhelm me. The problem at this moment, after I've drafted six or seven pages in basically Word-type text format, is that the pages haven't rolled forward to a new blank one. I can't figure out how to overcome that, so I'm stuck. I hope I don't lose what I've been saving, and that someone can help me.
Hi @Rigellouto, welcome to the Teahouse. You have no other undeleted edits on this account, so it's difficult to know what the problem is. If you've dealt with the copyright problem which led to your last draft being deleted, please "save" whatever you're working on by clicking Publish. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 20:30, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Rigellouto, when an existing article has shortcomings, the proper course of action is to improve the existing article through the normal editing process. Writing an entirely new article is unfair to the editors who have already worked on the existing article. Cullen328 (talk) 20:44, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Rigellouto, your draft read like the advertisement that it originally was. And it was completely unreferenced. You're welcome to flesh out the article with what you can learn from disinterested, published works of architectural history, social history, and so forth. Yes, the current article is indeed a mere stub. It was created nine years ago by Edwardx, who's still very much active. If you're wondering about which sources would be usable or similar matters, you might ask on Talk:Seven Stars, Holborn. (You should also explain there how "the few bits of information are entirely wrong".) If there's no response there, try WP:RSN. -- Hoary (talk) 22:07, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Thank you, Rigellouto and Hoary. Please do go ahead and expand/correct the existing article. It is on my watchlist, so I will keep an eye on any changes. I will be up that way on 14 May for the next Wikipedia London meet-up in the nearby Penderel's Oak, so will endeavour to take some up-to-date photos. Edwardx (talk) 23:23, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Are you asking about a sudden change to Wikipedia's appearance? It is because the default skin has changed from the Vector legacy (2010) skin to the new Vector (2022) skin. If you would like to change back to the old one, you can, as a registered user, click on the 
in the top-right corner and choose 
Vector legacy (2010).
Courtesy link: Draft:Annette Gough.— NZFC(talk)(cont) 15:37, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Courtesy link: Draft:Kendrick Washington - 199.208.172.35 (talk) 21:18, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Moved from Wikipedia talk:Contact us
Done ColinFine (talk) 14:59, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Fixed typos at c:File:Gastropod collage.jpg on Wikimedia Commons. Thanks for letting us know! GoingBatty (talk) 15:10, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
