Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1216

Archive 1210

←

Archive 1214

Archive 1215

Archive 1216

Archive 1217

Archive 1218

→

Archive 1220

Please check my revised article!

Hello to all participants! I have corrected the article in accordance with the rules. Please, please check it out.

Draft:EGOV.PRESS Zzremin (talk) 16:00, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello,Zzremin. You have resubmitted the draft, and in time a volunteer reviewer will look at it. Please be patient. ColinFine (talk) 19:31, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

The backlog of drafts awaiting review is not a queue. Reviewers select what they want to review. Thus, it could be days, weeks, or even months for your revised draft to be reviewed. David notMD (talk) 23:42, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

many minor edits vs not a lot of big edits

is editing frequently, but changing only characters or words at a time, better, worse, or equivalent to editing sporadically, but adding entire sections to articles at a time? natelabs (talk) 16:28, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

@Natelabs, most of the time, it does not matter. If an article is on a controversial topic and/or has many watchers, you will have to find a balance. Small edits are easier to review and discuss. Large changes are almost always reverted wholesale because someone will disagree with some parts of them. But, if there are ten typos to fix, better do it in one edit instead of ten so people don't have to go through ten edits only to find out there was nothing worth reviewing even. If you are editing pages that are watched by many and also edited a lot, it's best to only edit them when you have something useful to add, and it's best to make your comment in as few edits as possible. If you make a comment at the administrator's noticeboard, and then make ten more edits trying to copyedit your own comment, you will really really annoy others and may even mess up other people's attempts to post. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:58, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Always helps if your Edit summary clearly explains what you did. Consider copying a section to your own Sandbox, editing there, then pasting back in. David notMD (talk) 23:44, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Simple English Wikipedia

I think I am a loyal supporter of Wikipedia, but I have recently become worried about you! I am concerned that the"simple english" version means less information, or selected information, or censored information,rather than just making the information easier to understand. For example, if I google Dustin Hoffman filmography wikipedia, I expect to be able to see a list of the films in which Dustin Hoffman starred, not a list of his key films, or most popular films, or excluding controversial films such as Straw Dogs. It's the principle of the thing. So that's why I am worried about you. Robinhowell (talk) 16:20, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

It's a completely different project, @Robinhowell. What happens there does not affect this Wikipedia. You may find incomplete information in any of the Wikipedias, because they are works in progress. English Wikipedia generally has more comprehensive coverage but there's no guarantee that will be true in every single case. Wikipedia does not censor information that belongs just because it's controversial. Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:39, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Right now, the English Wikipedia has 6,784,397 articles, while the Simple English Wikipedia has only 247,734, less than 4% as many, so of course its coverage is not as extensive. The English Wikipedia has a Dustin Hoffman filmography article, while the Simple English Wikipedia does not. If you feel like creating one, you are welcome to do so! CodeTalker (talk) 00:50, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Loss of my Work in Sandbox.....what happened?

Hello Teahouse! Still learning about the Wikipedia process. It looks like there is a bit of a learning curve for me! Somehow I lost my edit of a bio I was working on in my sandbox. I never hit any kind of delete button. Last time I saw it, I had put it up in my tabs and then it got X'ed out. Would that delete my work? I am thinking that I should do my rough draft in my word processor. Any ideas or help would be greatly appreciated! Many thanks for your thoughts...... Creative Lizzie (talk) 20:42, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

If you don't publish your changes to your sandbox, it unfortunately won't be saved. That's likely what happened here. You can see someone else who had this issue here. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 20:46, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

For sure, that is exactly what happened. Thank you for your thoughts on this. I so thank you for your input and now feel my rough draft needs to be developed in another location until it is molded then smoothed into something that makes sense. Then I will put into Wikipedia for publishing.:) Creative Lizzie (talk) 22:54, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi @Creative Lizzie! Sorry to hear of the difficulties. Your contribution history is here. I'm unfortunately not seeing anything in it that looks like saving a draft, so Commissar Doggo's hypothesis is likely what happened. The pages here (for the source editor) and here (for VisualEditor) provide instructions on saving your edits. Best, Sdkb ^talk 20:49, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi Commissar Doggo, Many thanks for your input and links! I saw "Publish" a while back but was asked to wait for publishing by another consultant. Besides that,

I had thoroughly moved the print around and added all kinds of thoughts plus additions. No one would have understood most of it. I think it would be nice to have an "In Process Save Writing/Rough Draft" button that maybe would last for a week or ?. I would not have wanted to publish what I had done yet. The bio I am working on requires lots of research and citations which takes a lot of time. So at the present, I believe I have to start anew in my word processor but I fortunately saved a lot of my sources. I will have to put the finished work into Wikipedia when done.This one needs thorough citations to support my writing. All the best and thanks again!! Creative Lizzie Creative Lizzie (talk) 22:28, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

@Creative Lizzie: - I will add my voice to the chorus saying it's a pity this happened. I think we have all been bitten by it at some stage. The lesson is to save your work regularly - don't spend hours of crafting something and risk losing it if it doesn't get saved for some reason.--Gronk Oz (talk) 22:31, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Even if you hit the "publish" button, if the page you are editing is in your sandbox, the only people who will see it are you and anyone checking the recent changes on Wikipedia. Of course you can work in a word processor as well to be safe, but writing piecemeal in your sandbox makes it easier to ensure formatting and references are consistent. Published work can always be edited. Reconrabbit 22:34, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Creative Lizzie (talk) Hello Gronk Oz and Recon RabbitCreative Lizzie (talk) So enjoy hearing your voices. It made me feel a bit better to hear others have been bitten by this one. There was definitely some crafting but hopefully it will come back even better. I agree working piecemeal would be the best; I assume everyone would understand that the bio is in development and needs a major amount of citations? I hope nobody will want to redo my beginning efforts in the sandbox. This one definitely needs time. Many thanks to all of you for your time, explanations, links and effort with my loss!! You are the best!! Cream Creative Lizzie (talk) 23:05, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Can sandbox writing can be edited when published? I assume it can but how is the writer supposed to develop it in sandbox with other edits? That would be very confusing at first! Creative Lizzie (talk) 23:16, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Double check to make sure you click publish. There is also show preview. A thing should saying your edits was published when clicking publish. Cwater1 (talk) 00:00, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Creative Lizzie. I have used sandbox pages extensively for close to 15 years. I publish my sandbox pages frequently because, like you, I do not want to lose anything. Often, my first edit to a new sandbox is a single bare URL to a reliable source. I publish it. Then I add more bare URLs, publishing each as I go. Then, I transform each URL into a reference with full bibliographic details, and I publish, publish, publish as I go along. I reach a point where I have perhaps six fully formatted references and not a single word of prose. Then, I started summarizing in my own words what the reliable sources say, publishing frequently. I rearrange, add section headers and perhaps images, format things properly, and copyedit. I may hit publish 50 times during this sandbox process and that's OK. Only then do I move the sandbox to the main space of the encyclopedia. Not one of my new articles has ever been deleted. My personal opinion is that trying to write articles in a word processor is a frustrating waste of time. Developing content in a sandbox enables you to constantly see what the work would look like as an actual encyclopedia article, which I find very helpful. Cullen328 (talk) 23:57, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi, my response to Cwater1 was meant for you!! This shows you a bit of my learning curve! Your ideas are wonderful and i am going to use them!! Creative Lizzie (talk) 00:27, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I wonder if our interface ought to be saying "save" rather than "publish" when creating draft or sandbox pages. Would that have made it clearer? Sdkb ^talk 00:32, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I think that could possibly be easier to understand. Maybe "Save" and maybe "Publish" for the final work. I think "Publish" is a bit confusing. For me, being a newspaper man's daughter, publish means going to press!! Creative Lizzie (talk) 00:36, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

However, publish edits and final copy mean 2 different things to me. It is a language issue for sure. Creative Lizzie (talk) 00:38, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

But then some people who'd "saved" would complain that what they'd saved was merely a working draft and that they'd no idea that others could actually see it. -- Hoary (talk) 00:39, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

That is exactly why the Wikimedia Foundation changed "Save" to "Publish" several years ago. Some editors were writing angry, threatening screeds in their sandbox pages, and were surprised to learn that other editors could read what they wrote. Cullen328 (talk) 00:44, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply.I am understanding more about wikipedia all the time!! Creative Lizzie (talk) 01:47, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply! There are definitely issues either way. Creative Lizzie (talk) 01:46, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Different strokes. I'd never use a word processor for composing an article (it would try to be "helpful", in undesirable ways), but I routinely use a text editor for this purpose. My own choice is Geany, but most are OK. (For Windows, Notepad++ is good.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:54, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorting a list

List of UEFA Champions League hat-tricks is an article I've been working on. The sorting part of the clubs is slightly mistake. it sorts alphabetically on the club's nationality and not the club's name itself.

Can anyone help with an edit. it may be too long. So could anyone edit edit the source of at-least 1 player. I'll take the idea and edit the rest Atlantis77177 (talk) 15:55, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Atlantis77177! Would Help:Sortable tables § Specifying a sort key for a cell have the information you're looking for? Sdkb ^talk 21:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Sdkb! I tried with what u said. but it didn't work. could u just edit 1 row for me. I'll catch the blueprint from it.

The table formatting is broken. Sdkb, are you able to sort this out? I don't think it's reasonable for even a moderately experienced editor to handle this problem. I don't know what the first couple of lines are supposed to say, or I'd fix it myself.

Atlantis77177, please don't touch the table until we fix this problem. Once the table's structure is sound, you should open it in the visual editor (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_UEFA_Champions_League_hat-tricks&veaction=edit ), select a row that you'd like to move to a different place, and then use the > menu to find the Move up/down options. Do that repeatedly until you've got everything in the order you'd like (but not just yet!). WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:52, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Ah, my apologies. Yes, as an overall matter, table formatting is regrettably difficult. I started off by restoring a stable version of the article with nothing broken. If I accidentally undid any content edits you were making, Atlantis, feel free to restore them. I share the recommendation to use VisualEditor for tables when possible, but unfortunately for many more advanced table edits (including sorting) it is not possible.

I then added sorting for the first three rows as an example. What I might suggest, Atlantis, is to copy the entire table into your sandbox, where you'll be able to work on it without worrying about messing anything up. Once you have it sorting correctly, you can copy it back to the article. Also, of course, feel free to ask if you have any trouble copying the examples or if any further questions come up. Cheers, Sdkb ^talk 04:17, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

@Atlantis77177, it's safe to edit that table now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:32, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Issue?

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.

Issue fixed. Cwater1 (talk) 04:25, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

---

Is there an issue? See Talk:Erin_&_Aaron#Issue. Cwater1 (talk) 22:11, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Update: Fixed Cwater1 (talk) 22:49, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Wow! Thank you so much for this great way to get started! I can see how that would work for me. Working with a word processor is a backward way to go but I could not figure out an alternative. Now I have a plan with steps. Very smart indeed! My hope is that this work will bring supported knowledge of a great American and make sense sequentially. Again, I appreciate the time and effort you took to write this......very grateful for your sharing! Creative Lizzie (talk) 00:22, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

So sorry Cwater 1, this was meant for Cullen328. Thank you for your understanding. Creative Lizzie (talk) 00:28, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

It's fine. So many things going on I imagine. Closing discussion anyways since the issue I was facing is fixed.Cwater1 (talk) 04:25, 16 February 2024 (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.

How do i use CC licence?

I don't know how to use CC licence. I want CC BY Attribution licence

please explain how to obtain and use CC licence. it's important because I'm uploading a picture to Wikimedia Commons Akhinesh777 (talk) 04:46, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

If you are the copyright holder of the image, you can simply select the CC BY 4.0 license when you upload the image via the Upload Wizard. It is also advisable that you read Commons:Licensing before uploading anything.

Additionally, in the future, if you have any questions relating to Commons, it's probably better to ask them at Commons:Help desk. — Toast for Teddy (talk) 05:00, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Do i have to save the License Text Code in pdf, is it important? Akhinesh777 (talk) 05:54, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

No, no such action is required on your part. The license is freely available to read at the link above, and the file being tagged with the license on its commons page is all that is required (assuming you are the file's copyright holder). — Toast for Teddy (talk) 05:59, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Question about AfD relisting

Hi Teahouse peoples.

This is my first question so please forgive me. An article I worked on recently was up for AfD review and after the first 7 days it was relisted because there was no consensus, with some editors voting keep and some editors voting delete.

I tried to find what the protocol is for this Round Two. Do I revote Keep or do I just comment again why I voted to Keep and hope new editors pop by and contribute to the decision making process?

Question 2 - Is there a protocol for relisting? I thought that if there was not a consensus, the article would stay, and the recommendations for not delete-worthy fixes would be moved to banners. I will admit this page needs work but I hesitate to invest more time in it than I did last week until its in the clear and not subject to removal evaluation.

Thanks in advance for any advice you can give. avignonesi (talk) 10:42, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello Avignonesi and welcome to the Teahouse!

Remember that entries into the discussions at AfD are not exactly "votes". In fact, you'll see many editors saying !votes to emphasize this aspect of the process.

No consensus is a less desirable outcome than a consensus, whichever way it goes. It is often the case that a discussion will be relisted - actually, just continued - when there is no clear outcome in the first week. You don't want to vote again. You could revisit what you said before if you think you can improve on how policy-based your first comment was. The ultimate decision is not based on counting yeas and nays; instead, it's an evaluation of the policy-base arguments. Comments like "delete per nom" are essentially useless, since they advance no policy basis. If instead, you can honestly say "delete - I examined the article's references in detail and none of them appear to be independent" you are adding a valid reason why you are in favor of deletion even if you can't also say you've done a thorough search of online and offline sources and found nothing better.

On the other hand, adding fixes to the article while the discussion is underway is welcome and you could point to those fixes in your comment to argue for "keep". — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:04, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Maybe I should have looked at WP:Articles for deletion/Association for Research into Crimes against Art first. Adding lengthy rebuttals to nearly every !vote is a discussion in a poor approach to AfD. Make your case once, as concisely as you can, then let the process proceed. You have to trust that the closing admin is properly evaluating the policy arguments. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:16, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Dear @Jmcgnh Thanks for your help, and sorry if I used the word vote. I did know it is not a sum count but I just wasn't sure if I needed to restate my decision again in round two. Your feedback answers that and it also helps me to understand that less is more. I was just hoping to get the feedback needed to fix the article and remove concerns. I tend to be blabby by nature, and more so now that I am retired, but I will heed your sage wisdom and stay mum, and refrain from treating the discussion as a chat room. Still relearning Wikipedia-land as a lot has developed since my hiatus. Thanks for making the teahouse available so I can (re)find my way. Avignonesi (talk) 19:15, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Think of relisting less of as a "round 2" and more of as a method of making the discussion more uniform and less confusing, as well as a way for more editors to get involved. Industrial Insect (talk) 19:48, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Dear @Industrial Insect Many thanks also for your guidance. Will stick to simply trying to edit articles satisfactorily.Avignonesi (talk) 06:47, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Images in User Page

Hi there, I would like to know if I could add an image to my user page. The image is of General Grievous from Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith, specifically the one where he shows off his lightsaber collection to Anakin and Obiwan. However, I am not very aware of copyright on Wikipedia or how images can be uploaded or approved. So, if I could get some advice on this, that would be very much appreciated. Conyo14 (talk) 08:11, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello. Is this an image that is already on Wikipedia? 331dot (talk) 08:17, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Uh, I don't know. I know that it's on the fandom wiki, but I haven't seen this specific image on Wiki. Conyo14 (talk) 08:22, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Here is the specific image: [1]. Conyo14 (talk) 08:24, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

@Conyo14 Short answer no. WP allows itself some very limited non-free use of images, but only in the WP-articles themselves. You can use these [2] or anything else you find on Commons. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:48, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Which template should be used for unesco documents?

Just now i read Wikipedia:WikiProject United Nations/UN references, there is link to visual editor. Which template should i use? Id,Ik'+(&sZP4^m (talk) 01:52, 16 February 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Id,Ik'+(&sZP4^m (talk • contribs)

Which template should you use for what purpose, Id,Ik'+(&sZP4^m? If it's a template for citing a UNESCO document that is a book, then Template:Cite book; if for citing a standalone printed document that's a lot smaller than a book, then Template:Cite document; if for citing something that's primarily for the web, then Template:Cite web. And there are other possibilities. -- Hoary (talk) 09:36, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

editing an article

Hi

I have made a few edits to a couple of Wikipedia pages recently - in good faith, but sadly to no good end.

It is a huge disappointment to see that they have all been taken down, without any good reason as far as I can see.

It is a great shame, as I spent a long time researching and fact checking the information. I can imagine that this will strongly discourage further contributions.  

I do not expect a response, but I think that it is rather dispiriting to have contributions dismissed in this fashion.

Best regards

Richard M Richard Move (talk) 23:23, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, while your edits seem constructive, some of it is either unsourced or poorly sourced (such as to fandomwiki sites, something that goes against the policy on user generated content), leading to otherwise constructive edits (such as breaking up paragraphs into more readable chunks) being reverted due to them also containing stuff that is deemed unconstructive. Another reason why your edits may be judged more harshly is because they're on a featured article, and are thus held to an incredibly high standard.

It's very clear to me that you want to work constructively, and I'd really hate for poor experiences now to push you away so please, if you have any questions at all about Wikipedia policies or just general editing then please feel free to leave a message in the Teahouse or on my talk page. I'm sure anyone would be more than happy to help. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 23:39, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, that`s much appreciated. I appreciate the feedback.

Best regards. Richard Move (talk) 10:37, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Richard Move, one or two comments on your user talk page, though undoubtedly well-intentioned, do seem somewhat gruff. Newcomers may be inclined to mark their edits as "minor" from a certain modesty ("I am making no major claims for this edit"). But that's not at all what "This is a minor edit" is for. (If I were to write "well-intensioned", save the result, and then think "oops!" and edit a second time merely to change the "s" to "t", this second edit would rightfully be "minor".) -- Hoary (talk) 00:33, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi Hoary, Thanks, that`s much appreciated. I appreciate the feedback - I`ll have another bash at writing an edit.

Apologies to yourself (and all and sundry) if I came across as moody - I was happy to see that my edits were 'accepted' but then surprised to see it taken down a couple of days later (despite at least one of them being clearly visible on the German version of the Wikipedia page.)

Best regards. Richard Move (talk) 10:42, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Don't worry, it's understandable for you to feel disheartened when you've made edits and they're removed. It's not a good feeling and it's undoubtedly one that even those reverting your edits have felt in the past; I know I definitely have. I find it helpful to remember that Wikipedia is one of the few websites out there operated entirely on the back of good faith. It might even be a good idea for you to join the Wikipedia Discord server if you're interested so you can interact with likeminded editors and get constructive criticism or help on your edits in real time.

It might also be a good idea to head to the task centre to see whether there's anything on there that you might be interested in to ease you into editing a little bit. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 11:06, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Changing the official logo of a school

Hello, I am looking to change the official logo of a school: Singapore Chinese Girls' School, to better reflect the official logo.

Disclaimer, I am an employee of the school and the current logo on the page is outdated. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore_Chinese_Girls%27_School SCGSS ICT (talk) 05:55, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

@SCGSS ICT is there a change of the logo? The official website looks the same as here? – robertsky (talk) 06:25, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes the old logo has text in black colour. The new logo has white text. SCGSS ICT (talk) 06:36, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @Mr Zheng at SCGS, and welcome to the Teahouse. I see you have changed your user name, but there is another thing that you must do before you do anything about the logo, and that is to make a formal declaration of your status as a paid editor - see that link for how to do so.

Then you can make an edit request on the talk page of the article for somebody to upload the new logo (tell them where to find it) and update it in the article. ColinFine (talk) 13:17, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi @SCGSS ICT, you can check out Wikipedia:File_upload_wizard to upload files. Make sure it complies with the copyright and image use policy! After that, as you do have a COI, it would be best if you could request the change on SCGS's talk page. TLA (talk) 09:34, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Bye

It's Akhinesh and i decided to stop creating Article and editing on Wikipedia. I think the administrators are jealous for i creating an article. I provided reliable sources to an article that i created it was decline yesterday by @Encoded. I said to him that i provided Reliable sources to it but he didn't respond Akhinesh777 (talk) 06:29, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Here's Draft:Redmi Note 13 as it was when I declined it. I pointed out that it needed more than a single sentence of text (which was all that it then had), and that it needed what Wikipedia classes as "reliable sources". The template said "Please do not remove reviewer comments or this notice until the submission is accepted." In its current state, the draft has zero sentences and you have removed reviewer comments and that notice. Here's Draft:Oppo A37 as it was when Encoded declined it. It was rather more promising, with four sentences. But I'm left wondering how it merits an article, rather than just a mention within Oppo phones. -- Hoary (talk) 06:58, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Akhinesh777, sorry to hear you're considering leaving Wikipedia. The reason I didn't respond is because I have a lot on at university at the moment, and when you sent the message today it was early morning in my timezone and I was asleep. Unfortunately I wasn't able to accept the article because there are guidelines that reviewers have to follow to accept them, it's nothing personal against you. I'd recommend having a look at WP:RS if you'd like to continue the draft. Thanks, Encoded Talk to me! 08:58, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Akhinesh777. I'm sorry you're feeling disappointed. I'm afraid that that is a common experience of editors who immediately start the challenging task of creating a new article. Would you build a car as your first ever engineering project? Or enter a major tournament in a sport you took up yesterday? No, you would spend time learning the skills you need.

Please spend a few months learning how Wikipedia works by making improvements to some of our six million existing articles, and then perhaps you will feel ready to have another try at creating articles. But creating new articles isn't the only way to participate in Wikipedia: I have been here for eighteen years, and made over 24 000 edits, but I have only ever created a handful of articles. ColinFine (talk) 13:24, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Help Needed Regarding New Article

Hi, I am working on this page - Draft:Eshal Fayyaz

I need help deciding what more improvements are needed to publish this. Leezaroy (talk) 05:41, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Leezaroy Interviews (refs 9-14) should not be used as references, and #9 was so 'sticky' that I had to turn off my computer to get out of that website. David notMD (talk) 14:11, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Archiving Talk pages

Hi I'm not strictly new but I have a question which I think comes under etiquette but definitely under markup so I'd appreciate the Teahouse's wisdom.

I am a conflict of interest editor who has been making requests on behalf of an individual since late 2022. They are starting to clutter up the Talk page and as the conflict of interest request backlog is recently starting to creep up again (it's still under 100 requests but I remember how high it can get and I'm hoping to help keep it manageable from my side at least), I wondered if it would be cleaner and easier to read for the volunteers who kindly take on these requests if I were able to archive some of the older conversations. Is that something I would have "permission" to do? I was thinking of leaving just the two most recent conversations live (as the newest request has some relation to the one before it).

If this was appropriate, I have never archived a Talk page before so any advice or help would be great. The Talk page for the article I request on is Talk:Bulat Utemuratov. Podsought (talk) 10:04, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello. I might gently suggest that you post a COI declaration on your user page(User:Podsought); I see it on the article talk page, but someone looking for it might not know it is there. 331dot (talk) 10:22, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi @331dot I have done that now, thanks for the suggestion and replying to my question. Podsought (talk) 11:55, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi @331dot did you have any thoughts on the question of archiving itself? Podsought (talk) 09:41, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Archiving article talk pages isn't an area with which I have too much familiarity. 331dot (talk) 09:48, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Ok I will wait for other editors to weigh in then! Podsought (talk) 14:57, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi Podsought, I've added automatic archiving to that talkpage, so that anything older than 90 days will automatically be moved to an archive subpage. --rchard2scout (talk) 15:16, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

List of all articles

Is there a category or page which contains a list of all articles on this site? ''Flux55'' (talk) 05:21, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

@Flux55 well there's almost 7 million articles on the English Wikipedia alone, so any list would probably be impossible unfortunately :( TLA (talk) 09:35, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

There is a list of all articles at Special:AllPages. Yes, it is a long list but not impossible. You will probably want to refine the list by using the selection box to begin at a certain point in the alphabet, such as A. Entries in italics are redirects rather than articles. I don't think it's possible to exclude those. Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:03, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Oh damn, I had no idea! Learned something today. TLA (talk) 10:12, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Depending on your use case, page Contents may be helpful. It is a directory of various outline articles and categories. ♠ Ca ^{talk to me!} 15:30, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Need Help on an Article to remove Promotional Content Ad box

Hi,

I am a new contributor to Wikipedia and after the usual edits, I contributed a page, Resilient Pakistan and where there is no problem on the notability or lack of sources, the problem lies with the tone. I have made improvements to change the promotional tone and give it a more factual, objective, neutral tone, but, it seems that I cannot get rid of the Promotion content ad box. even after taking care of the words that Wikipedia don't approve of.

Can anyone please head to the Page and advise me please on how to improve my content.

Much appreciated the help I would be receiving. Ayshaipath (talk) 07:51, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello Ayshaipath. I first noticed that on your LinkedIn page(that you link to on your user page) you identify yourself as a "social media content writer" and that you offer "Writing, Team Building, Brand Marketing, Research Skills, Content Marketing, Market Research, Marketing Strategy, Editing, User Experience Writing, and Blogging" as services, but you told Wikishovel on Talk:Resilient Pakistan that you have no conflict of interest with this topic. So you are saying that your job is to write on social media but you aren't performing your job for this book? I just want to know if that's what you're saying.

I also see that you made 10 edits and waited four days to be able to directly create the article about this book- the exact amount of time required which suggests you came to Wikipedia expressly for writing about this book. It's usually better for new users inexperienced in creating articles to use the draft submission process(WP:AFC) so that any issues are worked out before the work involved is made a part of the encyclopedia.

As someone whose job involves writing more promotionally, even if you aren't doing your job for this book, you may be too much of a social media writer to write as Wikipedia requires. 331dot (talk) 08:15, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you 331 dot for citing out what I already know. There are things much larger than your Job. Things such as self growth, looking for writing arenas outside your comfort zone, and creating venues for one self. You did a background check, and this is certain that I am a writer, who excels in creative writing. My strong hold lies with stories, prose, poetry, imaginative writing that showcases creativity. Wikipedia requires another kind of tone for writing altogether. and what is the harm in trying and who says I haven't done editing before. (people can make new accounts as well)

Yes, I don't have a personal setting with the book, or the author, what I said on the talk page, is truth. But, here even after contemplating about who I am, and what I work for, you haven't given one advice on how to correct the particular problem.

Let's say, there is a personal choice involved in here, many writers have the power to give it a complete neutral feel and like, for writers are often doing such tasks, where their own opinion on the subject does not matter.

Kindly, if there any advices on the writing tone. Please advise.

My choices are of no concern here. Thanks! Ayshaipath (talk) 08:26, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I clicked on one reference. It turned out to be a retailer. I clicked on another. It read like a PR puff. Near its head, it says "pr"; from which I infer that it is indeed a PR puff. I couldn't be bothered to click on a third reference. Remove the junk sources and consider whether the sources that remain show that this self-published book is notable (where notability) is defined by and for Wikipedia). -- Hoary (talk) 08:53, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I see! I'll comb through it again to make it neat. Ayshaipath (talk) 09:17, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

My suggestion is that you allow this to be a draft so that you can take your time to resolve the issues Hoary mentions and submit it for review by other editors.

I also suggest- if you have used another account as you're suggesting- that you read WP:ALTACCN. 331dot (talk) 09:04, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I see. I have made this page using this account from which I am commenting. I simply mentioned that I have somewhat of a minor experience. Anyways, I will look into it.

Thank you Ayshaipath (talk) 09:17, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

The above comments notwithstanding, a closer look at Wikipedia:Notability (books)] could prove helpful. Lectonar (talk) 11:03, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

This page is written exactly like mine. it has only four references. half a page content, and there are retailers, and book reviews on the references. There are no ad box above. @331dot@Hoary Ayshaipath (talk) 11:22, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi, for a book published by Stanford University Press, the WP:BURDEN is to show that it lacks WP:N. For a WP:SPS, the burden of proof is to show that it has WP:N. So, the two pages are not in the same league. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:00, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

The article Justice for Some: Law and the Question of Palestine may or may not be good. If it's poor, no surprise: Wikipedia has many poor articles. Their high number is no reason to allow them to proliferate. So, is it any good? Well, let's start with a quick (and necessarily inadequate) look at its references. It has four. One is the description provided by its publisher, Stanford University Press. This is usable for a very limited range of purposes but does nothing to establish notability. As for the other three, one is a detailed and serious review published by a think-tank; another, published on a website unfamiliar to me, is similar, and is by the very eminent Richard Falk; the third, published by an institute with which I'm unfamiliar, is again long and thoughtful, and is by someone described as a "professor of law at the UCLA School of Law". Does the article Resilient Pakistan cite comparably substantial reviews? -- Hoary (talk) 12:03, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I have moved the article to draft space Draft:Resilient Pakistan where it can be improved before submission. Theroadislong (talk) 12:10, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

and you have the right to do it? Ayshaipath (talk) 12:12, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I could have nominated it for deletion at WP:AFD but in draft there is the opportunity to improve it. Theroadislong (talk) 12:15, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

You can take a look at Wikipedia:Draftify for more information on the process. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 12:16, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I offered you the chance to agree to it but yes, an editor may do that. I also advised you that gaming the system to allow yourself to directly create it was inadvisable. 331dot (talk) 13:45, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I looked at another of the references for Resilient Pakistan. It's "Author lauded for cherishing Pakistanis’ resilience". In fact much of this article is instead about "Two other books, 'Our Quaid' and its Urdu version". As for Resilient Pakistan, we don't learn much; but we are told that "Journalist Khurshid Hyder said Haya's book was a labour of love as she had done a lot of research and fact-finding to make it an authentic book." Really. It does also say that this "book by defence analyst and security expert Ikram Sehgal's daughter Haya Fatima Sehgal was launched at the Quaid-i-Azam Museum", where it was given what sounds like a most appreciative speech by said defence analyst and security expert, "who is also the vice-chairman of the museum board". Quite a coincidence. -- Hoary (talk) 12:21, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

What does this imply?

I asked for an advice, and now my page is in drafts and my account is up for deletion.

I was new here, instead of being helped, I am shunned to side.

I thought I read everything about it, and I was ready to try.

But, I was mistaken I guess.

Thanks everyone for your help.

There are too many things here. It is not just simply posting an article! Wikipedia is indeed is an epic forum.

I will learn more about it and try again some other time! Ayshaipath (talk) 12:47, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Ayshaipath. I'm sorry that you have had a disappointing time, but (as I said to another new editor just above) that is a common experience for new editors who immediately try the challenging task of creating a new article before they have learnt much about how Wikipedia works.

I always advise new editors to spend time improving some of our six million existing articles, and learning about Wikipedia's principles such as verifiability, reliable sources, neutral point of view, and notability before they ever try to create an article. ColinFine (talk) 13:32, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Your article being moved to draft status was done by an Asministrator to give you unlimited time to remedy shortfalls in the article. The alternative was to nominate it for deletion, which would have limited you to roughly 7-10 days to salvage the article. In addition to this draft, you created Haya Fatima Sehgal - about the author of the book - and that article is at AfD. Last, you have been asked on your Talk page to clear up whether either of these efforts are paid work. If so, that must be stated on your User page. David notMD (talk) 14:23, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Actually, Theroadislong is a very experienced new page reviewer but not an administrator. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:33, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

My error David notMD (talk) 14:35, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I might have overlooked a few use of terms, and misinterpreted a few things which has caused confusion and hustle from my side. I am still trying to understand wikipedia and want to work here as a fair contributor.

I want to thank everyone here on this thread, @331dot@Chaotic Enby@ColinFine@David notMD@Hoary@Lectonar@Michael D. Turnbull@Tgeorgescu for giving me honest and blunt replies and suggestions.

I do understand Wikpedia works on very different set of rules and regulation, terms and conditions, and other things!!

I apologize for not understanding the exact terms, and I will try to abide by them all.

Thank you! Ayshaipath (talk) 14:58, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

You're welcome! Feel free to work on the article in draftspace (there's no time pressure!), and to resubmit it when the time is right. Draftification doesn't mean it's rejected, just that it needs more improvement, which is a very common thing when writing your first article. Good luck! Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 15:01, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

You say on your talk page that "I work for a company. the author of the book is asociated to the company i work for" this means you are deemed to be a paid editor and MUST make the required disclosure. Theroadislong (talk) 15:08, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

This is true even if she is not specificlly your client at the company, as the company would have a perceived benefit for there being articles about her and her book. David notMD (talk) 15:11, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I was not aware of that. I thought personal direct relations were only the term. @David notMD

Please can you tell me how to disclose this particular aspect. @Theroadislong so I can keep on improving the articles and contribute more to Wikipedia outside my domain of company. Ayshaipath (talk) 15:17, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

See WP:PAID, which has details of what and where to declare, with the templates to use. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:50, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

How to get a page un-redirected?

Hello! Been editing a bunch lately and a BLP has lead me down a rabbit hole. There is an art movement called Art Brut, that under that exact name, has historical significance. However, it currently redirects to a page called "Outside Art" which is a similar movement. If I think Art Brut needs to have it's own page where do I bring this up? Slacker13 (talk) 15:53, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello Slacker13! To overwrite a redirect, you just need to delete the redirect template and write your article over it. See WP:EDRED. —asparagusus (interaction) ^sprouts! 16:10, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

@Slacker13 You could use the WP:AfC process to get feedback on a draft Draft:Art Brut you create and when accepted, the draft would be moved over the redirect by the accepting reviewer. Depends a bit on how confident you are that your article will pass muster, especially regarding notability. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:20, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Slacker13. Asparagusus's suggestion is certainly possible, if you think you can write an acceptable article in one go. Otherwise I would suggest developing it in a draft, and then either submitting it for review, or if you are confident that it is acceptable, requesting that it be moved over the redirect. ColinFine (talk) 16:20, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

thanks all!! Slacker13 (talk) 16:27, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

FIFA World Cup and UEFA Champions League moved to level 3 (1000 articles)

I suggest the articles be moved from level 4 to level 3 of vital articles and would like to know your opinion. Thanks 14 novembre (talk) 16:49, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi @14 novembre, I believe the location to propose changes to level 3 of WP:Vital articles is on the talk page for level 3: Wikipedia talk:Vital articles where there are instructions to do so (yes, level 3 is at the base name for VA). If you're asking for general thoughts before such a proposal, then that may still be the best place for that but others may have thoughts here as well. My vague guess is it's unlikely based on looking at the three articles in the sports section of level 3, largely since Association football itself is currently level 3. But I am not very active there. Skynxnex (talk) 17:18, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Difference between revisions colorscheme

Hi, I would like to change the yellow and blue highlights in the edit changes to red and green respectively, to not confuse which is which. Is this possible? If so, how do I do this? Coulomb1 (talk) 17:57, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Coulomb1– if you go into your preferences page, and go to the "Appearance" tab, you can provide custom CSS rules for specific themes, all of Wikipedia regardless of theme, or all of its sister sites as well.

If you need a quick way to change it, you can go to your common.css at User:Coulomb1/common.css (or the CSS file for the specific theme that you are using) and add the following CSS:

.diff-deletedline {
  border-color: /*[red color of choice]*/;
}
.diff-addedline {
  border-color: /*[green color of choice]*/;
}

If you want to just use plain, fully saturated red and green, then you can just use "red" and "green" as the color values, respectively, or you can provide a hex code. Let me know if you need further assistance. — theki ^{(hit me up)} 18:09, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks!! Coulomb1 (talk) 18:13, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Please check my article

Hello everyone, dear participants! Please check my article about the Kazakh petition site. Thank you.

Draft:EGOV.PRESS Zzremin (talk) 08:06, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Zzremin, it looks promising, but (1) Please change "EGOV.PRESS" to either "egov.press" or "Egov.press", and likewise for "ALASH.ONLINE". (2) What/where is "ENU"? (3) "[O]nly the most relevant and resonant initiatives": Relevant to what? What is meant here by "resonant"? -- Hoary (talk) 08:33, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Everything is fixed. I wanted to ask you, as an experienced participant, how can I add links to pages on social networks? It is allowed? Zzremin (talk) 08:51, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:ELOFFICIAL has the rules for adding social media links. Usually, only one official link is added, and a social media link is normally added only if they don't have their own website. (Some smaller businesses, for example, use Facebook or Instagram instead of a more traditional website.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:55, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

If my article follows the rules, please move it to the main category. If not, then I am ready to refine and correct the article. Thank you. Zzremin (talk) 08:58, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Zzremin The draft was declined, with reasons given. You can work on improving the draft and resubmitting. While some of the Teahouse Hosts are also draft reviewers, asking here does not speed the review process. There are many drafts waiting for a review, so the process can take weeks. David notMD (talk) 12:41, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Promotional content in articles

I'm looking at this page for copyediting. The banner says it has promotional content/is written like an advertisement but I can't put my finger on what the problem is here. I've read through WP:ADMASQ, but the examples there are pretty exaggerated and I don't think they apply to what I'm looking at— I think the worst of it is a detailed description of what the company offers with citations. If anyone could give me a hand or lend some pointers for the future, I'd really appreciate it!

Donut Sprinkle (talk) 17:23, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Donut Sprinkle - I think one egregious issue is "Its mission is to provide internationally recognized higher education for professionals, universities and high school graduates." Good articles on companies do not generally include the company's "mission" in the intro. I would add that the company is for-profit. (See [3]) The emphasis on the scholarship program throughout the article is also weird and seems promotional. Also, "The number of students was estimated to reach 100,000 by 2026." is sourced to the company's own statements in a 2016 article. That is not appropriate, and it should be deleted. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:30, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much! All of those points make sense to me. I can likely fix the first and last points you've made, but I think the scholarship mentions are a little trickier. Maybe I have it mentioned once in the article and then the rest of its mentions removed?

I'll see what I can do. Thanks again :)

Donut Sprinkle (talk) 17:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @Donut Sprinkle. I think a useful way to look at this is to ask what the independent sources have said about the company. (There must be independent sources, or the subject does not meet the criteria for notability). If an independent source talks about the company's "mission", then it may be appropriate to mention it (especially if the source says something substantive about this mission - criticises it, or praises it, or discusses how far the company lives up to it). On the other hand, if no independent source discusses the mission, then it certainly does not belong in the article. Similarly, anything about the company's goals, ethos, partners, campaigns, customers, or even products, that no independent source has mentioned, should not go in the article. Uncontroversial factual information like places and dates can be sourced from the company's own publications (but if they are the only information available, then again it is not notable). ColinFine (talk) 19:43, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

This is incredibly helpful, I appreciate it! I do feel like a lot of pages I come across don't have that notability criteria, but I don't think I want to stick my nose in that just yet. I'm definitely going to take a more in depth look at a page's reflist as I'm editing in the future, especially for admasq ones!

Donut Sprinkle (talk) 19:53, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Seeing as Wikipedia has thousands upon thousands of stubs, unnotable articles, and etc., it would be preferable to put all those in an Afd discussion. But seeing how much these discussions take (1-week if no one raises objections), most of these will stay here. Anyways, happy editing! ''Flux55'' (talk) 05:28, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

The {{notability}} tag is an easy way to let other editors know that someone is concerned about the subject being notable. But let me add that what matters is "the subject", i.e., not the current state of "the article". University of Oxford is a notable subject no matter what the article says. It is a notable subject even if the article WP:Glossary#cited no sources at all. That's because the real-world (e.g., newspapers, magazines, books, libraries) has a lot of information about that subject.

By contrast, if I started a business and called it "University of WhatamIdoing", it would not be a notable subject, no matter what I typed in the Wikipedia article. It would not be notable because the world at large has given no attention to my fictitious business.

We often cite sources to demonstrate that a subject is notable, but you cannot actually determine that the subject is non-notable merely because nothing in the article demonstrates notability. It could be a notable subject with a poorly written and under-cited Wikipedia article. Consider the state of the Wikipedia article on Oxford after the first 250 edits (=more than most articles ever get). Infobox, pictures, 1500 words – and not a single little blue ref number anywhere on the page. It was still a notable subject, even though the current version of the article didn't demonstrate it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:54, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

New Here!

Hi everyone - I am new here with the goal of updating and contributing to the existing English wikipedia site of an artist, whose work I love. I understand that everyone who contributes to wikipedia can be overwritten by any other contributor and that consensus is achieved in this way. Being new, I'd like to avoid typical pitfalls of inexperiences contributors. For example, I heard that more than 4 edits per month from any contributor to the same page would raise a flag - is this true? Any help is much appreciated! HCR24 (talk) 18:44, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

@HCR24 Welcome to Wikipedia! On pitfalls: The Wikipedia article on your artist is supposed to be a summary of independent reliable sources (WP:RS) about that artist. Not what they have to say about them self or how great their fans think they are. Assuming it's a living person, every factoid in it should be cited, and take the time to read WP:BLP. See WP:ADVOCACY and WP:PEACOCK. The "4 edits per month" thing sounds like advice to someone who is WP:PAID to edit but wants to do it undetected. That's not you, right? However, see also WP:SPA. Hope this helps some. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:04, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Very helpful. Re: the "4 edits per month", Skynxnex below explained it, when he brought up Edit warring. Re: SPA accounts, what if someone where into, let's Christopher Marlowe, and everything concerning him and his work and therefore pretty much exclusively contributes to everything Christopher Marlowe? (Which would be a very natural and innocent thing for that person to do. Especially since Marlowe is long dead). Is that something that would be flagged? HCR24 (talk) 20:14, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

@HCR24, as WP:SPA says, many single-purpose accounts turn out to be well-intentioned editors with a niche interest. We do sometimes get descendants of famous (or would-be famous) folks coming around to puff up their articles, which turns into a problem, but all you need to do is follow the advice above about following sources and watching your language, and all shall be well. 57.140.16.1 (talk) 20:24, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks! HCR24 (talk) 20:30, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

@HCR24 I just want to mention here that I started Christopher Marlowe in fiction and Marlowe portrait. Never read any of his plays though. Carry on. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:37, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I saw, you gotta read the plays! HCR24 (talk) 21:27, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I've read a few, @HCR24; I thought Shakes Marlowe did some good work there. 57.140.16.1 (talk) 22:13, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

It's possible the 4 edits per month per page came a miscommunication/understanding of WP:Edit warring, here performing 4 or more reverts (undoing some or all of another editor's changes) per day per page is a bright-line rule, know as the three-revert rule (3RR), violation (you can edit war without breaking that line, of course). Luckily it's easy to avoid edit warring: just slowdown and discuss with any edits with whom you may disagree about changes.

Gråbergs Gråa Sång also gave good advice and I left on your talk page a welcome message that includes additional links to documentation and links to ways to learn how (and where) to contribute, in general. Skynxnex (talk) 19:11, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, that's it, very helpful - also for the links! HCR24 (talk) 20:15, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't know about any potential major pitfalls beyond not using reliable sources and, you know, citing your sources in the first place. As for the 4 edits, like Skynxnex said that's probably a misconception based on the edit warring policy.

I've made more than 4 edits on several different pages within a matter of 30 minutes to an hour, let alone over the course of a month. I've also seen people do it constantly. While more suspicious to someone doing recent changes patrols, it's not a problem and there's nothing against doing so. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 19:55, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, very helpful. But say, how does one cite a book (in this case by an tenured academic), that *is* published and freely available, in book form, but the text of which is not available online? What confuses me is I can cite the book and the author, but the text/lines of the book I am citing are not readily available online, so how can anyone verify the citation? Can you upload a picture of relevant page in the book, or how do people deal with this? HCR24 (talk) 20:19, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

@HCR24, there's no need to upload anything (and doing so might be a copyright violation). Off-line sources are perfectly acceptable; you just need to provide enough information for someone to find the source if they want to look up the information. See WP:Offline sources. 57.140.16.1 (talk) 20:21, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Okay - eccellent, thanks for the link! That makes sense. It's all a tad overwhelming on the first afternoon, but I am slowly starting to get it... Thanks for the help, makes this less intimidating. Appreciate it. HCR24 (talk) 20:30, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

It's pretty natural to be overwhelmed, there are so many policies and general rules on Wikipedia, so many places to see, things to join and things to do. I'd advise going to the task centre to see what piques your fancy; maybe you'll find something you didn't realise was there but you'll enjoy. That's what happened with me and recent change patrols. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 20:32, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, will check it out! HCR24 (talk) 20:43, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Wayback Machine behaving weirdly

Can someone else please try archiving this link for me. The Wayback Machine said it successfully captured a snapshot, but it just keeps sending me back to the "this page has not been archived, but it is available on the web" page, and it won't let me try and archive it again. — Toast for Teddy (talk) 05:05, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

You can use archive.ph or archive.today if the problem keeps occurring. ''Flux55'' (talk) 05:23, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

You or someone else successfully archived that webpage. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 20:06, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

This snapshot was my attempt to archive it. Apparently it's just decided to work now? No idea what was going on there, but thanks for the suggestions anyway. — Toast for Teddy (talk) 20:11, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

@Toast for Teddy In my experience, sometimes there is a delay between an archive being captured and it showing up when you try to search for it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:31, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Huh. Duly noted. Thanks. — Toast for Teddy (talk) 22:44, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Wiki

Hello I am trying to figure out how to contact the person in charge of www.Wikipedia.org ??? to fix a small error on that page specifically.

Thanks Q1w2E3 (talk) 15:51, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello Q1w2E3! I can't get you that contact, but I'm sure someone at the Teahouse could help. You could also make an edit request at the talk page of the article you want to edit, or edit it yourself. —asparagusus (interaction) ^sprouts! 16:11, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

@Q1w2E3 That URL has no Talk Page. See WP:WMF for details including contacts. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:14, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

What is the error? 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 16:46, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I think it's handled at https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/project/view/1619/ – so, a completely different system. If you want, you can login ("Login" button at the top, then "Log in or Register MediaWiki" button in the middle) and try to add a new task. Alternatively, you can explain the problem at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) and ask someone there to route it to the right place. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:58, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Alerting a WikiProject

I want to add an article that is sorely lacking in quality to Wikiproject Israel's ToDo list, how do I do that?

The article in question: Efrat (organization) JohnR1Roberts (talk) 21:12, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

The first paragraph of Efrat (organization) includes blatantly contradictory statements about Efrat's objectives. This could be fixed by basing the article entirely on what others have said about Efrat, as recommended by Wikipedia policy, and omitting mention on what its own members say about it. Maproom (talk) 21:40, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that's necessarily contradictory – or at least no more contradictory than an abortion provider refusing to provide prenatal care. In my area, the main abortion provider supports a woman's choice, whatever it is, by providing both abortion care and prenatal care, but not all providers can provide such a wide range of services. I think it might sound confusing if you come to the subject with an American POV, but I suspect that most of the world doesn't automatically see promising food, clothing, and diapers to pregnant women as an anti-abortion program. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:58, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Been called out on incidents.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:GabrielPenn4223 I have been discouraged by negative feedbacks, I did mistakes. Do you know any way to get me to improve and have less chance of being blocked? Maybe stop nominating for redirects and deletions? GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 13:31, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

As straightforward as I can say it: WP:AGF. You start a lot of your more questionable messages with "Can you explain why you..." That is a fairly aggressive way to ask a question. Despite the fact that I doubt you intended this, it sounds accusatory and personal. Also doesn't help when you say that about an edit/nomination someone did six years ago.

Also, you do nominate things fairly erroneously. Your GA, move, AfD, etc. nominations have rarely been informed decisions. Take time to familiarize yourself with the subject, the topic, and (most importantly) what actually qualifies something for these nominations.

In all, it's clear under scrutiny that you aren't trying to be disruptive or aggressive. But, I'd recommend reading the rules regarding any kind of nomination before proposing it. i.e. GA nomination requirements or notability requirements.

Don't let this discourage you from contributing though! Learn through this experience and use it to make you the best Wikipedian you can be! Dionysius Miller^talk 13:59, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Maybe stop making moves, AfDs, RfDs, etc. until I start to clearly understand what these are? GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 14:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Or I can read the rules first before clearly nominating and post a topic on their related discussion page? GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 14:09, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't want to be blocked again. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 14:19, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Given the high annoyance level of your more than 500 edits, yes, no more GA nominations (you already stopped), no AfDs, no RfDs, no more sprinkling "We Are Not Perfect" on other editors' Talk pages, and delete your self-serving 'essay'. And no more AfCs. Focus on improving existing articles. David notMD (talk) 14:22, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Alright, I will stop doing all of these until A. I have clearly understood and read all of these rules. I have already made a proper article or redirect. I have made constructive edits for atleast 90 days GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 14:29, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I have already added a source to the Toys R Us article of the opening of a specific store at an airport, it's a news source. Reliable? GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 14:40, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Generally speaking, not doing a thing until you have a complete understanding of it and the rules around it is a good idea, on Wikipedia and just about everywhere else (other than paying taxes). Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Also since users are supporting a CIR block, is it a good idea also to improve articles with constructive contributions and copyediting? GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 14:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

@ Writ Keeper, Although I'm not involved in this thread, I read through it to get more familiar with this sort of issue. After reading your tongue-in-cheek tax comment, I couldn't resist commenting in turn with 😂 . Augnablik (talk) 00:23, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

The GP4223 editing process: 1) do things 2) only then think about whether they were a good idea, 3) learn they were not, in fact, good ideas, 4) run away yelling "we are not perfect" and leave others to clean up 5) repeat in as many processes as possible ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:53, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

How I should actually be doing before learning a new thing:

1. Read the rules

2. Understand it

3. Clearly look into something

4. Not yell away "WE are not perfect!!!"

5. Clean up yourself

6. Once understood, do it! GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 14:55, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

The OP has been blocked indefinitely. Maproom (talk) 18:37, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Recovering a draft

I was creating a page about a colonial official (Gustav von Oertzen) I left this page unedited for 6 months and I have noticed it has been deleted could someone help me with the recovery process? TeaEnjoyer737 (talk) 04:21, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

@TeaEnjoyer737, You can go to Wikipedia:REFUND/G13 and follow the instructions on that page to get it back. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 04:58, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Done, TeaEnjoyer737. Please make at least some improvement to Draft:Gustav von Oertzen (Colonial Official) very quickly, else it may be deleted again. Once you've edited it in some way, there's no rush for further work on it. -- Hoary (talk) 05:09, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Could someone who is good at AfD please help me with this?

I thought that before I attempt going through the AfD process and inevitably make some mistakes, maybe someone else might be interested in taking a crack at it. What do you think?

Here is the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joshua_Lisec

And here is the discussion page for the article in question, which provides some context (resume-like page with notability issues, possible source issues): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Joshua_Lisec

I appreciate your help, and if I have erred in making this request here, please let me know. Thanks, FrodeAnthelm (talk) 05:12, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

FrodeAnthelm, I presume that you've gone through the cited sources. If you believe that they don't add up to Wikipedia-defined notability and if other good sources don't seem to exist, I think you should take a crack at it yourself. -- Hoary (talk) 05:21, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm new to Wikipedia.

(Sorry, I'm not good at using subject lines properly) I was curious about how to get certain boxes with text under my user, (for example, the one box that says "this editor was in the Second Great Edit War") and I was also curious about what I should put on my user page. (I'm new to Wikipedia, and was curious with how to use the features I've seen) TechnicianMan (talk) 02:53, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

TechnicianMan, please see WP:Userboxes and WP:User pages. -- Hoary (talk) 03:05, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi, how would I add a userbox to my page? I'm trying to find out how but the information is confusing me. TechnicianMan (talk) 03:17, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Just enter into the editor mode at the top of the page, and you should be in Visual editing mode. You can then click the insert button at the top of the page, in the toolbar. then select "template" and search for the one you would like. Geardona (talk to me?) 03:22, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm still lost. Should I just look up a video on how to add an existing userbox? TechnicianMan (talk) 03:32, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Help:Introduction to editing with VisualEditor/1 Geardona (talk to me?) 03:33, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

@TechnicianMan if you click "edit source" on anyone else's userpage (or open Visual Editor, then switch to source mode), you'll see how they've coded it. So if you see a particular userbox you like, you can always just copy it over to your own. -- asilvering (talk) 05:36, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello and welcome!
There are tons of things you can make for your userpage! (see Wikipedia:Userpage for guidelines, and Wikipedia:Userpage design center for ideas.) Geardona (talk to me?) 03:06, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

There are indeed tons of things you can make for your user page. Suggestion: Do none of them until you've demonstrated via your contributions that your primary interest here is the improvement of articles. (So far, you've made a total of one edit to an article.) -- Hoary (talk) 05:13, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Wansho Laundry

Just made this article, and I'm ready to move it into the mainspace. I have some questions with the lede I used though. Should the owners names be bolded with their birthdates, like a duo such as Rhett & Link? The laundry shop's notability is in exact parallel with its two owners who model for it (please read the article's lede for some content). TLA (talk) 06:54, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Resolved

I'm going to keep it this way and publish as I'm quite sure this is the right formatting after looking through Category:Business duos. If anyone has something add/change, please feel free, I think it's a very interesting topic! TLA (talk) 07:24, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Good Morming

would it be possible to compile a list of the most cited foreign articles in the body of text on wikipedia in english? 2804:14C:5BB1:9473:A4D0:ADC6:8ED4:4A8E (talk) 14:00, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

IP editor. Can you clarify your request? Wikipedia articles don't cite articles from foreign-language versions of Wikipedia because Wikipedia is not a reliable source. We do on occasions wikilink to pages in other-language versions (for example if they have a biography of a named individual who doesn't have one in English). I don't know if such links can be counted. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:41, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I'd imagine that any such links would be counted at Wikipedia:Most-wanted articles since they are already red links. At least, they could be counted using the code there, since the page isn't a complete list. Reconrabbit 15:40, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether the editor is looking for the most linked non-English Wikipedia articles (e.g., the French Wikipedia has an article but English doesn't), or the most cited non-English newspaper articles (e.g., the English Wikipedia cites a French newspaper article). WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:49, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Reconrabbit. 2804:14C:5BB1:9473:B69B:1451:FF5B:26A3 (talk) 10:44, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Can I get some assistance in correcting a picture description?

Howdy, a near cave-being here. Fixing and changing stuff digital is not my strong suit by any stretch of imagination. I simply noticed that the first photo's description here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_fin is wrong. Yes, it's a small thing, but I hate it and would like to see it fixed. The gray missile is to the left of the white missile. It is on the white missile's right side. 2600:1700:5D10:B7D0:DC02:C201:B0B4:CA73 (talk) 13:07, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Changed it. It's a pretty simple fix, just use the visual editor and you can edit it directly instead of trying to find it in the source. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 13:12, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Please, help me!

Hi, please check my article for compliance with Wikipedia rules. I will not refuse your professional advice.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:EGOV.PRESS

I just finished editing. Thanks. Zzremin (talk) 21:17, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Zzremin the draft will be reviewed in due time. Please be patient. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 22:52, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

FYI

Now accepted as Egov.Press. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:00, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

can this be a good introduction...

Can this be a good introduction or background if my research proposal is an investigation into the causes of accidents in road construction sites?

Extended content

Road is the root that leads people from place to another place. Due to the availability of roots people can move easily by foot, by donkeys or horses’ cart, camels, bullock cart or ox cart, bicycles, motor bikes, personal car, buses, trucks, and trains to deliver their products to the market and enter businesses with the nearby neighbours. Many young entrepreneurs have gained some little wealth through roads quick delivery to the consumers and that is another way of boosting up the economy of the country. With that desire even the small communities or constituencies within Uganda would wish to prioritized on having good roads and that has successfully been echoed by both the local and the central government to construct the rural, district, trunk and regional roads to ease the enter trading and movability among the communities. As there are demands for road constructions in the country, it has also created another competition from the bidders in which some with a negligent of road construction site safety that can safeguard the workers at site. An accident is typically defined as an unforeseen event that results in harm, injury, damage, or loss. In the context of road construction sites, accidents can involve workers, equipment, vehicles, and bystanders. Understanding the causes of accidents in road construction sites is crucial for improving safety measures and preventing future incidents (Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) - Construction Safety and Health), World Health Organization (WHO) report on road traffic injuries in Uganda, Uganda National Roads Authority (UNRA) accident reports and safety guidelines, Journal articles on road construction safety and accident prevention, Government reports on road infrastructure development and safety measures in Uganda. Safety regulations in road construction sites refer to the guidelines and rules set by government agencies or industry organizations to ensure the safety of workers, equipment, and the public during construction activities. These regulations often cover areas such as traffic control, personal protective equipment, equipment operation, and hazard communication. Workers at site are exposed to severe incidents such as struck by moving vehicles or equipment, falls from heights, electrocution, burns from hot materials or equipment, struck by falling objects, and caught in between objects or equipment. This study will later address all aspects of preventive measures that will mitigate the road construction site accidents that leads to fatalities and permanent disability. Disabilities can be physical, cognitive, sensory, or mental health related, and can have a significant impact on a person's daily life and functioning. Some major issues and sub-problems that will be looked at by the studies are like lack of proper training and safety protocols for construction workers, inadequate supervision and monitoring of work activities, poor communication and coordination among workers and contractors, unsafe working conditions and equipment, insufficient traffic control measures, and failure to comply with regulations and standards. In this exploration of investigating the causes of accidents in road construction sites in Uganda, the key independent variables that are expecting will be factors like weather conditions, traffic volume, worker experience, and safety protocols. Whereas the dependent variable will be the events of accidents at the road construction site. The event this study will like to look at will be mostly the relationship between these independent variables and the frequency and acuteness of accidents at road construction sites. This study of investigating the causes of accidents in road construction sites in Uganda will later explore the hypothesis such as the poor communication among workers that leads to an escalation risk of accidents in road construction sites, inadequate safety training for workers contributes to a higher rate of accidents in road construction sites and insufficient supervision and oversight on construction sites results in more accidents occurring as it is mentioned above. The studies will later on visit the boundaries of specific aspects of accidents in road construction sites such as the types of accidents, the locations where they occur, the time periods being studied, the specific causes being investigated, and any other relevant parameters that will help narrow down the scope of the research. The key concepts of this study are as follows: Accidents, road construction site, safety regulations, risk factors, and other key concepts that will be relevant to research. Mahafis

(talk) 07:37, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Mahafis. Unfortunately, we can't advise you on things other than editing Wikipedia, such as a research proposal that you're writing. Are you a university student? If so, could you ask your tutor or someone else at the university for advice on this instead? That would be my suggestion. We can only help with matters relating to Wikipedia editing. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:02, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Mahafis I will advise you that the answer IMHO is no. The very first sentence contains at least six mistakes. Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:55, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Very much "No". Shorten by more than half by deleting all content that is about roads in general, leaving only content about causes of accidents at construction sites. David notMD (talk) 14:00, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

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

Is this article now ready to be moved into the mainspace from the draft space? 81.104.111.169 (talk) 17:17, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, IP editor. In order for a draft article to be suitable for mainspace, it needs to be accepted by a reviewer. Right now, it is awaiting such a decision, which can take anywhere from a week to months. If it gets declined, you will need to revise your draft before it is suitable for inclusion in the mainspace, and then resubmit it for review after making the changes. I hope this helps answer your question. You should be notified when it is reviewed. — theki ^{(hit me up)} 17:54, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I have made a few grammar and style corrections, but I think the article is still lacking in sufficient sources to be accepted. You need several (ideally at least three) sources that are all independent of the subject and contain in-depth, significant coverage of the subject. As far as I can see, none of the sources currently in the article meet those requirements. There are a lot of sources that simply show that particular songs or performances exist but don't discuss either the songs or Siva himself in any detail. The only reference that says anything significant about Siva is the Local London reference, but that seems to have been written by Siva himself, so is not independent. I think you should work on finding better sources. CodeTalker (talk) 18:30, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

@CodeTalker Are BBC Network references not independent of the subject and in-depth? Do they not appear as in-depth interview coverages? 81.104.111.169 (talk) 18:59, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Interviews, by definition, are not independent of the person being interviewed. You need to find sources that are not interviews. 57.140.16.1 (talk) 19:17, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Ok 57.140.16.1 . Your feedback has been truly helpful for the development of Singer Sahi Siva's article. 81.104.111.169 (talk) 19:27, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

It's more complicated than that. Interviews of the article's subject that are also about the article's subject are non-independent. However, interviews of someone else about the article's subject are independent of the subject.

"Kai talks about Kai in an interview" is non-independent for an article about Kai. But "Lee talks about Kai in an interview" is independent. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:02, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

@CodeTalker Thank you for the information - but your judgement is wrong ! The Local London article was not written by Sahiththiyan Sivapalan and written by Shathuriya Sivapalan (two different people) 81.104.111.169 (talk) 19:36, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

And are the two Sivapalans connected or do they just happen to have the same name? If they are connected at all, it is not independent. ColinFine (talk) 20:22, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

@ColinFine The two Sivapalans are not connected. They are independent. 81.104.111.169 (talk) 22:24, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

How do you know that they are independent? Can you provide the sources that lead you to say that? Or do you have a personal connection with one or both of them?

I'm puzzled because this source refers to "Shathuriya Sivapalan" as a musician "fondly known as Sahi Siva". Did the source mistake one of the Sivapalans for the other? CodeTalker (talk) 23:59, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Sample: He has also talked about how independent artists like himself have recovered from the COVID-19 pandemic in his exclusive interview with BBC Asian Network. Also, Sid Sriram praised the independent artist and mentioned in an interview with BBC Asian Network that he has an interest to work with Sahi Siva because of his good voice. Many people have been interviewed about the recovery of their business from the pestilence. (And the "exclusive" interview: Who or what was excluded from what, exactly?) Many people have an interest in working with many other people. Many people mention many other people in interviews. This kind of material seems very trivial. -- Hoary (talk) 23:23, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

The editor may want to read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Thanks, User4edits (talk) 14:04, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Review help edit warring

Here is the edit where my revert was again reverted: [4]. I just noticed that this was the same person I had a conflict in the past on the same article and other articles thus, I am not going to revert back myself. But I am here to seek a opinion whether this person edits are justifiable or not. Thank you 456legendtalk 13:54, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I am also attaching the previous notice regarding the same user edit warring [5] since that went un noticed. (I don't know how to attach the archive, kindly excuse me for that) 456legendtalk 14:00, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

@456legend, are you trying to keep sentences such as:

• "He was arrested by the Crime Investigation Department (CID) police of Andhra Pradesh in a multi-crore scam"
• "He suffered a major political set back in the 2019 Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly Elections where he won only 23 seats out of the total 175 seats"
• "This was also Telugu Desam Party's worst ever defeat."

out of this Wikipedia article?

@Alalch E., I see you were in a discussion a year ago on the talk page. I wonder if you could help this editor with this concern. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:07, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. This version of an exclusively positive-POV lead was created on 10 November 2023: Special:Diff/1184040086/1184386766 by Fostera12. Content was moved from the "Recognition" section (read: the praise section) to the lead, in clear contravention of the policy that content must be written from a neutral point of view. In a sense, Chinnusaikrish reverted this, except that he lumped that content together with the awards, where it doesn't belong (to be clear, the former "Recognition" section wasn't good either). So it's not a good edit, but any edit which would revert that and restore the ridiculously non-policy-compliant lead would only be a worse edit. It takes a good edit to fix a non-good edit, not an even worse edit.

So do not revert.

The way forward is to separate out the content in the awards section that isn't about any particular award, and see what should be done about this content (the best thing would be to integrate it with the main chronological account of his political career). Then the lead can be worked on to properly summarize the body per MOS:LEAD. The lead needs to be neutral. The current lead that sums up the individual's political career in what's barely three sentences and puts so much weight on a "major polictical set back" and "worst ever defeat", and him being arrested is not neutral either. But the body should be worked on first to enable us to write a good lead, because a good lead can't be written if the body isn't good. —Alalch E. 20:23, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing That wasn't my intention. My point here is to whether the entire article summary needs to placed in the main lead or not? Is he only arrested in his entire life and there is nothing more to be summaried? I don't oppose adding his arrest and other criticism in the main lead but at the same time I also do not support removing the other sumarised content from the main lead. Anyways I am planning to not edit articles where this particular user is involved since he isn't ready for a proper discussion and either some false statement on me. Anyways thank you for your time. 456legendtalk 02:17, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

You ask a question with a false premise. You also skipped my reply entirely, and I gave a relevant response about what to do with the lead. The false premise is this: the other sumarised content from the main lead. There was no such content. The "Recognition" content being moved from the body to the lead does not cause anything to be summarized, obviously, and the current lead summarizes only some sections, but the summary needs to be much more complete. There is no summarizing version of the lead in the article's recent history. It needs to be written. —Alalch E. 08:07, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I felt compelled to fix the lead issues in this BLP, so I did my best to actually summarize the article, see Special:Permalink/1207815917. @456legend and Chinnusaikrish: How does this look to you? (You can also answer on the talk page with a link to this discussion.) —Alalch E. 20:17, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

@Alalch E. To be honest, if you feel I have posed a question here with a false premise, then I am sorry because that wasn't my intention. Regarding your summary edit, personally as a Wikipedia editor, I am not satisfied with the summary. I am of the opinion that it is highly focused on his failures rather than maintaining a neutral tone. By reading your summary in the first instance, I feel he is portrayed as a failed politician. This may be my opinion alone, thus I wish not to continue editing any further on that particular article to avoid conflict with you and the other editor. Thank you for your contributions. 456legendtalk 01:41, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

If you have any ideas how to avoid the perceived conclusion that he is a failed politician, please write them down on the article's talk page. —Alalch E. 07:07, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Whatever was edited by you in the lead section has already been presented in the page's respective sections. There is no need of a summary of all that content in the lead section. Regarding a politician's article there has to be only his previous posts and the present status of his political life. Any intentional boasting or achievements can be presented in the page's sections as I quoted before. So I'm regulating the lead section to his present status. Chinnusaikrish (talk) 06:33, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

After 835 edits since you registered on July 15, 2020, you should have gained a better understanding of how articles are written, and what the purpose of a lead section is. You do not have a sufficient level of competence to edit articles about active politicians. If you make an edit like this again, I will ask that you be blocked. —Alalch E. 07:02, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

@Chinnusaikrish, there is no rule restricting the lead to only his previous posts and the present status of his political life. Imagine what the lead to Winston Churchill would have looked like, if we followed your rule in 1945. The lead for all articles should summarize the contents of the whole article. There is no special restriction that lets you exclude prior achievements just because a politician lost the most recent election – nor to exclude prior failures just because the politician won the most recent election. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:42, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing@Alalch E. Just adding few of his other edits here [6] where it looks like a intention to defame the subjects of the article. Another instance [7] involving in multiple reverts on a single article which might fall under the 3R rule. Although I am not complaining about it nor going to edit them, but just wanted to bring it to your notice since this seems to be somewhat related. 456legendtalk 18:39, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Can i get help to solve a Conflict of interest and Notability of people

they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). RamKrishna20 (talk) 18:26, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

 2601:41:C202:890:B0B2:5F86:3FDD:4C84 (talk) 18:42, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

This is about Ram Krishna Bantawa, an excessively promotional and poorly referenced autobiography. It's likely to be deleted unless someone with knowledge of Nepali and of Wikipedia policies can improve it. Maproom (talk) 19:03, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Feeling like Himmler´s ghost here (draft review)

I tried to publish an article about a company, almost identical to 1000s of other articles, and I feel as if my "review" was a little ... strange. First thing was I got three messages about conflict of interest. I replied twice, and the person was very rude and acted strange and terse. Then I realized the article had been reviewed six hours earlier, before I made about nine more edits. What´s really strange is that it didn´t say so on the page until I clicked the link in the notification list. There, it said "This is just advertising!", by a third user.

So.. I published an article a teeny weeny bit early, just cosmetic changes. One user is telling me I´m a "black hat", a user called pigsofwing says a review has been done, and a user who has made 40 pages about pots is telling me an article practically identical to 1000s of others is "just advertising exclamation mark".

I don´t know who to talk to, and i don´t know how, frankly, because I don´t think talking to these three people will make a lick of difference one way or the other, and we haven´t even said hello.

This is the article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:ABL_Group NilsenAudun (talk) 21:11, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Hiya! You keep posting in different locations. Maybe life would be easier if you chose one location to have a conversation. When you leave a message somewhere, refresh the page after a minute or two and you probably already find a reply. If not, try again after 5 minutes. Perhaps the templates felt strange to you, but they are standard procedure here on Wikipedia. On my own talkpage I also received the same welcome template. And explaining our conflict of interest and paid editing policies is not rude; these messages are carefully crafted by community members to be helpful. Can we have a conversation here please? If you reply here I will also reply here. Messages for you were left at the talkpage of the draft, on the AfC helpdesk and the normal helpdesk and your talkpage. Polygnotus (talk) 21:19, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

How many sources do I need to create a Wikipedia article?!

In numbers how many exactly sources do I need?! JarvikLarsson23 (talk) 19:36, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

JarvikLarsson23 It's more about the quality of the coverage than the quantity. One scholarly book about a topic is better than several tabloid articles. But a good rule of thumb is to start with three sources before writing an article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:52, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

JarvikLarsson23, the three sources mentioned above must each have three specific attributes. Each must be reliable and must devote significant coverage to the topic, and must be fully independent of the topic. Cullen328 (talk) 20:04, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

@JarvikLarsson23 Two of your citations in your draft come from the company's website. They can't be used in this case because they're not independent of the subject. You'll need to find more independent, reliable sources if you want your draft to be accepted. Cheers ‍ Relativity 00:19, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Merging WP:AFD nominations

I've just listed Nano Nuclear Energy and Jay Jiang Yu for deletion. They are parallel subjects and use very similar sourcing, would it be appropiate to merge this? I don't actually know how to merge them so if someone thinks it's appropriate and can help me with that that would be awesome. TLA (talk) 03:01, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

@I'm tla seems best to discuss them individually. Multiple articles are discussed in a single AFD when the topics are so similar it's unlikely that one topic would have substantially more/different coverage than any other in the set. That happens rarely enough that you almost never get anywhere with those kind of AFDs. I noticed that you mentioned one article in the other but not vice versa. May want to mention the AFD instead and do it both ways. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:32, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Alright sounds good, will keep it that way. I'll mention NNE in Jay Jiang Yu's AFD, thanks. TLA (talk) 03:35, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Teahouse restrictions ?

The Teahouse in action - one lump, or two?

If the Teahouse is mainly for new editors, is there a limit on how long after new editors begin doing things on Wikipedia can they use the Teahouse rather than other ways of getting help? Augnablik (talk) 21:29, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

@Augnablik Nope, you’re always welcome and free to use the Teahouse for as long as you wish. Obviously, were you to ask a really technical question, we might refer you to another forum. But we’re dead friendly here, so it’s the best place to come for help. (We’re even known to serve tea, too) Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:03, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Nick. I'll assume that if the Teahouse is "dead friendly," the lumps referred to in the the photo are sweet rather than otherwise ... Augnablik (talk) 16:09, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

@Augnablik, one Wiki trick you might like to know as a new(ish) editor is that a lot of the time if you type WP: and then a word that describes what you want into the search bar, you'll be taken to a page that covers that thing. Or if you didn't get the word quite right, there's often links to point you in the right direction! Here's some, for example: WP:CITE; WP:RELIABLE; WP:NOTABLE; and of course the extremely useful WP:TEA!

(I know you've been here for a while, but I only learned the WP: thing recently and it's so useful I wanted to share) StartGrammarTime (talk) 06:52, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, StartGrammarTime. I hadn't heard of that trick. This is the sort of thing that could be helpful if placed in a "Did you know?" box somewhere.

Also thank you for the designation of newish editor, as that sort of fits someone like me who's been connected with Wiki for two years but off and on with activity. Somehow, new editor didn't seem to fit any more, but neither did anything else — certainly not senior editor. Augnablik (talk) 16:19, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

@Augnablik Did You Know... that you can add {{Totd3}} to your userpage and discover all sorts of hints and tips? One per day, in fact! Nick Moyes (talk) 21:27, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

That would be great if I could do it, Nick. Now as a newish editor I have to ask HOW. Augnablik (talk) 01:21, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

@Augnablik That one's easy! Edit your userpage the same way you would an article, and just put the code Nick has given you somewhere - maybe up the top to make it easy to find. I'm going to do the same, actually, so thank you @Nick. StartGrammarTime (talk) 03:18, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

@Augnablik Looks like you've sorted it - well done! Nick Moyes (talk) 09:26, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Although you sent a "well done" message to me on this, I didn't quite succeed in doing what you suggested ... as you found out later when you went to check on it, though unasked for this further help ... and fixed it!

Now that I've discovered Wiki editors can be thanked in a way that reflects on their user pages, I would like to do that for you rather than here in the Teahouse. How is that sort of thanks done? Don't blush, just please advise. 🙂 Augnablik (talk) 00:03, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

@Augnablik Go to the page Nick helped you on, and view its history - near the end of the line that tells you about Nick's edit, you will see (undo | thank). From there I think your path should be clear! StartGrammarTime (talk) 04:34, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Untitled (article for myself)

How can i make an article for myself , self promoting + a bit biography Franko456789 (talk) 09:02, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, @Franko456789: that is not what Wikipedia is for. There are plenty of social and professional networking sites that will be happy to have your content. If you would like to read more about the problems with this, see WP:AUTOBIO.--Gronk Oz (talk) 09:18, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

I have those but from google its better if it shows you when they search. Anyway thnx Franko456789 (talk) 09:20, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Franko456789, any form of self-promotion is strictly forbidden on Wikipedia, and you will be blocked if you engage in that behavior. Cullen328 (talk) 09:21, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Dont worry, i dont care anymore about wikipedia,bye Franko456789 (talk) 09:24, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

You have had multiple drafts rejected because you are ignoring the helpful advice you have been given on your talk page. If you are seriously interested in contributing please at least read WP:Your first article. Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:22, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Archiving URLs

I've posted a question about archive site preferences on Help talk:Archiving a source under the heading Preferences but mention it here since previous posts there have received little reaction. I'd be grateful if anyone with suggestions could reply there. Mcljlm (talk) 08:52, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Mcljlm, I am answering only because no one has. The fact that no one has answered likely means no one has cared enough to have a preference yet. Both are likely fine or they wouldn't have been mentioned on the help page. So, why don't you try both out and see which one may fit better with our philosophy of preserving and sharing knowledge worth knowing? Then you can share your findings for the next time someone has the same question. Some of the things I would consider would be, whether one is easier to use comparatively, whether it's free of ads, whether it requires you to register, whether it asks you to pay, whether people can get to the saved page in a straighforward manner when clicking on it from our reference section, whether one of them is likely to be more legal (more transparency and respect for copyright). Or if you don't want to bother, just pick one at random. Best, — Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:27, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Can someone help me draft an article?

Please :) Cyao123 (talk) 21:24, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Cyao123 I'm happy to help. At the moment there isn't good sources that are applicable for Wikipedia (please see the message you received as it was declined). But I did a bit of research and you can try incorporating these two, which look promising:

• https://www.juneauempire.com/sports/foy-chasing-fmc-natatorium-pool-record/
• https://www.thetelegraph.com/sports/article/IHSA-moving-state-swim-meet-to-Westmont-16416519.php

TLA (talk) 03:15, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

At Draft:FMC Natatorium, two of your three refs are to the business' own website. Other content has no refs. David notMD (talk) 10:26, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Please check my article

Dear participants! Please check my article for compliance with Wikipedia rules. After receiving the "notability" tag, I rewrote the article, adding authoritative sources and evidence of significance. Thank you. Egov.Press Zzremin (talk) 22:56, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I can't read Russian (at least not to the level I'd need) or Kazakh (at all) so I can't speak about your sources, however I have done some copy editing to improve its readability somewhat. It should probably be placed somewhere in the lead about how the site changed from egov.press to alash.online - actually, I tell you what, I'll add that myself. WP:BOLD and all that. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 10:58, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

In fact, I would actually recommend that the page be moved to alash.online, considering it was moved there in their first year and it's likely that all petitions made by them were made under alash.online. Any thoughts from anyone else? CommissarDoggo^Talk? 11:05, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Excessive red links on Alderfly page

I rewrote the Classification subsection on Alderfly page some time ago. For every species name I added or moved, I wikilinked them, as every species name had a link of their own previously. Considering nearly all of them are a red link I ask if some or all of these should be removed? As the editing guideline on red links states:

• Articles that are unlikely to be created and retained on Wikipedia, including articles that do not comply with Wikipedia's naming conventions.

I find it unlikely for many of these species to ever receive an article of their own, as such should they be un-linked? Bronzeman2342 (talk) 16:43, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

@Bronzeman2342 Welcome to the Teahouse. No, absolutely not! Keep them all as redlinks, please! You've done just the right thing.

Every valid taxon deserves its own Wikipedia article, as every validly-named taxon is regarded as Notable, per WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. So, your quotation above is quite irrelevant. OK, so I wouldn't redlink synonyms until such time as an article on the currently-accepted name is created. Other than that, I find it immensely helpful to see redlinks for animal and plant taxa, as it indicates how much work remains to be done, as well as pointing other editors towards pages they might wish to create - even if it's only a very short stub of a page.

Now, it could be argued that for a large group of insects - indeed any group of organisms - it wouldn't be appropriate to create a vast Classification subsection, listing them all on the main article about that group. But I don't think that section is too long here (although it's maybe getting close). One could put the list into a table and make it collapsible. But I think for now it's just fine. Good work! Nick Moyes (talk) 16:54, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Reset password

Hello,

I've been having trouble with resetting my password recently. I did this a few days ago, but I forgot it and now I cannot reset it because it asks me to input it. I have not saved my email to my account. Can anybody help me with this? Thank you. Sussybaka6000 (talk) 07:24, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Sussybaka6000, that's kinda the point of the password, that you remember it, and nobody find an alternative way to get in without it. You can create a new account, and just forget about this account. If you would like continuity, do it from another browser so you don't have to log out of this account. Add a note to this account's userpage declaring what your new account is. Then, log in with your new account and again declare on your new userpage that it's yours. Best, — Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:16, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

@Sussybaka6000 Since you are currently logged into your account, it is possible that your browser has stored the password. Try the settings of the browser: for example if you have a Microsoft account your passwords are likely to be associated with it. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:15, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

I cleared all of my passwords a few days ago in favor of a password book. I changed my password and I wrote it down, but the password I try does not work. I have a committed identity string on my user page; perhaps that could help in recovering my account? Sussybaka6000 (talk) 15:52, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Since you're currently logged into your account, you should be able to add your e-mail address to your account preferences at Special:Preferences, and then reset your password that way. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:56, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

I just tried that, but it asks me to enter my password for security reasons. Sussybaka6000 (talk) 16:05, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Cordless Larry, no, it will ask your password for that too. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:07, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Oh, of course. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:08, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Sussybaka6000, it would be possible but that takes time and I think a coordinated effort of multiple humans. I didn't suggest it to you because creating a new account is way more efficient. I do not know how they will respond to a request to reset an account with 200 odd edits. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:11, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Well thank God then that I remembered the password. I was bummed but I looked through my other passwords and tried one for it to work! Thanks for all your help. Sussybaka6000 (talk) 16:46, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm pleased to hear that, Sussybaka6000. Do consider adding your e-mail address in your preferences now (if you haven't already done so)! Cordless Larry (talk) 17:12, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

I did as soon as I got in. Sussybaka6000 (talk) 17:13, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

How can this article be moved to the "main namespace"?

Draft:Ski route has been in the draft namespace for quite some time. The article has improved, so the next logical step would be to move it back. Is there like some special place I go to for moving pages? Thanks, TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 16:59, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

@TrademarkedTWOrantula Welcome to the Teahouse. I find it hard to see how this draft fills a gap between Piste and Off-piste / back country skiing articles. Surely its contents belong as a section within one or the other, and deserves better sourcing if it's to be seen as a notable, standalone topic? Nick Moyes (talk) 17:09, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Hm... okay. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 17:10, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

@TrademarkedTWOrantula Oh - an afterthought: Before moving it into mainspace, I'd suggest you post at WP:WikiProject Skiing and Snowboarding to seek their input or consensus, but I'm not totally convinced that "Ski Route" is a correctly-named, notable topic without better sourcing, even if a few runs like the wonderful Vallee Blanche route from the top of the Aig du Midi down to Montenvers are called that. I know bits of it quite well from my mountaineering days, and recognise it's not a pisted or marked route. I fear the useful content in that draft might well be lost if it isn't included in one or other article - probably back country/off-piste skiing. (I see my old friend User:Bermicourt created and then enhanced this one (hence the ping)). Oh, and see WP:MOVE for the answer to your question. Nick Moyes (talk) 17:23, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Deletion of a page spreading misinformation

I had reviewed a page House of Romay thoroughly ad the page is significantly spreading misleading information about the Romay family. Moreover, a user has been constantly reverting the cleanups and removed unreliable sources. How can i delete this page? Daliaxer (talk) 13:52, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, you seem to have already sort of figured out, though there are formatting issues, make sure you precisely follow the instructions at WP:AFD. 331dot (talk) 14:00, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Information being out of date is not grounds for deletion, it is grounds to fix the problems. 331dot (talk) 14:02, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

I would have fixed it if the information was out of date but the information on page is literally misleading. Most of it i cleaned up which was either cited by dead links or unreliable sources. Other than that, WP:PROD criteria was also utilised upon the suggestion of an administrator (username: Explicit). This user removed the speedy deletion template and suggested WP:PROD which was followed. Even after 7 days, no one rectified this article or added any reliable sources, but still the template was removed by same user calling it ineligible. Same user suggested to utilise WP:AFD criterion now but still no one appears in the discussion page to talk about the deletion or retention of this page. What else should i follow? Daliaxer (talk) 14:21, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Daliaxer, I have fixed the formatting issues, I think. If I missed something, someone else will fix it. All you need to do is wait for other people to join the deletion discussion and convince them of your position. An uninvolved administrator will evaluate the discussion in seven days and determine the result, delete the article if that's the result. Meanwhile, you should read up on notability (WP:GNG) and the deletion policy (WP:DP) so you are able to make policy-compliant arguments. Votes that come with arguments non-compliant with policy are likely to be disregarded. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:14, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

@Daliaxer Just a passing observation that it's a) ok for another user to remove unreliable sources (assuming that's what you meant to write!). And b) the topic may actually be notable if there are lots of RELIABLE SOURCES talking about it as being a fantasy construct. In which case the whole tone of the article needs to focus on it being a well-known fake or hoax, not a real thing. So deletion might not actually be the best route after all. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:45, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

For multiple reasons, I am losing faith in this platform which is reflecting that its bias for certain type of information while strictly following the guidelines for other type of information. I tried publishing a page strictly following the WP:N and WP:BLP guidelines and using very strong reliable sources, page is still in AFC under review after almost a month. :/ Daliaxer (talk) 17:47, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

@Daliaxer Every single one of us here who helps maintain this encyclopaedia of over 6.7 million articles is a volunteer! We give our time freely to support and guide users, fend off vandals and give feedback when it is sought. Not a penny changes hands. But there are currently over 1,760 draft articles waiting for a volunteer to donate their time and effort to review articles like yours, and to give feedback to the person who created it if it isn't good enough.

Sometimes, of course, an interesting-sounding draft can catch a reviewer's eye and they might well assess it immediately. It might be about a high mountain, a species new to science or a Nobel prize winning scientist. Certainly, I am biased towards those types of articles, even though I do not participate in the review process myself. Rarely, however, are draft articles about venture capitalists of great interest to many reviewers, as they're so very often promotional and make pretty dull reading. It's up to reviewers how they volunteer their time, and to what topics. Some focus on the dregs that others have left unreviewed - and their efforts are indeed greatly appreciated. So please wait your turn and try not to lose faith. The review process can take a couple of months or so, as the notice on your draft submission clearly stated. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:53, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

How convert standard TEX paper to Wikipedia format, particularly references

I have a standard formatted math/physics paper in TEX format. How do I convert it to Wikipedia format. Beisenbe (talk) 15:17, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

@Beisenbe Welcome to the Teahouse. I can't help you directly, but you might find something of relevance at Help:Displaying a formula. We do have various conversion tools, though I've no idea if we have anything relevant to your question, as it's a bit above my paygrade. But a hasty Google search found this, if it's of any use.

Be aware that you must ensure you don't infringe anyone's copyright if adding more than a mere formula from a maths or physics paper. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 16:44, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Beisenbe, and welcome to the Teahouse. If the paper in question is then one you have put in Draft:Maxwell's True Current, then I'm afraid it doesn't look much like a Wikipedia article to me (and I'm talking about the content, not the formatting).

A Wikipedia article is a summary of what several independent reliable sources say about a subject, nothing more. It may not contain any argumentation or conclusions, unless it is directly reporting what a single source argued or concluded. Your draft looks to me like original research.

If you begin writing an article by doing anything at all other than finding several independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject, then you are certainly making your task difficult, and possibly wasting your time. ColinFine (talk) 21:54, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia page:

How is a photograph added? How is a page uploaded to visualize on the web under Wikipedia? J. Patrick Johnson, MD (talk) 17:21, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Please see WP:Images and WP:Your first article Shantavira|^{feed me} 17:24, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Judging from the content of your user and talk pages, you might also do well to read:

• WP:USER to see that your user page and user-talk pages are not for self-promotion;
• WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY
• WP:SELFPROMOTION

Bazza (talk) 17:29, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

@J. Patrick Johnson, MD I very nearly deleted your userpage as Wikipedia is not a web-hosting platform. However, I've moved it to Draft:J. Patrick Johnson, MD. Whether it survives remains to be seen. Wikipedia articles must be based upon what independent, published sources say, not what the subject wants to tell us about themselves from their own personal knowledge.

@Bazza 7 has just given you some extra useful pointers, so has saved me a job. Please use LinkedIn if you want to promote yourself, and read WP:NBIO on our criteria for notable people, and WP:NPROF for academics. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 17:33, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

@J. Patrick Johnson, MD I would add that including a photograph to which you own the copyright is not necessary to establish NOTABILITY (the critical criterion for acceptance. I suggest you focus on addressing that by the use of published RELIABLE SOURCES in your draft about yourself, and worry about adding images much later on. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:37, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Provide references for everything and reduce "Selected publications" to no more than ten. If there is content that lacks valid references - even if true - delete it. David notMD (talk) 03:41, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Can somebody help me review my article before I publish it?

My article was declined, I corrected some mistakes and it's ready to be publish. Can somebody help me and review it to make sure It doesn't have mistakes? I see some red words about citations. I believe is typo problems not issues with context. Thanks in advance. OFTB (talk) 17:46, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello OFTB. This is about Draft:Claudia Uceda. Anything published by Univision is not an independent source, and seven of your eleven references are to things published by Univision. You need to build your draft around sources entirely independent of Uceda and her employer. Non-independent sources should be used only in a minor way. Cullen328 (talk) 18:26, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

There isn't really a pre-review system for drafts, you should click submit to get a review. Theroadislong (talk) 18:49, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi there. Looks like you haven't seen the new version and my corrections. Thanks for the pre-view comment though. OFTB (talk) 19:15, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

The Articles for Creation process is specifically designed to review articles before they are published. Use that. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 20:31, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

There is nothing in policies or guidelines that prevents an editor from asking for informal comments or feedback on drafts here at the Teahouse. This is not the place for formal reviews but nobody should be discouraged from asking for advice and hints for improvement. Any editor who chooses not to comment on a draft can simply refrain from commenting on that draft. Cullen328 (talk) 09:15, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Declined Li Ziting AFC

Hello, my AfC was just declined by user Broc reason being that the article does not have an Rs and independent source of which the article obviously does have. Please I would like a more review on the above article, I want to know if there is any other error on the article that I should be fixing because the person about the article is highly notable. Thanks. Thisasia (talk) 07:58, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

@Thisasia please have a look at notability criteria for musicians. Does Li Ziting fulfill any of the criteria listed there? (example: did they have an album on national charts?) It is generally unclear from your article what the achievements of the singer in question are, and why they would be notable on their own; the band they were part of is indeed notable, but that does not mean each of the individual members are. Broc (talk) 08:08, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes of course, the musician is highly notable and popular, she now a solo artist with many albums and with many achievements, this are what I ought to be adding gradually while the article is approved. Thanks Thisasia (talk) 08:15, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

@Thisasia please add said achievements, then resubmit for approval. In the current article state, notability is not shown. Broc (talk) 08:45, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

alright I will do so, thanks for your time. Thisasia (talk) 08:51, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

@Thisasia There are formatting errors (please read WP:FORMAT) and a lot of the sources you use are just artist profiles. I would suggest looking for articles in newspapers/magazines about Li Ziting. TLA (talk) 10:05, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Template documentation

Could I trouble someone who's familiar with template terminology to take a look at Template:For-multi/doc § TemplateData?

Broadly, odd-numbered parameters are the "use" texts and even-numbered ones the "page" texts in the "For [use], see [page]. For [another use], see [another page]. [...]" output. Both types may be blank, with "other uses" and "[current page] (disambiguation)" as defaults. For both types, there's an additional complication in that a blank parameter is affected by and/or affects other parameters.

I just now added the second sentences to the "use"-type descriptions - "if unused or blank, defaults to [...] and ignores parameters [...]" - to try and cover that, based on experimentation. I also think the parameter numbers in the "page"-type descriptions are each off by one - parameter 4 refers to "parameter 4", itself, instead of "parameter 3", the corresponding "use"-type parameter, which I suspect was the intention.

As I don't have a full understanding of terms like "unused", "blank", "exists" in this context, the latter edit should be made by someone else, and the former edit may need rephrasing.

Cheers! :)

- 2A02:560:5821:6C00:6961:BA0A:AD59:72C4 (talk) 14:27, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

@Paine Ellsworth and Sdkb:, if you can please. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:37, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

 Corrected – thank you for the ping, editor Usedtobecool! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 10:41, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

How to add an image to any Wikipedia article?

please help me,I'm really confused about how to add an image. Sheikbaba36524 (talk) 11:26, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

For starters, Sheikbaba36524, please specify the image. I mean, here, in this thread, please link to it. -- Hoary (talk) 11:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

a serious obscene interference with one of your articles

When my search engine returns the results of looking for Marwan Bishara it returns the two lines including a very toxic characterization of his birth. If I click and open the article that same text is not there. Somebody is causing some serious harm to your website. Can you please look into this as quickly as possible. Here is the link. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=marwin+bishara+Wikipedia&t=fpas&ia=web 171.98.18.238 (talk) 10:54, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

That is a Google problem which will presumably be solved when robots do the rounds again. Theroadislong (talk) 11:16, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Google may be blamed for many things, but not for Duckduckgo's activities. Unfortunately Duckduckgo happened to spider this page during the few hours on 12 February when some fool's revision was visible. -- Hoary (talk) 11:23, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

There was some vandalism to the article Marwan Bishara a week ago, which was reverted a few hours later and hidden from the history - presumably because it was offensive or obscene. Wikipedia has no control of how often search engines update their databases. ColinFine (talk) 11:27, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I hid it from the history just a few minutes ago, primarily in order to deny the troll the pleasure of showing it to any similarly stupid friend. -- Hoary (talk) 11:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Jane Parker (academic)

Hello, Could the academic field that follows my name on a Wikipedia page please be changed. I am an 'Industrial Relations' (not Management) academic and the distinction is quite important in terms of conveying the focus of my research. If this could be changed, that would be much appreciated, Jane

Academic discipline following name (please remove 'Management' and change to 'Industrial Relations' - thank you. 213.86.145.216 (talk) 11:03, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I have moved the article to Jane Parker (academic) which is simpler. Theroadislong (talk) 11:14, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I have done a tidying exercise, but more is required. The section of selected works is far too long: this is not an academic directory. Aim for 10 maximum. You should also remember you have a WP:COI in this article. Bazza (talk) 12:34, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Jonathan Burrows page

I am trying to edit my father's wikipedia page. He has made several embellishments about his career, aswell as a long and erroneous section regarding his hobbies. What can I do? Zanelburrows (talk) 04:34, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Jonathan Burrows is a disambiguation page: which of the two individuals listed there is the subject in question? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 176.24.45.226 (talk) 05:42, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Zanelburrows, I have nominated Jonathan Burrows (producer) for deletion. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:38, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Interesting history here - draft created in 2018, soft deleted 5/2023, restored 6/2023, Zanelburrows recently (and before the delete as IP) removed large sections of content that were restored by others. The article is now at AfD. Zanelburrows given you claim to be his son, you are not supposed to edit the article directly, but rather to propose changes on the article's Talk page. At the AfD, you can state that you recommend the article be deleted (if that is your intent). David notMD (talk) 13:52, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Uploading logos – local vs global

Hello everyone,😊
I would appreciate some guidance here:
I uploaded two logos to Wikipedia and they both stay on the English Wikipedia:
– File:Kurk_Lietuvai_logo_(2024).png
– File:Kalnapilis_logo_(2024).svg

They are not available on Wikimedia Commons:
– Commons:File:Kurk_Lietuvai_logo_(2024).png
– Commons:File:Kalnapilis_logo_(2024).svg

However, other logos are available globally on the Wikimedia Commons::
– Commons:File:Microsoft_logo_(2012).svg
– Commons:File:SANDVIK.svg

What causes this difference?
Frequently.by.train (talk) 15:40, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Frequently, and welcome to the Teahouse. Because the latter are below the COM:Threshold of originality and so are regarded as public domain, and Commons will accept them. Note that the law relating to this varies from country to country. ColinFine (talk) 15:47, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, ColinFine.

But how does one upload logos to Wikimedia Commons?

How do you "test" the logos for c:COM:Threshold of originality?

The logos I uploaded certainly fit the licensing info used on other logos:
This logo image consists only of simple geometric shapes or text. It does not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection, and is therefore in the public domain. Although it is free of copyright restrictions, this image may still be subject to other restrictions. See WP:PD § Fonts and typefaces or Template talk:PD-textlogo for more information.

Frequently.by.train (talk) 15:54, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

You'll need to ask on Commons. Try C:COM:VPC, ColinFine (talk) 17:05, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Sources from videos and such.

Hello, I wanted to edit the trivia/video games area of the "Numbers Stations" article. The trivia is because the popular videogame "Omori" uses the Achtung numbers station broadcast as part of one of it's tracks. The only way I can prove it is due to a Youtube comment under the video that has the track, can a youtube comment be used as a credible source?

Article: Numbers station I dunno about this (talk) 16:47, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion, if an independent source has not commented on the use, then it is too trivial to be mentioned in a Wikipedia article: see NOTINDISCRIMINATE. If it is accepted that it is worth mentioning, then, yes, it can be its own source, along the lines of WP:PLOTSOURCE. ColinFine (talk) 17:11, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Michael Isikoff Wikipedia entry

Hi there. I updated my Wikipedia entry last week to reflect that I no longer work for Yahoo News and added name of my most recent book. I also made a few other minor, non-controversial fixes. Although it now says the entry was updated last week, the actual changes are not showing up on my life Wikipedia page. Can you help so the updates get added? Michael Isikoff Misikoff (talk) 16:56, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello Misikoff, and welcome to the Teahouse. The only edits showing in Special:History/Michael Isikoff in the last week were made by Mikeross22 and Joe Friendly, and they have not been reverted; so if looks as if you did not save your edits.

However, as you have a conflict of interest you are very strongly discouraged from editing the article directly, and instead should make edit requests on the talk page, citing reliable published sources for any information you wish to add, and an uninvolved editor will be along to review the requested change. ColinFine (talk) 17:18, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I would also encourage you to think about it as a Wikipedia article about you, rather than my Wikipedia entry ; just as if The New York Times wrote an article about you. 331dot (talk) 17:22, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Inquiry About the Status of My First Published Article

I recently made my first contribution to Wikipedia by publishing an article. As this is my initial foray into editing and contributing, I'm eager to understand the process that follows the publication of a new article. I've noticed that my article is live, but I'm unsure about how to interpret its current status and what steps I should expect next. Could someone kindly explain: How can I check if my article has been reviewed or needs further improvements? Are there specific signs or notifications I should look for that indicate its acceptance or if any issues have been identified? As a new contributor, are there common post-publication steps I should be aware of to ensure my article meets Wikipedia's standards? I'm committed to contributing positively to the Wikipedia community and would greatly appreciate any guidance or advice you can offer to a newcomer. Thank you for your time and assistance. Hichem872642 (talk) 22:32, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

@Hichem872642, you tried to create an article on your userpage. That's not actually published. If you would like your article to be reviewed and to actually be live, please go see WP:AfC. Aside from that problem, you don't have any reliable sources to back up some of your claims in your article, and your section titled "Cultural Significance" is filled with a lot of puffery and non-neutral language. Cheers ‍ Relativity 23:52, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your response and the valuable feedback. I genuinely appreciate the guidance on the correct process for publishing an article through Wikipedia's Articles for Creation (WP:AfC) and the insights regarding the need for reliable sources and neutral language in my article. As a newcomer, understanding these nuances is crucial for me, and your advice has shed light on areas I need to improve.

I will revisit my article to address the issues you've highlighted, particularly focusing on substantiating my claims with reliable sources and revising the "Cultural Significance" section to ensure it adheres to Wikipedia's neutrality standards. This learning process is incredibly important to me, and I'm committed to making the necessary adjustments to contribute effectively to the Wikipedia community.

Once I've made these revisions, I plan to submit my article through the AfC process for review. If you have any further advice on finding reliable sources or tips on maintaining a neutral tone, I'd be grateful for your insights.

Thank you again for taking the time to help me navigate these initial steps. Your support is invaluable to me as I strive to become a constructive member of the Wikipedia community. Hichem872642 (talk) 11:09, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

@Hichem872642 I have moved your draft from your user page to Draft:Beef Negimaki, where you should work on it and base it upon RELIABLE SOURCES. You should consider whether continuing with it is actually worthwhile, bearing in mind there is already a page entitled Negimaki, which could be expanded upon, if appropriate so to do. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree that rather than try to get this draft accepted, you abandon it and consider if you have interesting, referenced information that can be added to Negimaki. David notMD (talk) 03:46, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your straightforward advice. I understand the importance of contributing valuable and well-referenced information to Wikipedia, and if enhancing the existing Negimaki article is the best way to do this, I am open to taking that path.

I will review the current content of the Negimaki page to identify areas where my research and insights could provide additional value or fill gaps in the existing information. My priority is to ensure that any contribution I make is backed by reliable sources and adds to the collective knowledge on the topic.

I appreciate your guidance and the opportunity to learn more about the editorial process on Wikipedia. This experience has been incredibly educational, and I'm grateful for the feedback that helps me understand how to be a more effective contributor.

Thank you once again for your time and for helping me navigate these decisions. I look forward to applying this advice and continuing to contribute to the Wikipedia community in a meaningful way. Hichem872642 (talk) 11:13, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much for taking the time to move my draft to the appropriate space and for your valuable advice on focusing on reliable sources. I appreciate your guidance on the proper procedures and the suggestion to consider the existing Negimaki page as a potential avenue for contribution.

I will thoroughly review the current Negimaki article to understand how my research and writing might complement and enhance the information already available. My goal is to contribute meaningfully to the topic, and if expanding upon the existing page is the best way to do so, I am more than willing to adapt my approach.

I'll dedicate some time to gathering more reliable sources to support my draft and ensure that any contributions I make align with Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and neutrality. Your reminder about the importance of reliable sources is well-taken, and I commit to upholding these standards in my revisions.

Thank you again for your assistance and for helping me navigate this process. Your input is invaluable to me as a new contributor seeking to add value to the Wikipedia community. Hichem872642 (talk) 11:11, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Are you using an AI to write these posts? Please don't, we want to hear from you. 331dot (talk) 11:15, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for reaching out and expressing your concern. I understand where you're coming from, and I want to clarify that I don't use AI to create my posts. My native language is French, and I often rely on Google Translate to help with my English orthography and ensure my messages are clear. Rest assured, the thoughts and content I share are entirely my own, crafted in my native language before being translated. I'm committed to maintaining authenticity in our interactions and appreciate your understanding of the extra step I take to communicate more effectively in English. Hichem872642 (talk) 11:36, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

There are a lot of problems with the language in this article. I urge you to read WP:WORDSTOWATCH and recognize that your language is not neutrally phrased or encyclopedic in tone. For example, "Served in bite-sized pieces, beef negimaki is accompanied by a dipping sauce that complements the marinade, making it a versatile dish that can be enjoyed as an appetizer, side dish, or main course" is an inappropriate sentence for an encyclopedia; the notions that the dipping sauce "complements the marinade" or is a "versatile dish that can be enjoyed" are WP:PEACOCK-type language that expresses a non-neutral opinion in Wikipedia's voice. We want facts here, not opinions about how good a food tastes. And also, neither "beef" nor "negimaki" should be capitalised except as the first word in a sentence; this is not a trademarked name (like Big Mac) and food/dish names are lowercased except for individual words that are proper nouns (as in oysters Rockefeller). Thanks. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 19:24, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out the issues with neutrality and tone, as well as the capitalization errors. I'll make the necessary revisions to ensure the article adheres to Wikipedia's standards. If you have a moment after I've made these changes, I would greatly appreciate it if you could review the modifications to ensure they meet the community's expectations. Your expertise would be invaluable in guiding these improvements. Thank you again for your help. Hichem872642 (talk) 20:36, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Using a sponsored source for more information about a BLP's project

Hi all, currently working on Draft:Divya Thakur and there's some information about her work with Marriott Hotels that is briefly briefly in an New York Times profile. I found this source on Vogue that is published by Marriott with a lot more info. Could this be used to gather info? TLA (talk) 04:35, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

It could be used to corroborate some factual information (e.g. when she did a particular thing), but not to support her notability or to provide evaluations of her (e.g. how good a designer she is), since the publisher is one of her employers/clients. {The poster formerly known as 897.81.230.195} 176.24.45.226 (talk) 05:47, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm tla, that seems to be a supplement paid for by Marriott. Effectively, you'd be citing an advertisement. Not impressive. Better look elsewhere. I read in the draft that this person is a designer and architect. And I read that "Her 2016 installation, 'Design: The India Story' [...] attracted approximately 250,000 visitors. The same year, she was named 'Best Dressed' by Verve magazine." A quarter of a million is a vast number of visitors to an installation. Presumably some architecture/design journalists/critics were among them. What have they written about it? In comparison, praise for her clothing seems utterly trivial (perhaps even slightly demeaning, as I'd have thought that her works would be a lot more important than her looks). -- Hoary (talk) 05:57, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

That's fair, I'll just say "one of" Marriot's campaigns as the New York Times mentions as it's not really a big part of the article anyway. I just created the article, so I might add some more info to the paragraph about her installation "Design: The India Story" if it comes back to my mind.

What do you mean that being named 'Best Dressed' by Verge is demeaning? It's just a fact and it's only a tiny part in the whole article. TLA (talk) 06:11, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm tla, she's a designer and architect (or so I read here). Her significance is, I would have thought, in what she does rather than in what she looks like. -- Hoary (talk) 12:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

It is. But isn't it appropriate to mention that that was one of the awards she won? It's cited in a bunch of the sources. TLA (talk) 21:13, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree: it might not contribute to her notability, but it does give a fuller picture of her as a person, and if the magazine itself is notable I think a mention of her receiving an award from it is a fact worth mentioning. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 176.24.45.226 (talk) 21:27, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Ft Ritchie, US Army Counter intelligence Corps, Henry Kissenger, WW2, Ritchie Boys

Henry Kissinger served in ww2 in a divisional counterintelligence regimental team, see https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/article/henry-kissingers-world-war-ii/ I thought I read someplace else, that he received counterintelligence training at Ft Ritchie, but I may be wrong. Further research by your editors, may be required. 2600:8805:A886:D200:C8ED:2759:1A96:36C (talk) 19:19, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

If you have suggestions to improve an article, start a discussion on that article's talk page. If you want to do more research, that's up to you. RudolfRed (talk) 20:59, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Teahouse hosts are volunteers here to advise, not to research nor co-author. David notMD (talk) 21:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. You are as much one of "our editors" as anybody else.

Generally, if you have an idea for something to be added to Wikipedia, there are really only two effective ways to do it. One is to add it yourself; the other is to enthuse another editor with the idea so they want to do it. It is possible that somebody reading your post here will be interested enough to look into it; but not very likely. Better places to suggest it would be the talk pages of a relevant article (eg Talk:Henry Kissinger or of a relevant WikiProject (eg WT:WikiProject Politics or maybe WT:WikiProject Espionage). Either way, as you say, it will need some research, because unsourced information that is added to Wikipedia articles tends to get removed pretty quickly. ColinFine (talk) 22:04, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

reverting back to previous version of page

Hello, I have worked on an article and recently one user went in and made over 50 changes/additions to the page in a span of a few weeks, and I do not agree with many of these changes. What are the options in a case like this? Ravin9976 (talk) 02:35, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

@Ravin9976: Discuss it on the article's talk page. RudolfRed (talk) 02:45, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Organisation changed trading name

Hello! The Australian_Market_and_Social_Research_Society_Limited rebranded to "The Research Society" in 2020.

The (then) CEO wrote, "We will remain the Australian Market & Social Research Society in our constitution but our new trading name will be The Research Society." Does this mean the name of the page should be changed? Or should it be treated like X (which is still found at Twitter)?

The current article also has a "This article contains content that is written like an advertisement" flag.

I am a member of The Research Society (with membership fees paid for by my workplace). Does this disqualify me from making changes?

And if I'm allowed to make changes, what is the process addressing the rebranded name? DivePeak (talk) 03:09, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

hi @DivePeak and welcome to the Teahouse! to answer your first question, it should probably be moved or renamed to something like Australian Market and Social Research Society due to the guideline that states Use commonly recognizable names. the article name should remain as the most recognizable form of the name, not the trading name (unless it is most recognizable by other people under that trading name than any other names). for example, our article on DuPont is not named DuPont de Nemours, Inc. in addition, the "limited" should also be dropped per the naming conventiosn for companies which also states that legal suffixes are not included in titles. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 03:49, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

...and to answer your last question, you may not edit the article directly, however you are allowed to post edit requests for the article, however before doing so please make sure you are famillar with the Conflict of interest and Paid editing policies, which are mandatory for anyone editing an article about something (or someone) one is personally connected to and paid by, including companies they are working under. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 03:51, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Copyediting

Hello! Excuse my unfamiliarity with specific Wikipedia pages, but I was wondering if there is a place that I could find articles on books and literature that require copyediting work. Thanks in advance! Neo Purgatorio (talk) 02:52, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

@Neo Purgatorio: Welcome, and thanks for wanting to fix articles. Go to Category:All_articles_needing_copy_edit and there are links there to filter for various topics including books. Also, check out Wikipedia:WikiProject_Guild_of_Copy_Editors where you can join other editors also interested in copy editing. RudolfRed (talk) 03:10, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! I appreciate the assistance. Neo Purgatorio (talk) 03:54, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

ProQuest

Does anyone here have access to the ProQuest database? I am looking for a NCJW Journal from 1998. I was unable to find it in the Wikipedia Library. https://www.proquest.com/docview/229503392?sourcetype=Scholarly%20Journals Polygnotus (talk) 22:56, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Someone may be able to help at the Resource Request page. LizardJr8 (talk) 01:06, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, I have posted the request there. Polygnotus (talk) 04:54, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Little help

What are your advices to a new editor on Wikipedia? Connorrk812 (talk) 06:18, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

For starters, read and digest Help:Introduction, and the pages it links to. -- Hoary (talk) 06:21, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

How to edit and submit a draft?

I have a draft that I need to edit before submitting it for review. The instructions to do this were as follows:

"You will need to edit the draft article..., and then you will need to save those edits into the draft (by hitting the blue Publish changes button. But that merely publishes those edits to the online Draft. It is not yet a published article...

Once you have completed all your edits, and saved them (i.e. publish changes), then you will still see the blue "Submit the draft for review" button again. Only when you click that will your submission be made."

When I edit the draft and hit on Publish changes, the submission button does not appear in the editing tab. If I go back to the reading tab after publishing the changes, I can see the submission button, but the draft only shows the old version and not the one I have edited. What am I not getting here? JoIrMu (talk) 08:17, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi, you cannot hit the submission button on the editing terminal, you can only do so on the article's page or after when you hit your publish button.

If your article keeps showing the previous version of the page after your published change, then kindly refresh the page. But note that situations like this don't normally occurs unless you are having some technical or network issues. Thanks Thisasia (talk) 08:28, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, but I had already tried that and tried again, but it does not help. I cannot get the new version of the article visible. Thank you also for the comment you left; I have addressed that problem/mistake in the edited version among others. JoIrMu (talk) 12:04, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi @JoIrMu. The only draft I see in your contribution history is Draft:Joakim_Oldorff? But that was from December. Could you let us know the name of the Draft you are working on? Qcne (talk) 09:03, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that is the right draft. It has taken a while, since we created a Finnish Wikipedia article in the meantime as was suggested by our mentor. I have the new version ready based on the feedback given by our mentor, but editing the draft accordingly and submitting it for review seems impossible. The network connection is fine, but I must be doing something wrong anyway. JoIrMu (talk) 12:06, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi @JoIrMu, I am not sure what is happening as I see nothing in your contribution history. Two suggestions:

- are you pressing Publish changes...? This is akin to 'Save' on a Word Processor, and means the new changes are being committed to Wikipedia but it doesn't mean the article itself is being published (slightly confusing wording).

- are you sure that draft is the correct one? Check the URL / spelling is the same as the one you are working on.

As for the Submit draft for review! button not appearing, don't worry about it: I can add it manually for you if you publish your changes as above. Qcne (talk) 13:53, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I had tried clicking on Publish changes numerous times, but I think it might have worked now. If the draft you see already features COI at the top of the page and a reference to Finnish Championships 2024, that is the version I would like to submit for review. I would be so grateful, if you can still add the submit button for me. Big thanks already at this point! JoIrMu (talk) 21:20, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Great, I have added the Submit draft for review!. Before you do though, you have a couple of links in the Lead that point to other Wikipedia articles. Please use WP:WIKILINKS instead of external links for these. Qcne (talk) 21:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the tips and for your patience in helping a newcomer! I will check the Wikilink issue before submitting. 193.111.119.176 (talk) 07:45, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Linked Words To Pages Which Don't Exist

If there are words and/or sentences which are linked but the pages aren't created (can tell when it's red), should I unlink it or just leave it alone? CreatorOfMinecraftHerobrine (talk) 21:22, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

@CreatorOfMinecraftHerobrine: Usually you should leave it alone. See WP:REDLINK for guidance. Redlinks can inspire editors to create missing articles. RudolfRed (talk) 21:25, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Do you have a specific article in mind? David notMD (talk) 21:45, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

It is on 2024 Haneda Airport runway collision. There are two names which have Redlinks. It is in Commemoration content in the Aftermath content paragraphs. There are few more above it. CreatorOfMinecraftHerobrine (talk) 21:50, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Having glanced at the article, I would say that all three currently red links are of subjects who/which could quite plausibly merit their own articles, so they should be retained. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 176.24.45.226 (talk) 08:23, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Assessment banner not at the top of the Talk Page

I recently came across two Wikipedia articles which shows up as an unassessed article. When I went to the talk page I found that the assessment banner was not at the top of the page. I moved it up to the top of the talk page and the article began showing as 'A B-class article from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia' on the article's main page. Is there any reason why the assessment banner was not at the top of the talk page to begin with? Should I revert my changes? This is one of the article. -Yuthoob (talk) 08:38, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Yuthoob, here is Talk:The Yellow Kid immediately before you edited it. Despite the unconventional placement of the template, it's in the categories specified by the template. Why wasn't the template at the top? Well, look at its immediate surroundings, which I think explain. -- Hoary (talk) 08:47, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

@Hoary: Just to confirm, are you saying that it was placed there because the article was modified by InternetArchiveBot and therefore might need to be reassessed?

In the other talk page I saw, it was inside a bracket on the first sentence of a section of the talk page. This edit by Cewbot placed it there and I couldn't understand why. Thank you for the reply.

--Yuthoob (talk) 10:59, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Removal of my updates

I am aware that a malicious person is going and putting my edits back to where they were. One case is where, on the North Highland Way page, that I had changed www.letsgoexploring.co.uk to www.friendsofthenorthhighlandway.com. It was changed back almost immediately. Also, people keep removing my Christian name and putting Irving. There is a lot of controversy about this project and always has been.

I would request that the page is deleted. North Highland Way TindDIrving (talk) 03:59, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

You do not own or get to control what is on any Wikipedia article, and you are highly discouraged from editing articles where you may have a conflict of interest. Remsense诉 04:03, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Please be kinder, Remsense, especially to living people who raise concerns about how they are covered on Wikipedia, even we ultimately are not able to accommodate them. Regards! — Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:11, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, you're exactly right. Remsense诉 04:13, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I developed the project. It would not exist without me. I have done this for 20 years on a voluntary basis. The Caithness Waybaggers route was different. From what I know of them, they would not have the knowledge or interest in editing Wikipedia. [[redacted] I should not be villified for bringing a project to the table which has been wanted for 30 years. TindDIrving (talk) 04:17, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello TindDIrving, are you Tina Irving? If so, you have a conflict of interest and it's best you don't edit the article directly, so as to not compromise the neutrality of the article. That said, we take concerns of living people about how they are portrayed on Wikipedia very seriously, and I would be willing to help if I can. Did you want the article to say in places, "Tina" instead of saying "Irving"? That may not be possible. Wikipedia is written in formal professional English and it is my understanding that in the west, people are referred to by their last name, not their first. You will have to explain why you want the website changed. It is not helpful to accuse another editor of malice without specific evidence. Can you compile some WP:DIFFs to show what exactly has happened? Best, — Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:08, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I developed this project. It would not exist without me. [redacted] I want the words to say Tina Irving, not "Tina" or "Irving". That is my name. I most certainly do have speciic evidence. I can email it to you if you wish. What are WP:DIFFs. I am abused on Facebook every time I put anything about this project. I have even been to Police Scotland about it. TindDIrving (talk) 04:14, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

You can click the word WP:DIFF and it will take you to explanation and instructions. It mentions the full name when mentioning it the first time in a paragraph and only the last name thereafter. That looks correct to me. Repeating the full name every time is incredibly distracting, unless the text happens to be talking about more than one person named Irving. Yes, if other people involved in real-life conflict with you are also editing that article, it would be a violation as well. And they should use the talk page as well. And if any party is using Wikipedia to deliberately harass/harm other people, they will be removed by admins when provided with a complelling evidence. If your evidence includes things that have only happened on Wikipedia, you can share the evidence publicly here. Or you can mail me it, and I will look if there is anything there and bring it to admins' attention as necessary. If your evidence involves disclosing real-life identity of one or more editors on Wikipedia, you should send that evidence to someone who has signed the NDA which isn't me, but I can suggest names. Best, — Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:32, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Wikipedia can only cover what has been written by independent third party sources, such as newspapers, though not everything that's in newspapers needs to be included here. We try to find a balance between sharing knowledge and protecting people involved. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:38, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

TindDIrving, Wikipedia has a Manual of Style, and its relevant section is MOS:SURNAME. After first mention, we refer to William Shakespeare as Shakespeare, and Taylor Swift as Swift and Abraham Lincoln as Lincoln and Margaret Thatcher as Thatcher. And so you will be called Irving on Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 04:43, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Then delete my name altogether. I object. As you quite rightly say, it is distracting to have the name repeated. I will send to you, Used to be cool. I am a journalist myself, and have my own newspaper. https://letsgonorthnewsservice.wordpress.com/ I am also on Muckrack

https://muckrack.com/tina-irving-1

I also write for the Daventry Express, though not on this subject.

https://www.daventryexpress.co.uk/ TindDIrving (talk) 04:49, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

TindDIrving, your own newspapers would hardly be independent, third-party sources. Your name won't be removed just because you don't like the way it is written, but I will take a look later on to evaluate whether mentioning you in that article is WP:DUE. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:25, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

So,, this is suppression of Freedom of the Press then? Just because I am a journalist and developer of the project, is irrelevant. I have already sued Google for matters relating to this kind of thing, and won. Wikipedia should not be used to bully people, and that is what these people are doing, and stealing my project. TindDIrving (talk) 05:33, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I took a look, and I don't see anything urgent about how you've been covered in that article. You'll have to drop the attitude and raise your concerns politely on the talk page of the article if you want to get anywhere. Further direct editing of the article or WP:SOCKing to persue that goal may result in loss of editing privileges. Also a no, is accusing any and everyone that edits that article as malicious actors out to get you. I have not received your mail, if it is me you sent it to. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 11:01, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

This is not my newspaper. I just write for it. TindDIrving (talk) 05:33, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

TindDIrving, Icelandic, Vietnamese and various other names require different treatment; but people with the surname Irving are generally referred to as "Irving". This practice is of course not universal outside Wikipedia, but it is very common. As for whether "this is suppression of Freedom of the Press", I don't understand what the referent of "this" is. If you'd like to change an external link (e.g. change from www.letsgoexploring.co.uk to www.friendsofthenorthhighlandway.com) it's a good idea to signal your reason for doing so on the talk page of the relevant article: for the article North Highland Way, this would be Talk:North Highland Way. -- Hoary (talk) 06:13, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

OK. I am bored with this now. I don't care if Wikipedia want information to be erroneous. Not about the name. Clearly www.letsgoexploring.co.uk no longer exists. Suppression of freedom of the press is because I am a journalist and developer of the North Highland Way, yet I am told I have conflict of interests. How can that be. I developed the project, with the support of 40 businesses, The Highland Council and Nature Scot. For this I am penalised yet other people who edit the entry aren't. I won't bother contributing to Wikipedia. Thanks. TindDIrving (talk) 06:27, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia not linking to a "newspaper" doesn't constitute "suppression of freedom of the press". You're still free to publish whatever you want. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:16, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

TindDIrving, so letsgoexploring.co.uk no longer exists. Thank you. (Well, in a sense it does still exist ... but it's rather underwhelming.) I don't see any indication above that anyone thinks your journalism should lose its readership, or any suggestion of any conspiracy towards that end; so I'm puzzled by your talk of suppression of freedom of the press. How it may be that you have a conflict of interest (COI) is explained; see this in particular: simply, to say that somebody would have a COI if they edited an article in no way vilifies or even criticizes that person. And people with COIs are welcome to make suggestions on the talk page of the relevant article; you are most welcome to make them in Talk:North Highland Way. (Yes, such suggestions may go unnoticed -- but there are ways of bringing them to wider notice. If, after a few days, a request on Talk:North Highland Way got no response, I'd post a simple message on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scotland inviting people to take a look.) -- Hoary (talk) 07:36, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Not interested. Of course you think I should lose my readership. As explained, which you do not understand is that I am both a journalist and lead in this project. I have sent documentation to one of your editors to prove it. The North Highland Way.com project, has a conflict of interests, but I don't see you removing his blog, only mine. 2A00:23C7:7829:9B01:9193:26D2:96CE:2971 (talk) 07:44, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

TindDIrving, I understand that you are both a journalist and a lead in the project. If you're a lead in the project, (i) I (personally) thank you; (ii) you have a COI. I'm quite happy to remove the link to friendsofthenorthhighlandway.com. (Anyone here object?) You are of course free to fantasize about what I think. -- Hoary (talk) 08:06, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

friendsofthenorthhighlandway.com is the real project, supported by VisitScotland and The Highland Council.

the northhighlandway.com link also has a personal interest. If you are going to remove the Friends, then you should remove the other one as well. 20 years of this project, and now Wikipedia want to ruin it. You must be in touch with the other editors. If I find out that you are, as with Google, you will be taken to court. as a journalist, I can always find out. 2A00:23C7:7829:9B01:9193:26D2:96CE:2971 (talk) 08:09, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

no legal threats. ltbdl (talk) 08:11, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Recently made a new page on a film

Hi, I made a new Wikipedia page on a Filipino film recently called "Pamilya Ordinaryo", since there hasn't been any page on that for nearly 8 years since it's release. I got my sources from websites and thought of making one since it appeared on Netflix, and it caught my interests. I was sad when I found out that there was no independent page on this movie, so I decided to create one today. I created the page through Wikipedia:How to create a page and I think it immediately got published, however I am not sure whether it needs to be reviewed and if it's published already. I'm still not sure whether the page is suitable enough as I think it needs to be reviewed first. If there is anything that may be concerning, please could I have some advice on it? WedgeWinglet (talk) 22:40, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Along with that, I believe they have a release poster (here) and I was hoping to add it, but I am not sure because of copyright. WedgeWinglet (talk) 22:42, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

@WedgeWinglet All new articles which don't use the articles for creation process will in due couse be reviewed by the new pages patrol, who can be fairly strict in ensuring they meet our inclusion criteria, especially for notability. Search engines won't index the article until it gets NPP approval (or 90 days have elapsed). You can add the poster to the English Wikipedia as WP:NONFREE content but make sure you carefully follow the instructions at that link. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:24, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

will you add a Non-Migrant Black, not of Hispanic Origin wikipedia page

will you add a Non-Migrant Black, not of Hispanic Origin wikipedia page.My Race is : Non-Migrant Black, not of Hispanic Origin. Just like wikipedia has a wikipedia page for african americans and some others races? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Americans Terrance19888 (talk) 10:20, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Terrance19888, are you American? I do not know how you could be a non-migrant black person who isn't an African-American, if so. The answer is most likely no. If you're in Africa or the Pacific, it's possible you belong to an ethnic group that can be described as non-migrant black, and if an article on the group is missing, it could be created. Ultimately, it comes down to WP:GNG. Respectable academics need to have written about a group as a distinct race or ethnicity in order for them to be included in Wikipedia. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:49, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I am American. I am born in Saginaw, Michigan on August 3, 1984. On my Health Portal saids that I am Non-Migrant Black, not of Hispanic Origin from Michigan Department Of Health and Human Resources Terrance19888 (talk) 11:00, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Why do you think that that is a "race"? It is not. https://i.imgur.com/ajn3v9k.png They also use "Non-Migrant Unknown". Do you think "Non-Migrant Unknown" is also a race? Polygnotus (talk) 11:02, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I think Non-Migrant Black, not of Hispanic Origin is a race because On my Health Portal saids that I am Non-Migrant Black, not of Hispanic Origin from Michigan Department Of Health and Human Resources as a race/culture. I web capture my Health Portal showing Non-Migrant Black, not of Hispanic Origin. Terrance19888 (talk) 11:15, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

As you can see in the screenshot, these "HIPAA Race or Ethnicity Codes" are just labels used by that department of health services. It is not a race. Polygnotus (talk) 11:18, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Your race is "human", or "homo sapiens" if you like Latin. Please read WP:1DAY. Polygnotus (talk) 10:55, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't think either point you've made here is the most helpful for the asker. Remsense诉 11:15, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. Polygnotus (talk) 11:18, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

You know that they were not referring to biological species, and that they did not "make up" the topic one day. Remsense诉 11:19, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I am a timetraveller, but only in one direction. The HIPAA codes certainly were made up one day. The consensus among scientists is that race is a social construct. Among humans, race has no taxonomic significance because all living humans belong to the same subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens. Polygnotus (talk) 11:23, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Polygnotus, even if you're usually right, if you can't be nice about it, teahouse is not the place for you. These shifting of goalposts to double down on your unhelpful side-arguments are not helpful either. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 11:54, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Well as you've already been told, it comes down to the policy explained at WP:GNG. That page specifies whether a topic is suitable for Wikipedia. If it isn't, there's not much anyone can do about it. Shantavira|^{feed me} 11:31, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

@Terrance19888 It may be that the Wikipedia article Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act would benefit from addition of a subsection explaining the use of its race or ethnicity codes (backed up by reliable sources which are independent of the act) but IMO that article needs a lot of work! Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:01, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Schwartzberg Historical atlas of South Asia?

Are we allowed to use screenshots of the Historical Atlas of South Asia by Joeseph Schwartzberg on Wikipedia articles for medieval Indian kingdoms and states?

It seems to be the most reliable source for placing them. Or is there a way to create custom maps based on the information in the atlas?

Thanks Ixudi (talk) 15:20, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Ixudi, and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia is very strict on copyright. I'm afraid that https://dsal.uchicago.edu/reference/schwartzberg/ says "No part of this atlas may be stored, transmitted, retransmitted, lent, or reproduced in any form or medium without the prior written permission of Joseph E. Schwartzberg", which is a pretty clear No! to using a screenshot.

I would think that if you created a map with information from the Atlas, that would be like summarising a book in your own words, but I am not an expert. Try asking WP:MCQ. ColinFine (talk) 17:03, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Addition to article of photographs in the pubic domain

I wish to add to an article recent photographs of an historic building that were commissioned by an agency of a US state government. To my knowledge, unless specifically designated otherwise such properties are by definition in the public domain. What is the procedure for proving that such a work is freely reproducible when adding it to Wikipedia? DatFiend (talk) 22:44, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

@DatFiend: Work by the US federal government is public domain. The same rule does not apply to US state government work. Which state was it for? RudolfRed (talk) 00:43, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Interesting; thanks. Virginia. DatFiend (talk) 17:19, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Overlapping dab pages

I came across a dab page at The Resistance the other day, and cleaned it up a bit. Just now, I came across the dab page at plain Resistance. They have close to 20 and 100 entries, respectively - some overlapping, some not. The former links to the latter, but not vice versa - actually, the former is pretty much orphaned, though I dunno how relevant that is for a dab page. This doesn't feel like a very happy state of affairs. Should they be integrated better, or simply merged, or what?

- 2A02:560:5821:6C00:4D3D:867E:F3EB:2F3C (talk) 21:05, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

It is good that a dab page is orphaned, because no articles should be linking to a dab. It is there for convenience of readers to help them find the topic they are looking for. RudolfRed (talk) 21:11, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Resistance has a bunch of incoming links from {{other uses}}-type hatnotes on the one hand and other dab pages on the other, all via the Resistance (disambiguation) redirect. The Resistance having none at all may or may not be unusual, I dunno. The Resistance (album) uses the "wrong" one, at any rate, which does make the "right" one seem a bit superfluous.

- 2A02:560:5821:6C00:4D3D:867E:F3EB:2F3C (talk) 22:51, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Aha, here's a close parallel, using a joint page: The Oracle -> Oracle (disambiguation), with explicit "Oracle or The Oracle may also refer to" opening. Clearly the cleaner solution, no?

- (OP) 2A02:560:5821:6C00:8927:F475:6FA6:FF53 (talk) 14:01, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Aha again, here's another nice parallel, this time for the other approach: The Sea/Sea (disambiguation). That pair looks nicely maintained: Little or no overlap, and the pages link to each other and are both linked to from the main hatnote at sea.

- 2A02:560:5821:6C00:8927:F475:6FA6:FF53 (talk) 18:48, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Doha Moustaquim

Previous discussion : #Seeking Advice on Article Maintenance and Profile Development

I recently encountered a situation where one of the articles I created was moved from the mainspace to the draft, despite my efforts to recreate it. Although the article has faced deletion challenges in the past, I have successfully refreshed and reinstated it. However, it now resides in the draft section. I am seeking advice on how best to improve the article and potentially move it back to the mainspace. What steps can I take to enhance its quality and increase the likelihood of it being accepted in the mainspace? Noone02 (talk) 19:22, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

See my response above. (If you have questions about a draft, it's helpful to keep them all in one section.) Maproom (talk) 19:29, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy - now at Draft:Doha Moustaquim. David notMD (talk) 19:41, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

with names

(sorry if this is worded odd, as i dont really know how to put it.) If a film has a different name, but a similar name, would it still be normal to add dates to the end? I was looking a the Netflix Texas Chainsaw movie, and it has a unique name (lacking the in it's name), but still has the (2022) in it's name, as if there was a different movie also called "Texas Chainsaw Massacre", but checking wikipedia (here) shows nothing. so why is the (2022) on the title? If a movie has a different-but-similar name would we still put the date on the end? (sorry again for grammar and/or bizarre structure) Babysharkboss2!! ^{Killer Queen} 19:35, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

The Texas Chain Saw Massacre is the original 1974 movie. David notMD (talk) 19:47, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

yes, i know. it's THE Texas Chainsaw Massacre. it has the in the title. but the 2022 movie is simply titled Texas Chainsaw Massacre. lacking a the in it's title. Babysharkboss2!! ^{Killer Queen} 19:49, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (franchise) lists all the films in the franchise. Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2022 film) has the year in the title because David notMD (talk) 19:51, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

title because because of what? Babysharkboss2!! ^{Killer Queen} 19:53, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry. ...because there are so many films. David notMD (talk) 19:54, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

oh, okay. so it's just a numbers thing? Alright, thanks! Babysharkboss2!! ^{Killer Queen} 19:55, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, like there is also The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003 film). David notMD (talk) 19:57, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

It's not just a numbers thing although that makes adding disambiguation like this more likely but also one way to think about why it is this way: the 1974 movie could be seen as (and is currently treated as) the primary topic for the exact title of Texas Chainsaw Massacre so that is a redirect to The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, which means we need to disambiguate the 2022 film. (Other solutions be to have that redirect to the franchise article or if the 2022 film was see as significant enough it at the name without the disambiguate but I don't think in general that'd improve the experience for readers.) Skynxnex (talk) 20:31, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

The original post is unclear because it omits the actual names being discussed but I think it asks whether Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2022 film) should be moved to Texas Chainsaw Massacre (film) since it's the only film by that title without "The" in front. Texas Chainsaw Massacre (film) currently redirects to the 1974 film The Texas Chain Saw Massacre which is far more notable and started the franchise. I support that since the 1974 film looks like the primary topic for a film referred to as "Texas Chain Saw Massacre" even though the title is only an exact match to the 2022 film. It's common to omit "The" when referring to a work, and probably also when looking it up. For comparison, The Batman (film) is about the 2022 film without having the year in the title while Batman (film) is a set index. None of the other films are ever referred to as "The Batman" as far as I know. It's not common to add "The" when referring to a work. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:29, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Male American Actor List missing.

When I go to "List of Actors" I see a bunch of links but to not see any Links to Male American Actors. How can this be corrected? Ddutcher1 (talk) 23:22, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Ddutcher1, Scroll down to § Nationality, click List of American actors, at the bottom next to "Categories", click "American actors", scroll down until you see "American actors" and click it. Another way to correct it, is if you step up and volunteer to write an article called, American male actors, which could very well be added to the first list once it is ready. Mathglot (talk) 00:28, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

@Ddutcher1: We do have Category:American male actors. List of male American movie actors was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of male American movie actors so I don't think you should try to create something similar. However, List of American film actresses was kept at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of American film actresses, and List of American television actresses was kept at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of American television actresses. They are rather long and lists for male actors would probably be longer. I don't think it's practical. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:25, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Seeking Advice on Article Maintenance and Profile Development

Dear Wikipedia community,

I trust this message finds you well. As a relatively new contributor to Wikipedia, I am reaching out to seek guidance on two key aspects of active participation within the community: article maintenance and profile development.

1. Article Maintenance: Ensuring the continued accuracy and relevance of Wikipedia articles is paramount. I am eager to learn effective strategies for ongoing article maintenance. What are some best practices to keep articles up-to-date and in compliance with Wikipedia guidelines? Additionally, how can I actively contribute to article discussions and collaborate with fellow editors to address concerns?
2. Profile Development: As I aspire to become a more integral part of the Wikipedia community, I am interested in insights on profile development. How can I engage meaningfully in discussions, participate in WikiProjects, and contribute constructively to the community? For experienced editors, what strategies did you find most helpful in building a reputable profile within Wikipedia?

I am particularly interested in hearing from seasoned contributors like BOZ, a former administrator, about their experiences and any valuable tips they might have on these topics. Your guidance and advice will be immensely appreciated as I continue to navigate and contribute to the Wikipedia platform.

also, I just submitted a new article to the mainspace of an article that has been deleted several times for lack of reliability on sources, The article has been carefully revised, expanded, and verified with reliable sources to ensure accuracy and reliability. It provides a comprehensive overview of Doha Moustaquim's background, career, and contributions to the filmmaking industry, meeting Wikipedia's standards for notability and verifiability, please give me your opinion is matter to me.

Warm regards, Noone02 (talk) 17:54, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Noone02, the Recognition section of the draft mentions three acceptable-looking sources, but cites none. I wonder why not? Maproom (talk) 19:26, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello,

Thank you for your prompt response. I've taken your advice into consideration, and I have now incorporated mentions of three reputable media sources in my article. Additionally, I have provided direct links to these sources for your reference. The articles contain quotes that are directly relevant to the main content, adding credibility and depth to the information presented.

Feel free to take a look at the updated version whenever you have a moment. Your continued guidance and feedback are highly valued. Noone02 (talk) 19:36, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy: draft is Draft:Doha Moustaquim David notMD (talk) 19:40, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

what do you thnik now of the article ?? Noone02 (talk) 20:24, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

A little better. Why not let the reader know what those sources say about her? That's how citations here generally work. I'd do it myself, but my French isn't great. Maproom (talk) 21:28, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Noone02, Maproom is giving you good advice on content. If you haven't seen Wikipedia:Notability (people), you should probably look at that. Regarding your second question about "profile development", I find the question a bit odd. In your use of the word profile, I understand you to mean not your user page (which some new users erroneously call their "profile page", or just "profile"), but the esteem or regard that others have for you here; is that correct? If so, it's important to note that we are an online encyclopedia, and while asking, say, how to help develop articles is in line with that goal, asking how to develop your own reputation here isn't really. That will come organically as a result of your contributions over time. If you are asking more about how to meet and collaborate with other editors, then looking into our WP:WikiProjects would be a good start. Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 01:42, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Noone02, what you write above looks like the pulp that comes out of a large language model (LLM). (Example: "I am eager to learn effective strategies for ongoing article maintenance." Meaning "I want to learn how to maintain articles", but irrelevant where written.) Please don't subject us either to LLM output or to prose that resembles this. The draft mentions three films. Nothing is said about two of the three. As for the third: "The film attracted notice for its distinctive storytelling and cultural portrayal." This is very uninformative. (How is it distinctive? Cultural portrayal of what, or portrayal of which culture?) But at least it comes with a reference to a source. Well it appears to do so; however, the source fails to say this (it merely describes the premise for the film). I note that there's an article in French-language Wikipedia about this film -- but that that article too says almost nothing about the film. If you can't find sources that provide substantial information about this filmmaker or her work, no article about her can be created. Perhaps it would be better to wait a year or two. -- Hoary (talk) 02:51, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

parapsychology fairness?

An organisation 'Guerilla Skeptics' is alleged to have been editing articles on parapsychology and remote viewing in addition to the UAP topic. Doing things like removing people's PhDs and relevant background and other tactics to discredit serious scientific interest in these topics. Is this complaint accurate? As a donator to Wiki, I'm concerned. Nick 2A02:C7E:5A12:EA00:9915:667A:93E1:D7A (talk) 11:28, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

It wasn't an organization, just some people with a blog. That was 5+ years ago. There is no serious scientific interest in remote viewing (but there is in UAPs). And you shouldn't donate to the WMF, they got more than enough money, see WP:CANCER. The Mick West/Metabunk/GSoW story is nonsense. Polygnotus (talk) 11:33, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

The "debate" is more about UFO:s atm, see for example Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Change.org_petition_re._Wikipedia_and_UFOs. WMF is in decent financial shape, and they keep fundraising to stay in decent financial shape. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:02, 20 Feary 2024 (UTC)

As for the narrow matter of how to refer to people with PhDs, this is well established in the Manual of Style, and the relevant language can be found at MOS:CREDENTIAL. If any notable person earned a legitimate PhD from an accredited university, then that will be reported in the "Education" section of their biography. But outside the "Education" section, we do not mention the PhD or refer to the person as "Dr. So-and-so", except for rare cases like Doctor Ruth, because that is her show business moniker. This applies to almost every single PhD holder, not just advocates of pseudoscience and mind reading and levitation and Bigfoot and UFOs and faith healing and perpetual motion and other forms of quackery and fringe beliefs. Read WP:FRINGE. As for the Guerilla Skeptics editor group, they are obligated to comply with Wikipedia's Policies and guidelines, which they understand far better than those who criticize them. As for your financial support for the Wikimedia Foundation, they are rolling in cash. Use your money to take a community college class in the scientific method instead, and be aware that mention of financial support or threats to withdraw support has literally zero impact on Wikipedia content. You may benefit from reading Wikipedia:Lunatic charlatans as well. Cullen328 (talk) 03:30, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Advertising

Hello, Teahouse. Today my question is: does [[Saving Mr. Banks#Cast:~:text=Credits adapted from The New York Times.[10]|this]] specifically break the advert policy? Asking because I don't want to start a revert war that could be avoided. Thanks! UnexpectedSmoreInquisition aka USI (talk) 13:33, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't know how it would break advert policy. But it certainly confuses me. Why is it in boldface? Why doesn't it work as a wikilink (or at least, a misformatted wikilink) when it's encased in double square brackets? What is the "[10]" doing? Maproom (talk) 13:44, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Saving Mr. Banks § Cast

unrelated to the original question, but @Maproom: part of that seems to be copied from the article itself, and the single brackets inside the link that used to be the reference broke the wikitext parser, making it think that was not a link. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 13:55, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Resolved now. As for the link I provided, not sure- I think it broke. The [10] was from the incline citation within my link. UnexpectedSmoreInquisition aka USI (talk) 03:34, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

It's a straightforward reference. I don't see why you think it might be construed as an advertisement. Shantavira|^{feed me} 14:03, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I just feel if it was a reference it could use incline citations, the way it's written makes it feel more like an advert. UnexpectedSmoreInquisition aka USI (talk) 18:07, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

As someone who sees promotional wording somewhat frequently when copyediting, I don't find this promotional. The editor could've omitted the reference entirely, as Wikipedia's Manual of Style's take on film casts really only suggests that uncredited roles should require verification, and that the cast information should be allowed "unreferenced" as taken from the film it's from as a primary source.

I suspect it's because the editor wanted to note where the information is being taken, but felt that a lone citation looks weird if it was by itself in its own line or appended to one of the actors' names, which would make it seem like the others were taken elsewhere. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:56, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Fair point. I'm just not used to this type of in-text citation since I haven't encountered it before. Thanks! UnexpectedSmoreInquisition aka USI (talk) 03:21, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Sources

Hello. As time advances, sources get older and older. I've been skeptical about using sources from the 40s lately, tho you can often spot one. Are there any guidelines on this? Are pre-ww2 sources still usable? On some articles you might even see sources from the 1830s, 1820s, 1750s... Are these still considered reliable sources? On the other hand if you can't use that source from 1911, can you use Tacitus? Encyclopédisme (talk) 13:20, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Encyclopédisme. Please see the discussion at WP:AGEMATTERS. ColinFine (talk) 13:45, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Like Colin said, some guidance at AGEMATTERS. It depends on context. Some works on religion, history etc can be useful for a long time. Tacitus or Josephus can be decent WP:PRIMARY sources, but any use of their comments on actual events should probably have a modern historian as "interpreter." You may find something interesting in these discussions:[8][9] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:50, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes. But, for example, Britannica 1911, or any work of the 17th, 18th, 19th centuries on history, is that usable? Weirdly, it seems like Tacitus is more reliable than a 1892 work on the franco-prussian war. For exemple, the spanish articles on the Muisca Rulers have 19th century sources only, plus some official sites of the Columbian government. In this case the traditional history seems to be taught only in schools and on, well, government sites. The subject isn't very seriously studied when it comes to history, and the recent works go for a rather different approach, indicating that the idea of a 'Muisca state', as described by the spanish chroniclers, is eurocentric, and they weren't an imperial administration likes the incas. In this very specific case, what should I do? This brings me to another similar case. In the 1920s, it was mainstream academic knowledge that the Inca Empire was socialist ... (liberal economists, like Louis Baudin, wrote books about this 'paradox'). What should I do there? And when, after the invention of the printing press, is the line between a good primary source and an outdated primary source? Encyclopédisme (talk) 14:02, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

@Encyclopédisme, your problem may be that as you say, the subject isn't seriously studied, so your most recent reliable source might be quite old. If there is a distinct change in views over time - so that older sources say the Muisca rulers had an empire, and newer sources disagree - then I think you might look into using both, describing how the chroniclers said one thing but current research is suggesting something else. Does that seem like a reaasonable idea for this specific situation?

Also, thank you for mentioning the Muisca - just skimming the article I'm fascinated and as soon as I have time I'm going to have to investigate more thoroughly! StartGrammarTime (talk) 03:48, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

As an extreme example, for medicine/health articles, a preference is stated for no references more than five years old if newer reviews that qualify for WP:MEDRS are available. See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). David notMD (talk) 14:21, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

In some cases, you might not just source, but attribute. "In 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica described it as etc etc." DS (talk) 17:14, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Actor Amit Kumar Mishra Biography

Assumed autobiographical article draft

Title: "Amit Kumar Mishra: A Journey Beyond Boundaries" Introduction: Amit Kumar Mishra, a versatile individual hailing from Ranchi, India, has carved a unique path that spans the realms of engineering, business, and acting. Born and raised in Ranchi, Mishra's journey is marked by a blend of technical expertise, business acumen, and a deep-rooted passion for the performing arts. Early Life and Education: Amit Kumar Mishra's educational journey began with a degree in Information Technology from SIR MVIT in Bangalore. This engineering background laid the groundwork for his future endeavors. Building upon this foundation, Mishra pursued an MBA with a focus on Marketing at the esteemed SP Jain School of Global Management, further enhancing his skill set for a dynamic career ahead. Professional Journey: Upon completing his MBA, Amit Kumar Mishra ventured into the corporate world, securing a position with a multinational company in the bustling city of New York. His experiences in the corporate landscape added a global perspective to his repertoire. However, his true calling lay elsewhere. The allure of the acting world proved irresistible, prompting Mishra to make a courageous decision. After completing the shooting of the US portion of "Karma Strikes," he bid farewell to his corporate job, embarking on a new chapter in the world of entertainment. Theater Roots and Passion for Acting: Amit Kumar Mishra's love for acting transcends his professional pursuits. Since class 6th, Mishra has been actively involved in theater, honing his craft and nurturing a passion that would later define his identity as an actor. His early exposure to the stage laid the groundwork for a seamless transition into the world of cinema. Notable Works: Amit Kumar Mishra's acting prowess gained recognition through notable projects, including "Karma Strikes," "The Neighbor," and "Smoking Kills." His ability to portray diverse characters with authenticity and depth has solidified his position in the entertainment industry. Transformation Journey: One of the most captivating aspects of Mishra's career is his commitment to authenticity. In preparation for an upcoming movie, he underwent a remarkable physical transformation, shedding an impressive 18 kilograms. This dedication to his craft speaks volumes about his passion for delivering compelling and realistic performances. Personal Life: Amit Kumar Mishra, identified as a male artist, not only excels in his professional pursuits but also exemplifies resilience and determination. His ability to balance an engineering background, an MBA, and a thriving acting career reflects the multifaceted nature of his personality. Future Endeavors: As audiences eagerly await the next chapter in his acting journey, Amit Kumar Mishra continues to evolve as an actor, leaving an indelible mark on the entertainment industry. His story serves as an inspiration, illustrating that with dedication and courage, one can successfully navigate diverse fields and make a lasting impact.

Conclusion: "Amit Kumar Mishra: A Journey Beyond Boundaries" encapsulates the story of a trailblazer who defied conventional norms, seamlessly transitioning between engineering, business, and acting. His pursuit of passion, coupled with a relentless commitment to his craft, defines a narrative that resonates with aspiring individuals looking to carve their own unique paths in life. ActorAmitMishra (talk) 04:29, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

@ActorAmitMishra: hello, please take a look at WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY, which explains a bit about why we don't generally encourage autobiographies on Wikipedia, or accept any articles whatsoever about non-notable subjects, as verified in reliable sources. If you'd like to write a different article, take a look at Your first article, and feel free to ask if you have any more questions. Cheers! Remsense诉 04:35, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

@ActorAmitMishra: Your several attempts (Sandbox, User page) to write about yourself are all promotionally worded and have no references, so all have been Speedy deleted. All factual content about a living person must be verified by independent references. Non-factual content such as "...not only excels in his professional pursuits but also exemplifies resilience and determination." is forbidden. David notMD (talk) 11:46, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Infobox title MoS

I can summarise my question by asking if this edit is valid or not. Are Is there any specific guideline for naming infobox (title). ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 10:24, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

This particular thing is actually rather unguided—which can drive me crazy, actually—but a rule of thumb is that generally, it doesn't help the vast majority of readers of any English Wikipedia page if text is only provided in a non-Latin script, since they cannot read it. So, generally where there is non-Latin script (which at least for MOS:ZH should almost never be in the running text of an article), there should probably also be a romanization, which a reader will be able to identify and remember, if not necessarily understand. Cheers! Remsense诉 11:46, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

hacked

someone put a virus 0n my computer 2600:1700:A8E0:E780:C513:BF5C:8335:289E (talk) 02:24, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

As explained at the top of this page, this is not the place to ask about it. (And when you do find a place to ask about it, nobody will help you unless you provide a lot more information about it.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:33, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Also, WP:Reference Desk, Stackoverflow or other related forum would've been a more appropriate to ask. Just saying. - 🐲 Jo the fire dragon 🐉(talk|contributions) 15:44, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, wondering if I could get help :)

I was wondering if I could get help with the title of my page. I can't see to correct it from a misspell and I think i've tried everything with the move option.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Dance_Music_Awards TimBello (talk) 18:33, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello @TimBello! Somebody added a lowercase title template, so I've removed it. Happy editing! —asparagusus (interaction) ^sprouts! 18:39, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Art Brut -- splitting hairs -- need help

Hello!

Quick recap --

ISSUE 1: Art Brut is a historically significant art term coined in the 1940s that is fundamentally centered on naive, primitive, child-like art. It currently re-directs to a page called Outsider Art (an English term coined in the 1970s) -- which is an umbrella term for any art created by untrained artists. The majority of the information in the Outsider Art page is based on Art Brut.

Question-- Can i split this page into two (keeping like information with like information) and keep the majority of the content without having to rewrite and recite everything?

---

ISSUE 2: The current page for Art Brut goes to a rock band.

Question-- Is there a way to fix the title so that is says Art Brut Band leaving the term Art Brut free to use for a page dedicated to the topic for which the term was originally coined?

Needless to say -- this feels like a complex endeavor so if you fee like jumping in and helping -- I would be much obliged. Slacker13 (talk) 15:43, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Probably would need to move the band to Art Brut (band). LegalSmeagolian (talk) 15:56, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

@Slacker13 The main issue seems to be whether the existing article at Outsider art would be better titled as Art Brut. In that, Wikipedia would normally follow the guideline at WP:COMMONNAME, that is we would use whichever term is most commonly used in English sources. Once you have gained consensus for that (best discussed on the article's Talk Page), then the move of the band's page over the existing redirect at Art Brut (band) is relatively easy, as is the move to the new title for the art term. I don't see any need to split the existing art term article if "Outsider Art" is basically synonymous for "Art Brut", as the lead implies. The former title can just become a new redirect. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:33, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Slacker13, I have been following art for many years, and I believe that, at least in the United States, outsider art is a far more common name than art brut, which I had never heard of until today. Cullen328 (talk) 02:01, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Maybe? But as an encyclopedia, our feel like our job is to educate. Outsider art is an umbrella term whereas Art Brut was its pre-curser and an actual movement. If feel like this is an important distinction. Otherwise we run the risk of being seen as US-centric. Slacker13 (talk) 14:52, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Slacker13, the issue is whether or not these are really two distinct topics or simply the French and English terms for essentially the same thing. If "Art Brut" is widely used in other English language speaking countries and "Outsider art" is rarely used there, then you may have a point. Cullen328 (talk) 19:09, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

blame view for wikipedia

is there something like githubs blame view for wikipedia articles? mostly just because walking backwards through the diff pages is time consuming natelabs (talk) 15:24, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi Natelabs, you might find WikiBlame useful. Madam Fatal (talk) 15:42, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

how do i install it? natelabs (talk) 16:26, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

@Natelabs: Welcome to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1216. It's browser-based, so you don't. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:45, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

well then how do i use it? its not in my gadgets panel or anything so im kinda lost natelabs (talk) 16:53, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

The page that Madam Fatal linked explains how it can be used. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 16:58, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

looks like i glossed over the most important part of the article

alright thanks for the help natelabs (talk) 16:59, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

@Natelabs: If you'd like to add WikiBlame to your Tools menu, I've added a script to Wikipedia:WikiBlame. GoingBatty (talk) 17:28, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

thanked you in my common.js natelabs (talk) 19:39, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I WANT TO CREATE MY OWN PAGE

Kabelo PercyKM (talk) 08:52, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

@percykm: read up on help:your first article. ltbdl (talk) 08:54, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Please don't SHOUT. Theroadislong (talk) 08:55, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

@PercyKM: If you are talking about creating an article about yourself, I guess there is no rule prohibitng it, but generally such articles are quickly deleted because the article is not notable, you are considered unreliable source for your article etc. See WP:ABOUTME. ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 10:36, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

@PercyKM and @ExclusiveEditor: Writing an autobiography on Wikipedia is an example of conflict-of-interest editing and is strongly discouraged - see WP:AUTO for more information. GoingBatty (talk) 17:30, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: Yeah, that's generally what I am saying, just forgot about CoI. Thanks. ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 19:45, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Dab and {{section link}}

Are "§"-formatted section links okay in dab page entries? MOS:DABPIPE and MOS:DABSECTION only clearly deal with "raw", "#"-formatted links.

More specifically, I'm trying to decide between redirects like Finally Famous: The Mixtape and their targets like Big Sean discography § Mixtapes. Personally, as a reader, I'd definitely prefer the latter in a case like that, because they give a way better idea of the amount and type of information I can expect to find there.

I suppose a piped link in the vein of (again from the MOS page)

• Ten or Tenshinhan, a character in Dragon Ball media

splits the difference in a way, but I'm not really seeing the upside. Obviously, they're more prose-y, but "§"-links are fine in articles, as long as they're used judiciously, and purely stylistic considerations ought to apply less, not more, to dab pages than to articles proper, no?

- 89.183.221.194 (talk) 21:48, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

References/citations showing up funny

Can anyone help me make these citations better so this article gets accepted? Draft:James Ford Goldfishgoldfish (talk) 21:54, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I have fixed the formatting for you, but most of the sources are not reliable so it has been declined. Theroadislong (talk) 22:29, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

thanks for correcting the formatting. i updated the links to point to the original news source, not the youtube clip. Goldfishgoldfish (talk) 22:54, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Article needs more links

Is there a template I could use to let editors know that there needs to be more wikilinks in an article, specifically the article for Yi Won (writer). Thanks! TheWikiCyclone (talk) 23:14, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Hey @TheWikiCyclone! There's {{Dead end}} for zero wikilinks, and {{Underlinked}} for not enough wikilinks. Panini! • 🥪 23:59, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! TheWikiCyclone (talk) 23:17, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, how do I use userboxes?

I would love to use them on my user page :D How do I get and put them on there? Jesoysauce (talk) 00:06, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Jesoysauce. More info on this topic can be found at WP:UBX. Thanks! ⸗ Antrotherkus ^{❲ Talk to me! ❳} ⸗ 00:11, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

What kind of electric plugs are used in South Africa?

electric plugs used in South Africa Taluksangay (talk) 17:52, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The Teahouse is not a general question asking forum; I'd suggest using your preferred search engine for assistance, or you could ask at the Reference Desk. 331dot (talk) 17:57, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Taluksangay, AC power plugs and sockets answers your question, but Wikipedia is not a reliable source. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:31, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Meme attribution

I'm currently thinking of working on a draft for the "Change My Mind" meme. I've found reliable sources which document the meme and am going to make it into a draft. To improve the article, I'm intending to release an example of the meme. How would I go around attributing that? Flux55 (my talk page) 18:13, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Flux55. I'm afraid I don't quite understand the question. What do you mean by "release"? If you are creating a new work, you own the copyright, and can upload it, licensing it as you go. If you do not own the copyright, then you cannot upload it, unless you can argue that it meets all the non-free content criteria. Once your draft has been accepted into the encyclopaedia, I think you may well be able to make that argument, but non-free content may not be used except in articles (i.e. not in drafts). The presence or not of an image will not affect whether your draft is accepted or not. ColinFine (talk) 18:46, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

@ColinFineI am guessing they mean that they are making a "Change My Mind" meme for the example. AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 04:25, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Help! The draft of the Chile–South Korea relations has been declined

Chile–South Korea relations has been declined. I've never created a document. I'm looking for help. I think it's reliable information by quoting trusted media (official sites in China and newspapers in Korea). Can you give me any help? LandAndTree (talk) 04:10, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Look at the comment that came with the decline message. You need to provide sources for every high-level visits. AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 04:27, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Several ip users keep on adding in the same change, which contains grammatical mistakes. What can I do?

In Li Yundi article, several ip users (looks like same person) keep on adding in the same change, which contains grammatical mistakes. The users also claim that grammar is a non-native English syntax. What can I do? I have no experience handling this. Thanks a lot!

Is this vandalism : Special:Diff/1207622328,Special:Diff/1207630506,Special:Diff/1207663491,Special:Diff/1209374639 EleniXDD (talk) 04:24, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

@EleniXDD: No it is not vandalism. See WP:VANDAL for how the term is used on Wikipedia. It looks like a plain content dispute, please discuss it on the article's talk page, and if it can't be resolved there, try WP:DR. Do not engage in an edit war. RudolfRed (talk) 04:44, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

thanks for the advice EleniXDD (talk) 04:46, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Notability Issues

So I saw a page where it says "an editor has performed a search and found that sufficient sources exist to establish the subject's notability".

I am curious on how the editor found the sources. What type of sources do we look for when editing wikipedia pages Legendcrest (talk) 05:53, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

@Legendcrest: which specific page are you referring to? Moniepoint Inc? If so, we can ping the editor who added it yesterday for their explanation. If you haven't yet done so, please also refer to the {{sources exist}} template page for more information. To answer your last question, we look for reliable sources when editing Wikipedia pages in accordance with WP:RS criteria. Left guide (talk) 07:59, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

BLP and articles about children

I'm looking at Megha Wijewardane, which is an article about a child who is now 13 who became an ambassador for NASA aged 10. I'm wondering whether WP:BLP1E would apply in this context, and also whether there are specific policies about BLPs on children. Thanks. Tacyarg (talk) 11:50, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

If there's little significant coverage of, for example, specific acts he has been performing as ambassador and only of the fact he became an ambassador then BLP1E could apply, yes. There's no specific policy about BLPs on minors from my knowledge. AlexandraAVX (talk) 13:53, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Not a policy, but WP:MINORS exists. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:24, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you both, and those who have improved the article since. Tacyarg (talk) 11:00, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

If zero would be even, ...

I am commenting page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parity_of_zero

If zero would be even, then we would say the following.

1. snakes have zero legs, if zero would be even,
we would say: snakes have an even number of legs.

2. pigs have zero wings, if zero would be even,
we would say: pigs have an even number of wings.

Zero 0 objects divided in groups of b > 0 objects,
will count 0 complete groups of b objects and 0 objects leftover,
that means 0/b = (q, r) = (0, 0) for any b > 0.

Even numbers are named even, because divided in groups of 2,
will count at least one group of 2, but not less, having no leftover.

Considering "0 is even",
suggesting that 0 will count at least one group of 2,
that is false.

Generalization:

For a >= 0 and b >= 0, where a/b = (q, r) => b * q + r = a
a is incomplete aggregation, if q >= 0 and r > 0
a is complete aggregation, if q > 0 and r = 0
a = 0 is neutral aggregation, if q = 0 and r = 0
109.185.67.40 (talk) 09:39, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

If you wish to argue that the content of the article Parity of zero is mistaken and needs correction, then the place to do this is Talk:Parity of zero. -- Hoary (talk) 09:46, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I tried so often, that they blocked me for any further suggestions.
109.185.67.40 (talk) 09:52, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello IP user. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. It doesn't matter whether your argument is right or wrong, earth-shaking or trivial, Wikipedia is simply not interested in it until it has been not only published, but indepedently discussed, in reliable sources. ColinFine (talk) 10:35, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

If you have been blocked, then you shouldn't be editing logged-out either; that is block evasion. Just saying. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:16, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

If you want to have math related discussion, you may use Mathematics Refernce Desk. I hope you find it helpful. ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 10:29, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I do not know what to do in such a case, because that article "induce in error" a lot of people, taking seriously that article as "true argument". What to do?
109.185.67.40 (talk) 11:30, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

All you can do is try to understand why people might find the arguments on the page useful. We cannot help you feel good about them. Remsense诉 11:33, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

If I understood correctly, it is desired Wikipedia to be a Reference of Knowledge, but if the information is false, resulting Wikipedia has no more Argument of Trust, it is just a "garbage of information". That is why I am insisting on correctness of information, no matter who and where was it published. 109.185.67.40 (talk) 11:39, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

No one wants to take any individual's word for it, only reliable sources like those the article cites, which are part of the history of mathematics that arrived at the conclusion that zero is even. No one here can help you if your only mission is to remove material you do not like. We go by sources, but we are not ourselves sources. Perhaps reading some of the sources in the article could help get a sense of what people are talking about. Remsense诉 11:42, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, from that point of view, I understand, sources matter, but from another point of view, resulting Wikipedia promote information that has no counterarguments.
109.185.67.40 (talk) 11:53, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Neutral point of view does not mean "no point of view" or "all points of view", and it's not our job to decide which subjects are more multifaceted than others. Reflecting the body of reliable sources in the world is the best yardstick we have, which is why we do not allow original research. Remsense诉 11:56, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank You. Understood. Therefore, I am going to write an article, that maybe in the near future, will be published as a reliable source for Wikipedia in the future. 109.185.67.40 (talk) 12:00, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Best of luck on your journey, cheers. Remsense诉 12:00, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Re the "blocked" mention, there is no evidence in the history of Parity of zero that any account or IP has been blocked, although there have been warnings. The dispute involving this editor appears to date back to July 2023. Talk page content suggests other editors have had disagreements with this article. The article itself dates to 2007 and became a Featured article in 2013. David notMD (talk) 12:34, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

This is wandering off-topic, but I quite like the article in its present state, it seems one of our best mathematics articles—and doesn't seem that it's one keen eye away from FAR, like some other FAs from decades gone by. Remsense诉 12:45, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

If to cite that article, will result that 13 * 0 = 0 also demonstrate "0 is even", because 0 = 2 * 0 = 0 + 0 = 13 * 0, where "0 is even" suggests that 0 will count at least one group of 2, but that is false. Therefore, that article is not logic, but "ideology", because it is against any logic. 109.185.67.40 (talk) 13:07, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

no one is going to listen to you. ltbdl (talk) 13:47, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

(Not necessary in the Teahouse, better to WP:DENY the LTA; took me long enough to realize) Remsense诉 13:52, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I think is better to say: no body think, everybody believe. Believing is not knowledge.
109.185.67.40 (talk) 14:02, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

IP editor. Have you read the article? Parity of zero#Defining parity explains that to say that 0 is even is a convention. The article has good explanations of the consequences of deciding that the even numbers do not include 0 and why most mathematicians don't do so. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:51, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

If "0 is even" is a convention, then conventions have no demonstration, nevertheless this fact, they bring a demonstration, saying 0 = 2 * 0 = 0 + 0 demonstrate that "0 is even", that suggests that 0 counts at least one group of 2, but that is false. More than that, if 0 = 2 * 0 = 0 + 0 demonstrate "0 is even", if to follow this idea, will result 0 = 0 + 0 + 0 = 3 * 0, will demonstrate "0 is odd" also.
109.185.67.40 (talk) 14:57, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

109.185.67.40, which of these numbers do you believe are odd, and which do you believe are even (-5,-4,-3,-2,-1,0,1,2,3,4,5} ? Maproom (talk) 15:07, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

-5, -3, -1, 1, 3, 5 are odd.

-4, -2, 2, 4 are even.

0 is neutral aggregation when divided in groups of b > 0.
109.185.67.40 (talk) 15:32, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I have zero belief that this discussion can lead to a useful improvement to the article in question. David notMD (talk) 10:26, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

The IP has been blocked for disruptive editing. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:57, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I have a question

What happens if you criticize Wikipedia in a rude unpleasant way on this website? Do you get banned or something? Also I do not hate Wikipedia and I will never criticize it, I'm just wondering what happens. MJGTMKME123 (talk) 13:31, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

It's like discussing anything else. Personal attacks, legal threats, libel are not allowed, and generally Wikipedia is not a forum. Plenty of editors vocally express dislike for aspects of the site or the WMF often, and when it doesn't fall into those categories or other behavioral guidelines, there's nothing to be concerned about.

(Personally, I think it's gauche to complain about a website on said website as a matter of course, but that's neither here nor there.) Remsense诉 13:36, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. Merely posting criticism of Wikipedia is permitted; one user I'm familiar with puts a disavowal of the Wikimedia Foundation in every edit summary. Many people have statements critical of Wikipedia on their user pages. It it goes beyond mere criticism to the realm of a vulgar rant, that may be a different matter. 331dot (talk) 13:38, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Reel Tapes a "No No" in Discographies??

In many album discographies, contributors also often note the vinyl album was available in other formats such as cassette tapes, 8 track tapes, and CDs. I recently noticed someone awhile back deleted all my additions on one singer's album discography for pre-1980 cassettes and reel tapes and said in their comments that "reel tapes are a no no" or something like that. Is this true? I find it hard to believe a popular format in the 1960's (and to a lesser degree, early 1970's) should not be listed among the formats in which an album was released. Have no clue why they deleted 1968-1979 cassettes as they were certainly available in that era. Proof of the release of the recording in either format can often be found in photographs on Discogs and in Ebay auctions and likely as well in Scwhann catalogs of the era. VintageVinylLPS (talk) 02:16, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

@VintageVinylLPS: Hi there! I hope you followed the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and discussed it on the article's talk page with the user who reverted your edit. There's a dormant proposal at Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies/style - I don't know that there's anything current. GoingBatty (talk) 02:56, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

You may be interested to note that Rachmaninoff's "discography" (rightly) includes recordings released for reproducing piano, i.e. punched-paper piano rolls designed to be played by a mechanical/pneumatic system! There have been many ways to release recordings over the years, and will no doubt be many more to come. Elemimele (talk) 14:19, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Modrn Legends deletion

Can you help me re-write the page so that it doesn't need to be deleted? ScratcherSonic (talk) 19:01, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

@ScratcherSonic: Welcome to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1216. Looking at it, I strongly suggest you work on something else, as Wattpad stories are virtually never considered wikinotable, especially when there are no independent secondary reliable sources that talk about it in significant detail. I agree with the reviewer rejecting the draft outright, as it is wholly unfit to be an encyclopedic article. You may wish to use an alternative outlet like Miraheze. Furthermore, if you were given permission by the author to pen this draft, you have a conflict of interest and are supposed to disclose it outside of the main text. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:24, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Wasn't a few shows originally a Wattpad book? If it was an anime that aired, would you agree to help me rewrite it? ScratcherSonic (talk) 19:27, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I would not. Like I said previously, you have to demonstrate that the article you're writing about is wikinotable.

I strongly suggest you take a look at featured and good articles to understand what makes them high quality. For one thing, a section on theme songs is inappropriate. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:43, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I see...Thank you! Now I can finish school, mope around, create my anime, and make a Wikipedia page about that, and have a Fandom page on it too! And you can't do anything about it. Unless someone else makes one. ScratcherSonic (talk) 19:47, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Good luck with that. Until your hypothetical anime becomes wikinotable and has reliable sources covering it, I foresee that draft being rejected as well. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:49, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, I know people. ScratcherSonic (talk) 19:51, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

And a sketcher. ScratcherSonic (talk) 19:51, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan! After you and your friend get Modrn Legends published and and popular and reviewed by well-known reviewers, then someone with no connection to you may decide to craft a draft. David notMD (talk) 10:39, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah... ScratcherSonic (talk) 15:00, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

What's wrong with Wikipedia

I made a reply on a talk page. I thought it was incorrect so I wanted to do a strike through and do a better comment. But I never done strike through before so maybe I did it incorrectly. I also tried to add in simultaneously the correct reply where I say some stuff which isn't offensive. But I keep getting messages that edit filter recognise my reply as "disruptive editing". I never had this problem before and I can't seem to add my reply in. Can you please tell me how do I resolve that? 49.180.164.128 (talk) 16:11, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I will defer you to WP:EFFP to make a false positive report. Someone over there will be able to determine what is going on. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 16:14, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Here's the log, if you can make sense of it: [10] — Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for that. However I seem to be able to get around it just now, by writing a completely different comment altogether. So maybe don't need to bother them as it's maybe no longer an issue for me. But thanks for you giving me that info. :) 49.180.164.128 (talk) 16:26, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Perils of IP editing, I suppose. Anyway, good luck! — Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:29, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello MKDDijaspora

@WikiDiaspora Can u help me with something ? When you are active, contact me. Mnd-bitola (talk) 18:04, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Mnd-bitola, this is not really how you contact specific editors. Every user has their own talk page. Did you have any questions about editing Wikipedia? — Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:26, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

No. I've already written to his talk page. Thank you. Mnd-bitola (talk) 16:30, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Page ID question

Hullo friends. I was curious about something involving page IDs, and I figured someone here would know. Why is is that page IDs seem to randomly cut off at 5281 and smaller numbers? To me, it would make sense if page IDs were given by order of page creation, but that doesn't appear to be the case. That's all. Thanks! ⸗ Antrotherkus ^{❲ Talk to me! ❳} ⸗ 00:16, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Appears to be slightly above our paygrade, Antrotherkus. WP:VPT maybe? Or perhaps WP:RD/C even. Best, — Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Ok thanks! ⸗ Antrotherkus ^{❲ Talk to me! ❳} ⸗ 16:30, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Page Deleted

I'm really new at editing on wikipedia. I tried to just change the title of a page and ran into unexpected problems. I was trying to change the title from "Blanche Grant" to "Blanche Chloe Grant". I was just trying to add her middle name. Someone. I guess an admin or something deleted the page completely. Can anyone help me get it back online?

Hdgknsn (talk) 16:00, 22 February 2024 (UTC) hdgknsn

Hdgknsn, it's at Blanche Chloe Grant. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:04, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Liz, is there anything in the history of Blanche Grant or its talk page to make it worth restoring instead of recreating it as a redirect? — Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:07, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Never mind. Now it's at Draft:Blanche Chloe Grant so mainspace titles don't matter. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:10, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

@Hdgknsn I hope you intend to improve the article, since whatever title it uses it is in a poor state. There are minor issue like adherence to MOS:SURNAME guidance and major ones like the absence of citations for nonsense statements like Blanche Grant died in June of 1948. Although as of yet, not much has been found about her obituary or her funeral, but we can assume that many important people from Taos paid their respects. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:08, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

It has been draftified and is now at Draft:Blanche Chloe Grant. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:09, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Are you alse editing while not logged in, showing up as IP 100.40.102.126? Going forward, always log in before editing. David notMD (talk) 17:54, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Text World Theory

Hey all,

I was told that my Text World Theory article was neither formal nor neutral enough. Could somebody help me out with this? I tried to stay as neural as possible (it's something I'm pretty excited about and I'm more than willing to acknowledge that it might have influenced the way I write!) but I would just like some pointers about which aspects in particular need some TLC. Any help would be greatly appreciated. I think I can include the link here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Text_World_Theory) but I'm not a very good or experienced editor so I might be wrong!

Thanks in advance! :) Mr Blumenthal (talk) 18:29, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Mr Blumenthal: when giving a link to a draft, you can do it like this: Draft:Text_World_Theory. But you did give a link (unlike the person who started the thread two above this one), that's what matters. I've had a few goes at reading your draft, and found it unusually soporofic. After a few sentences, I wake up and think "What's all this about? Why am I reading this? Maproom (talk) 23:55, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I disagree with Urban Versis 32's assessment: I find the presentation a little dry, but in no way informal or ad-like. If the sources are sound (I haven't myself checked), I would be inclined (were I a reviewer) to accept the draft.

I do think the draft would benefit from some judiciously placed illustrative examples of short texts being analysed according to the theory. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 176.24.45.226 (talk) 08:49, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I've had another read of the draft, after some more coffee. I agree with 176 (né 87) more than with Urban. But Text World Theory sounds more like a way to kill the reader's interest in a poem, than to encourage engagement. Maybe some examples would correct that impression. Maproom (talk) 11:53, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Oh righttt that makes sense I understand. To be honest, based on feedback I have had in the past, I was reluctant to deviate too much from the sources (not in terms of direct copy-pasting obviously but in terms of the style of language) so I will have another look at making it more accessible. There are several examples of this being used in schools in the literature so I will add a worked example of how it can be used in a classroom setting.

If I am understanding you correctly, I think it would also be beneficial to add an example to the lead? Or to the 'origin and development' section? To make it clearer to someone unfamiliar with cognitive poetics?

Thank you for all your help. Mr Blumenthal (talk) 19:03, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes this sounds like an excellent idea! Thank you for suggesting this will really help to illustrate exactly what the purpose is.

This also helps to clarify what was impenetrable about the article in the first place: I need to focus on the fact that this is a theory about how language is understood rather than an type of literary criticism. This has been really revealing about the work I need to do thank you :) Mr Blumenthal (talk) 19:05, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

on a semi-related note, is "text world theory" even a proper noun?

from a quick look, other theories (like dead internet theory, see the lowercase t) don't seem to be, so that might be part of the reason it was said to read like an ad cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 12:23, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Interesting question! The answer is broadly yes: it is capitalised by a lot of the researchers who work on it (Cushing,Giovanelli, Gavins) but the guy who made it up (Werth) didn't. I personally think go with the majority perspective? Mr Blumenthal (talk) 19:25, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Notability

"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" (Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline). Evidently, independence requires a "third-party source...that is entirely independent of the subject being covered." If that is meant literally, there seem to be tons of published articles that fail this test, particularly those in specialized, technical topics.

I'm thinking in particular of articles in mathematics. I may feel that Solution_in_radicals is notable (I do), but I see nothing in that article that satisfies the requirement above. Its three references are not at all independent of the subject. Am I missing something?

I understand that there are some subject-specific guidelines, but there doesn't seem to be a set of guidelines for mathematics (at least Wikipedia:WikiProject_Mathematics doesn't have any). Where might I get more information about this? Johsebb (talk) 18:48, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Johsebb. The article in question is a stub, our lowest quality level. We have millions of articles that need to be improved. If you believe that the topic is not notable, then you are welcome to nominate it at Articles for Deletion. However. I see references to works by three different authors. What leads you to believe that none of these sources are independent? Cullen328 (talk) 19:00, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

The third source appears to be an algebra textbook, which is independent. Cullen328 (talk) 19:03, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Based on its title, the first source appears to be a report by one mathematician on the work of another mathematician. Cullen328 (talk) 19:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

One of the reviewer's comments of my Draft:Aliasing_(factorial_experiments) (a recently revised version) says, "Notability is also not clearly established." If a textbook is considered independent, it seems to me that my article has several independent sources. What more would be needed to establish notability of this topic? Johsebb (talk) 03:47, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I should have answered your question about the sources cited in Solution_in_radicals. I do feel that the subject is notable, and would not flag the article for deletion. On the other hand, Notability#General_notability_guideline asks that sources be "entirely independent of the subject being covered". I would have thought that textbooks (or papers) that cover the topic of a particular article are not "independent of the subject".

If textbooks that deal with the subject of my article are "independent" sources, then the reviewer of my article flagged it incorrectly for being on a non-notable subject. I am eager to learn how to deal with that. I hope you will respond. Johsebb (talk) 20:37, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Johsebb - it might help to look at notability a little differently. A thing may (or may not) be notable, but an article cannot be notable (some exceptions may apply). An article can demonstrate notability, but it is possible to have a poor article about a notable thing. Madam Fatal (talk) 19:48, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I want your help to

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Teahouse § I want your help to

 – —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:45, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I want your help to continue a forum 196.191.32.5 (talk) 20:42, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi IP editor, welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia does not host forums as such - I'm afraid we're not going to be able to help you here. Do you have any other questions about using or editing Wikipedia? 57.140.16.1 (talk) 21:05, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Template:Nowiki

Hello!

I happened across this template today; can anyone help me to understand its exact function? The actual page doesn't say anything I can work with. Thanks in advance. Knightoften (talk) 06:53, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

That template page should certainly link to H:NOWIKI, which explains the <nowiki>...</nowiki> tag that {{nowiki}} is a wrapper for.

If you're not familiar, don't worry too much about this, but MediaWiki has wikitext that "extends" HTML, so that you have special tags that work like HTML for the user, but do special wiki stuff, like <score /> for sheet music and <references> for reference lists. Sometimes people use templates that just wrap HTML or tags for various reasons, e.g. {{strong|hi}} just emits <strong>hi</strong>, which displays as hi.

I'm going to make sure that link is somewhere on the template page! If you have more questions, please let me know. Remsense诉 07:30, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

@Knightoften In short, the nowiki commands let you type other commands without the software acting on those other commands.

This is useful when you want to write a sentence that shows how the command looks when typed, but without actually activating that command.

It comes in two halves: the first to turn ON the instruction to ignore the code that follows (and simply shows it as text. Then a second half that turns it OFF. Any subsequent code commands will then be acted upon by our software, as normal. Nick Moyes (talk) 08:57, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense诉, @Nick Moyes Thank you both!! That's very helpful. Knightoften (talk) 21:06, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Article makeover

I took out all the conversational details out of the the article. I was wondering if anyone could look it over and see if they think it is uo to snuff. The page is at Draft: Blanche Chloe Grant. I already submitted it for review. Was that a mistake? Hdgknsn (talk) 19:30, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Blanche Chloe Grant - 57.140.16.1 (talk) 20:12, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Hdgknsn (talk) 21:14, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello Hdgknsn. I think Nick means "good sources which talk about this person". ColinFine (talk) 21:52, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Hdgknsn. Not necessarily! Any feedback you receive from a reviewer can be helpful in improving it prior to resubmission.

My initial reaction was to wonder why there are pictures of four women in the article, when three of them are not mentioned at all. What is their significance, if any? I think you should continue to look for good sources which talk about this article person whilst awaiting for a review. However, I'm not sure she'll meet our notabilty criteria for artists in its present form Nick Moyes (talk) 21:27, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Login page doesn't have forgot password

The [login page] doesn't have the forgot password link. Bzik2324 (talk) 18:46, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

It does for me. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:12, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

@Anachronist I'm on a public WiFi Internet connection, otherwise, I'm on a cellular Internet data connection, how am I supposed to reset my password if I forgot it? I noticed that link only appears to "unblocked" IP addresses like a home WiFi network, which I don't have. How are users in my situation supposed to reset our passwords in case we forgot it and are locked out? Bzik2324 (talk) 19:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

@Bzik2324: I didn't know it behaved that way. The only advice I can offer is to find a non-public connection like your employer or school, or a friend's home. You can also discuss this at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical); for all I know this may be a bug, and unintentional. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:30, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

@Bzik2324: The link goes to Special:PasswordReset. Does that work for you? PrimeHunter (talk) 21:05, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter no when logged out it reads "Internal error

Your IP address is blocked from editing. To prevent abuse, it is not allowed to use password recovery from this IP address.

Return to Main Page." Bzik2324 (talk) 21:22, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

@Bzik2324: OK. The message is MediaWiki:Blocked-mailpassword. See phab:T109909#2934299 for background. Blocking access to password reset seems a bit extreme but I guess constructive users who really need a password reset will be able to find a way, e.g. asking somebody else to make the request. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:05, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Image load timeout on wiki pages

Hi, I've had issues with images loading intermittently for the past few days on Wikipedia and Wikimedia. Failing to load, like upload.wikimedia is sometimes wholly unresponsive. I'm just talking about when I'm browsing, not uploading or anything. Who should I talk to? Temerarius (talk) 21:54, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Temerarius since this is an issue with images, you should probably raise this at Wikimedia Commons (commons:COM:VPT). I personally haven't had any image loading issues recently. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 23:05, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

MediaWiki may also be a good place to report the bug (since it is likely a software issue). Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 23:07, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

how do i contact the mayor of medellin south america

want to contact the mayor of medellin south america 2600:6C65:623F:B1DD:85DB:37D:26FF:536C (talk) 19:09, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1216. Wikipedia does not have contact with bureaucratic figures like mayors. Please use a Medellin website to find the contact information you're looking for. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:11, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I'm violating protocol here, but on Spanish Wikipedia, I found es:Medellín, and I notice that the "external links" section has a link to the "official" page of the Medellín Mayor's Office]. Fabrickator (talk) 23:40, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

New Here - How to Best Bring an Existing Article from German Wiki to English Wiki

Hi there - am new on wikipedia and interested in intersections of US and German history/literature. There is an author with an existing page on German wikipedia, and none on English wikipedia. I read starting a new page from scratch can be daunting/take a long time, especially when a new contributor to wikipedia. Is there a "streamlined" way to bring the (translated) version of the existing German wikipedia into English wikipedia, or would I have to start "from scratch" with a new English page? If so, would that be possible with the help/under the supervision of more experienced contributors, to make sure this goes smoothly? Any help much appreciated. Thank you! HCR24 (talk) 22:49, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

HCR24 see WP:TRANSLATETOHERE and Help:Translation - it should answer your question. The Content Translation tool is available to extended confirmed editors. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 23:10, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for this. So, if I understand this correctly, even though an article already exists on a person on the German wiki, I still have to go through WP:YFA and create a new article from scratch? Which might take six weeks or longer to go live? Wikipedia:Requested articles does not help this situation, or speed it up? HCR24 (talk) 23:51, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

@HCR24: Welcome to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1216. As an autoconfirmed user, you do not need to go through YFA, but it is strongly recommended. WP:RA does nothing to speed up the process. The most important thing to note here is that policies and guidelines are different between different Wikipedia projects, so I'd evaluate the sources currently being used on deWikipedia and determine if they demonstrate that the author is wikinotable by enWiki's standards. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:01, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

List of redheads

Why aren't Rick Astley and Bryan Adams on this list? Although both a different shade of red, they are it for sure. 145.53.192.20 (talk) 23:49, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Because you haven't added them yet! Feel free to do so with a published reliable source for each one. If you'd like to discuss it with other interested editors, you may post at Talk:List of redheads. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 00:11, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Mobile interface

Hi I'm User:BurningBlaze05 a notable editor of the F1 Feeder Series community. There is a issue I would like to point out, the mobile version of the website looks weird now, as in I have to press to many buttons. Formerly I could do all my work quickly, but now I find it challenging and I have to work a slow as a tortoise. Is their a way that the user the revert the changes make to the site. I hope this new interface isn't permanent.

Yours sincerely: BurningBlaze05 (talk) 06:40, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

As of this comment, your last three edits aren't on the mobile interface, judging by the lack of a "mobile edit" tag in your contributions. If you did not intentionally force desktop mode, please try clicking the "Yes" button at this link and seeing if it fixes matters. Otherwise, we would need some more information and perhaps a screenshot to further troubleshoot. Cheers, Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 08:21, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Oh. I'm a twit BurningBlaze05 (talk) 08:30, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

sorry for causing any trouble BurningBlaze05 (talk) 08:30, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I can't thank you enough! BurningBlaze05 (talk) 08:36, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

No worries; happens to the best of us. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 02:04, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Do I have any chance?

Hi there. I am making an article for T-Money, an old school hip-hop rapper. I've been getting into MTV archives and he's a pretty cool dude. I'm having trouble getting my article approved, I was wondering if someone would be able to take a look, and tell me if this guy has any chance of getting an article approved? I think he is notable enough for his own page, but I am new to wikipedia editing. Thanks! Taevchoi (talk) 23:23, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

If someone is willing to take a look, I'll link my draft. Thanks guys Taevchoi (talk) 23:24, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Taevchoi, this is about Draft:T Money (rapper). There are a lot of helpful recommendations at the top. Remove the reference to Wikipedia because Wikipedia is not a reliable source per WP:CIRCULAR. Remove the references to IMDb, per WP:IMDB, as that is not a reliable source. Remove the reference to the US Sun, which is not a reliable source per WP:THESUN. Remove the reference to a book sales listing on Amazon. We do not link to commercial sales sites except in articles about those sites. You can use Google Books instead. I doubt that WhoSampled is a reliable source. Remove the reference to eBay. Again, we do not link to commercial sales sites. Beats, Boxing and Mayhem looks like a blog, and does not appear to be a reliable source, per WP:BLOGS. Genius is a dubious source that should be used with great caution, per WP:GENIUS. Remove all content referenced to unreliable sources, and keep in mind that quality is more important than quantity. Cullen328 (talk) 00:08, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

OMG..... thank you so much. @Cullen328 I was cautious about removing info because I thought there wouldn't be enough text about the subject. I'm going to revise now. A lot of the information on this subject is in books about old school hip hop, so I found a cool online archive I'm going to dig around. I didn't realize that taking out info would serve me better than adding. Thanks again! Taevchoi (talk) 00:56, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Taevchoi, more information is fine, within reason, as long as it is referenced to reliable sources. Books issued by established publishing houses are usually very good sources. Cullen328 (talk) 01:09, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Books do not have to be accessable online to be references. David notMD (talk) 03:25, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Redirect

Could someone please redirect Wakan Island to Harriet Island since that is an alternate name for the island? It won't allow me to do it. Ominateu (talk) 03:35, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

 Done, cheers! Remsense诉 03:43, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Ominateu (talk) 04:09, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Feedback requested for a draft after trying to implement 1st round of suggestions

Hello! I am writing to request feedback for an article that I have been drafting with the help and feedback of others, including Teahouse members. Can you please take a look at the latest and advise me about ways to improve the article? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Bhargav_Sri_Prakash

Thanks in advance. KrisJohanssen (talk) 06:42, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I read: He is the founder of FriendsLearn and serves as Carnegie Mellon University Digital Vaccine Project's founding partner and as the resident inventor for research translation-innovation. / According to Carnegie Mellon University's website for the Digital Vaccine Project, "Digital Vaccines are a subcategory of digital therapeutics [etc etc]". Better to provide a description of "digital vaccines" that's based on reliable sources that are independent of both BSP and CMU. -- Hoary (talk) 07:43, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion @Hoary. May I include the following excerpt as a description? If necessary, can you please help me rewrite this in language that would be an appropriate interpretation of the definition in the report?

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/digital-vaccine-global-market-report-100300622.html

"A Digital vaccine is a tool that trains the brain and encourages good habits using a variety of digital technologies, such as virtual reality, smartphone apps, and artificial intelligence. Moreover, digital vaccines are cutting-edge technologies that can aid individuals in enhancing their mental health and encouraging positive behavior. They are affordable, simple to use, and adaptable to different demands. Also, they have the ability to help where it is most needed and reach a huge audience.

Digital vaccinations hold great promise for enhancing mental health and encouraging good conduct in people. These vaccinations have the ability to assist people in forming healthier behaviors and leading better, more meaningful lives by combining neurocognitive training and nudging strategies. The potential for digital vaccines to promote positive change is enormous and exciting as digital technologies continue to develop."

Thank you for your guidance and help.

KrisJohanssen (talk) 05:18, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

KrisJohanssen, BSP is working for the Carnegie Mellon University Digital Vaccine Project. CMU is a university. Now, universities do sometimes do the strangest things, but I'll start with the assumption that the Digital Vaccine Project is something that's intellectually sound and of academic value. Are there no academic descriptions (independent of BSP and CMU, of course) of "digital vaccines", perhaps articles in journals of educational psychology? (If educational psychology is not the relevant field, then which are the relevant fields?) Why does the draft have to depend on a piece from finance.yahoo.com that's unsigned and (with talk of "cutting-edge technologies", etc) why does it read like an advertising puff? (And what do "neurocognitive training" and "nudging strategy" mean, anyway?) Google Scholar does offer a lot of hits for the string "digital vaccine"; but many are obviously false positives (whereby for example "digital vaccine records" aren't records of digital vaccines but instead digital records of vaccines) and a lot more look as if they're likely to be false positives, but I really can't be bothered to investigate. -- Hoary (talk) 08:08, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback @Hoary. Based on your questions I did further research and am even more convinced of the Science as this is backed by solid publications in indexed journals + reported on by multiple Universities. I will use the the article published by Brown University Alpert School of Medicine Center for Digital health for the description of digital vaccine, instead of the market report on digital vaccines
<be> I just want to clarify that no where in my research did I find that "BSP is working for the Carnegie Mellon University Digital Vaccine Project", as you suggest. Is there such a reference? I have seen that he is consistently attributed as a collaborator of Carnegie Mellon and that he is the founder of FriendsLearn and the developer of fooya.

According to this article which is cited by the article draft, published by Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health Center for Communication Programs it is stated that "Bhargav Sri Prakash, Founder & CEO of FriendsLearn, which developed the game". As for academic descriptions, here is an article published by Alpert School of Medicine at Brown University, which I have also cited in the draft.. It states "A different type of vaccine, called a “digital vaccine”, might offer a solution to the problem of creating sustained behavioral change. These are not typical vaccinations in the sense of promoting biological immunity to a pathogen, but they have this name because they create resistance to disease through a different mechanism. Digital vaccines are a subtype of digital therapeutics, which use neurocognitive training to promote positive human behavior using technologies like smartphone apps"

A peer reviewed publication in JMIR mHealth and uHealth based on a randomised controlled trial states this in Conclusion "Implicit and gamified learning about healthy eating delivered via a mobile app can significantly improve children’s food choices immediately after the game. While additional scientific evidence is needed to confirm that such apps can serve as a digital vaccine with long-term impact, this study provides novel insights about the potential drivers of the observed positive short-term effect".

This peer reviewed publication has been cited by 6 other peer reviewed publications and in one book/policy document

The citations include :

Journals

Lagu A, Thaha R, Syafar M, Hadju V, Kurniati Y. Using Games to Promote Healthy Behavior in Children: A Narrative Review. Open Access Macedonian Journal of Medical Sciences 2022;10(E):1904

Limone P, Messina G, Toto G. Serious games and eating behaviors: A systematic review of the last 5 years (2018–2022). Frontiers in Nutrition 2022;9

Brown J, Franco-Arellano B, Froome H, Siddiqi A, Mahmood A, Arcand J. The Content, Quality, and Behavior Change Techniques in Nutrition-Themed Mobile Apps for Children in Canada: App Review and Evaluation Study. JMIR mHealth and uHealth 2022;10(2):e31537

Schaafsma H, Jantzi H, Seabrook J, McEachern L, Burke S, Irwin J, Gilliland J. The impact of smartphone app–based interventions on adolescents’ dietary intake: a systematic review and evaluation of equity factor reporting in intervention studies. Nutrition Reviews 2023

Hovadick A, Cardoso M. Family-based WhatsApp intervention to promote healthy eating behaviors among Amazonian school children: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial (Preprint). JMIR Research Protocols 2023

Ren J, Xu W, Liu Z. The Impact of Educational Games on Learning Outcomes. International Journal of Game-Based Learning 2024;14(1):1

Books/Policy Documents

Cabascango S, Andrango I, Guerrero G. Sustainable, Innovative and Intelligent Societies and Cities. View KrisJohanssen (talk) 15:01, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

KrisJohanssen, it seems that I hastily misread "serves as Carnegie Mellon University Digital Vaccine Project's founding partner" as "is Carnegie Mellon University Digital Vaccine Project's co-founder", or similar, but of course its meaning is different. Sorry about that. -- Hoary (talk) 22:46, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Not at all, dear @Hoary. I'm really grateful for your patience and insightful questions which has driven me to dive deeper in to researching the subject. Since I am a first time editor + the topic of digital vaccines is new to me I could use all the help I can get! :) If you would please give me any further feedback or suggestions to improve the draft I'd be additionally thankful. KrisJohanssen (talk) 04:49, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

The draft repeatedly (12 times) uses the phrase "digital vaccine" without ever mentioning that they aren't actually vaccines. The subject comes across as a fraud. Maproom (talk) 08:44, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, by contrast, the article Prairie oyster swiftly informs the reader that the subject isn't an oyster. And the prose on which a description of "digital vaccine" perhaps wafts (the stuff I abbreviated above as "[etc etc]") seems to be designed less to inform, more to impress. -- Hoary (talk) 08:56, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Maproom for your feedback. I failed to count it as you have done but totally agree with you that 12 times is far too repetitious! I will edit to reduce the number of times 'digital vaccine' finds mention in the draft. I sincerely seek your help with my draft to ensure that the subject does not come across as a fraud. I request so based on conviction I gained through the research that I have done on the person and the work. I believe that there is significant impact and humanitarian value in the subject's long tenure of commitment to research and disease prevention science. Furthermore the subject's progress is not commercially bolstered by venture capitalists or private equity which can tend to fuel more fraud than impact. Moreover the global award that he has received from Financial Times and the International Finance Corporation World Bank. and first patent by the US PTO makes me believe that the subject deserves the best possible article as a historic record for creating a new field that benefits humanity.

Thanks,

KrisJohanssen (talk) 05:40, 21 February 2024 (UTC) KrisJohanssen (talk) 05:40, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

References

I need to be unblocked

Hi everyone, I was recently blocked from Wikipedia for repeated genre warring. I added some sources that weren't reliable and I realized I made a mistake. Do you know how can I ask to be unblocked. Iamthegoat524 (talk) 03:22, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Seeing as you've located and followed the instructions left on your talk page about how to be unblocked, you seem to know the answer to this question already. There's not anything additional anyone at the Teahouse can do for you. Remsense诉 03:25, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

You might want to read the message sent by Liz on your talk page, if you are actually realizing the mistakes. As they stated, unblock requests aren't something that goes through by writing a 3 minute message or anything like that. Due to the fact that you've been blocked multiple times for the same issues, even I can tell that the administrators aren't willing to unblock you, unless they see some sort of understanding from you. AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 03:29, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean understanding? Iamthegoat524 (talk) 05:08, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks, which Liz referred you to on your talk page. Anything you post about your block which does not follow all the guidelines in that guide will be a waste of your time and anybody's time who has to deal with it.

You have been told that the effective way for you to continue contributing to Wikipedia at present is to make edit requests for the changes you want to see. ColinFine (talk) 10:18, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Or admit the error of your ways and promise to never edit song genre again. David notMD (talk) 10:24, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

But here is the problem, I want to keep editing genres with reliable sources.  Iamthegoat524 (talk) 05:21, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

on the most innovative shooter i've played in years

heads up: this is mostly a matter of curiosity, because i have no real plans of actually making this redirect

if someone were to create "The most innovative shooter I've played in years" as a redirect for superhot (as that's a plot point in the game, mentioned in the target, and also very likely a plausible search), do you think it would be more likely to be deleted for being vandalism, or for how easy it would be to mistake that for actual shilling? cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 19:25, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

@Cogsan I have no idea if it would get deleted, but whenever I make a redirect that I think people in the future will have trouble understanding the background of, I try to make the edit summary with the creation explaining it. If you do that no one will mistake it for promo/blatant nonsense at least. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:09, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Interesting question, @Cogsan. New redirects are patrolled as part of the WP:NPP process, so it'd come down to how the reviewer acted. Given that reviewers are often going through dozens or hundreds of new redirects in a run, and that such a redirect would be pretty easy to mistake for vandalism, I don't think they would be super likely to check the article to search for a mention. So if it lacked a descriptive edit summary it'd likely be deleted (at which point its creator would need to contact the deleting admin to explain). Sdkb ^talk 21:13, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I would delete this redirect if I came across it, but I wouldn't really consider it vandalism unless it was part of a larger pattern of behavior. Remsense诉 05:23, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Interwiki links

Are interwiki links to a page tracked? We have Special:WhatLinksHere but that only includes links from the same wiki. Kk.urban (talk) 03:56, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

@Kk.urban, if you go to the Tools menu and click on "Wikidata item," and then scroll to the bottom, it'll give you the list of interwiki links for a topic. Cheers, Sdkb ^talk 05:35, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

@Sdkb That's not quite what I was looking for. If I create a link on enwiki to fr:Insurrection tchétchène de 1932, it won't show up on fr:Special:WhatLinksHere/Insurrection tchétchène de 1932. Are such links tracked anywhere? Kk.urban (talk) 05:40, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T3886

Ah, I see. I know that file pages these days include usage on other wikis, but there does not seem to be a way to look at incoming links. I found a technical ticket on Phabricator related to this issue that was written all the way back in 2005, so I wouldn't hold out hope it'll be fixed anytime soon. Sdkb ^talk 05:46, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

restore Article

Please restore my article as draft, I'll rewrite it with neutrality and resubmit it again. Noya Boi Bazar (talk) 09:59, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

According to the notifications on your talk page, you need to contact JBW, the deleting administrator. Leave a comment on their talk page. In the future, you can find the username of the deleting admin by clicking the link on your talk page titled deleting administrator. This will take you to the page's deletion log. HansVonStuttgart (talk) 11:03, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Actually, your draft was Speedy deleted by DoubleGrazing for bewing promotional/advertising and your User page (same content?) by JBW. I advice you contact DoubleGrazing. DG also asked you to state on your User page if you have a paid (see WP:PAID) or conflict of interest (see WP:COI) with the proposed article. Do that first. DG may advise you to start over rather than attempting to revise the deleted draft. David notMD (talk) 11:53, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Slight clarification: I only requested the speedy, didn't execute it (can't, as I'm not an admin). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:03, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

"signature song"

What is Five Iron Frenzy's signature song? I would assume Suckerpunch, since thats the one most know Five Iron for. But i googled it, and While Supplies Last (From Until This Shakes Apart) is apparently the bands most popular. i just want to know before i edit List of signature songs Babysharkboss2!! ^{Killer Queen} 14:04, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Babysharkboss2! I would recommend finding a reliable source that states which it is, instead of guessing based off of consensus from here. Otherwise, you could go to the reference desk for entertainment. Happy editing! —asparagusus (interaction) ^sprouts! 14:22, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Alright, then. i'll find a source. thanks, i just didnt want to add it and it be controversial. Babysharkboss2!! ^{Killer Queen} 14:25, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

YouGov article

Hi all,

My name is Andrew and I’m an employee at YouGov. I am currently looking to make some updates to the article and wanted to see if anyone would be up for reviewing my proposed changes and feeding back any advice. As someone employed by the company I am keen not to make the changes myself, but instead work with neutral editors.

All my proposed changes are located at Talk:YouGov – I’ll be very grateful for any advice you could share. Thank you

Asfarmer (talk) 12:45, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

@Asfarmer Thank you for following the correct procedure, and I'm very impressed with how you've laid out the proposed changes in an easy to read way on the Talk Page. I have looked through the text and it all looks fine to me. I would recommend getting rid of some of the double spaces, and in-line citations are placed after adjacent punctuation without a space, so that would need tidying up throughout.

A brief glance at the sources shows no major issues: I would personally not use Who's Who for the first source and would try and find a more reliable source, even if it is primary. Qcne (talk) 14:52, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Qcne,

Thank you so much for your speedy feedback, it is very much appreciated.

I have updated the Talk:YouGov formatting as you suggested.

Regarding the who’s who source, this is currently in the existing article, hence why I have not tried to remove it but instead build on what has previously been approved.

Would you be happy to go in and implement these suggested edits now that you're happy?

Thanks so much, and have a great weekend when it comes.

Asfarmer (talk) 17:01, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

Hello! My name is Ignat. I am totally new here, and I would like to start commenting in deletion discussions in the future. Are there any prerequisites for this activity? Also, could anyone give me some advice about what a good deletion comment should be based upon? I found two Q&As (Wikipedia:Before commenting in a deletion discussion and Wikipedia:Arguments to make in deletion discussions), but maybe there are more materials. Thanks in advance for your assistance! Ignat.Lolov (talk) 16:26, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Ignat.Lolov you should have a solid understanding of the notability guidelines. Articles for Deletion mainly revolves around whether subjects are notable or not. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 16:44, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

With only 4 edits to Wikipedia in your history, I would strongly suggest you gain more experience with general editing first. Theroadislong (talk) 16:53, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

@Ignat.Lolov I agree with Sungodtemple. You will do far less damage or disruption if you first learn to build this encyclopaedia by adding content to existing articles, rather than inputting in areas where you do not (at this moment in time) have enough experience to be able to comment fairly. However, monitoring existing discussions by putting them on your WP:Watchlist and seeing how they develop could be the first step in understanding how this this area works. It's also not just about 'commenting', but about going off and looking for sources that others have missed that might make an article better, and demonstrate WP:N. But with 7 edits under your belt, I suggest working elsewhere to begin with. Regards Nick Moyes (talk) 16:54, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks to you both! I see, I will put the Deletion discussion on hold. I found the local SuggestionBot and will try to polish my editing skills there. You have been very helpful. Ignat.Lolov (talk) 17:14, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Color violation maintenance template

Hi ! Can you tell me the maintenance template for color violation? For example: If any article's section have an issue of color then at that case which maintenance template will be used. Fade258 (talk) 16:54, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

@Fade258 You can use {{Cleanup colors}}. See also Category:Accessibility templates. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:04, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Need more eyes on my first article

For the past several months I have slowly been completely rewriting the Appalachian temperate rainforest article and I think I have added just about everything I can. I want to submit it as a featured article candidate, but it hasn't had many eyes on it other than mine. If y'all could peek at it and give content/copyediting/citation advice or edits it would be greatly appreciated. Cheers! Brooklaika (talk) 07:57, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Looks pretty good to me, I only spot one awkward phrase "These impacts grew" but can't figure how to change it at the moment. Good luck. Theroadislong (talk) 08:36, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

@Brooklaika My advice would be to go for good article status first. The process to get to WP:FA can be quite difficult and frustrating. There was a discussion of that in a recent Signpost article (and its earlier part). Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:29, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree go for GA first. That will give you one reviewer, and from my experience, GA reviewers are generally friendly. I am in the middle (I hope) of raising a GA to FA. My first nomination was rejected as premature. I did weeks of improvement edits. My second nomination recveived DETAILED criticisms from four (so far) FA reviewers. Examples of minutia: the titles in the article's 200 references were a mix of title case and sentence case; I was asked to make all one or the other. Page numbering was either complete (16211-16219) or truncated (16211-9) and I was asked to make all one or the other. All image captions needed work (including one that was not a sentence and yet had a period, while another was a sentence but lacked a period). I was asked to remove the great majority of references from the Lead as long as the content was elaborated upon and had the same references in the body of the article. And lots more. Good luck with your endeavor. David notMD (talk) 11:45, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and submitted it for GA review. Thank y'all for the feedback and advice! Brooklaika (talk) 18:05, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Update for current page

I have updated material for Stephen Holland, artist. How do I send the information for review? JNGHfromStephenHollandStudios (talk) 19:03, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, JNGHfromStephenHollandStudios. Your first step is to make the mandatory Paid contributions disclosure, and familiarize yourself with the guideline on editing with a Conflict of interest. The article Stephen Holland (artist) is very poorly referenced, so your first priority is to identify reliable sources completely independent of Holland that devote significant coverage to him. You should then make formal, well referenced edit requests at Talk: Stephen Holland (artist). Cullen328 (talk) 19:18, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Birkensee new article

Is it allowed to make an article about Birkensee? (lake at the nature park Schönbuch, Germany) Schönbuch is the article where a picture of the Birkensee is. David73232 (talk) 16:50, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, David73232. That depends entirely on whether or not multiple reliable, independent sources have devoted significant coverage to this lake. Passing mentions are not enough. Cullen328 (talk) 17:19, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Cullen328. Thanks for the answer. I found many sources about the lake on the internet. David73232 (talk) 17:48, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

David73232, your next step is to evaluate the reliability of those sources, and whether or not they truly devote significant coverage to Birkensee. Set aside those that don't meet those standards. Create references to those sources. Read Referencing for beginners. You can then start summarizing in your own words what those sources say. You can find lots of good advice at Your first article. Cullen328 (talk) 18:02, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Cullen328, I only found 2 reliable sources. I found a source for the lake at the official Schönbuch page and at another website. A newspaper also had the lake in the text but with not much information about it. This has not enough sources and it is better if it is just in the Schönbuch article as an section, right? David73232 (talk) 18:35, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

David73232, yes, in that circumstance, a section about the lake in the Schönbuch article would be the best solution. Cullen328 (talk) 18:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Cullen328, thank you very much. I have a solution now. I will create the Birkensee section at the Schönbuch article. You have been very helpful. David73232 (talk) 18:55, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

David73232, happy to be of assistance. Cullen328 (talk) 19:08, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

David73232, you might or might not have noticed that Birkensee is currently a redirect to Langwieder lake district which also has a lake so named. This is not a problem for your draft, since when a reviewer accepts it as an article they will make the necessary changes, possibly making Birkensee a disambiguation page rather than a redirect, and modifying the title of your article. You might want to have this in mind when writing. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 176.24.45.226 (talk) 19:27, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, there are multiple Birkensee lakes. As you know, I will not create a new article, I will just create the section Birkensee at the Schönbuch article. Thank you for the information. David73232 (talk) 19:46, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

i work for the marketing team of a temple

Why is it a conflict or interest if I edit the wiki page with the history of the temple. where do i have to update this detail?

Snehajanfy (talk) 12:34, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

@Snehajanfy It is difficult for employees of an institution to make updates based on already-published sources (not personal knowledge) as is required by Wikipedia policy WP:NOR. Also, you may not write neutrally. So, please read WP:PAID and make the mandatory declaration of your status as a paid editor. Then make suggestions for addition to the article on its Talk Page, not directly. If you use the edit request wizard, your suggestions should be implemented by uninvolved editors quite quickly, or they will explain why the new content is not appropriate. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:53, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Note that it is acceptable for paid editors to create draft articles using the WP:AfC process. Hence you may continue to edit Draft:Peringottukara Devasthanam directly but still need to make the paid editor declaration. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:57, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

How exactly do i do this?

But where to add this on the article page?

{{paid|employer=name of employer|client=name of client}} Peringottukara Devasthanam Temple (talk) 13:07, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

You will need to add that to your user page(User:Peringottukara Devasthanam Temple), you will also need to change your username so that it represents you personally, not your temple(your real name is not required, just something representing you). I have placed instructions to do this on your user talk page. 331dot (talk) 13:14, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I have used my personal account to make edits, added the paid claim to my user page as well. what else can i do to get this approved? please help Snehajanfy (talk) 17:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Snehajanfy, please be aware that marketing behavior is strictly forbidden on Wikipedia, as are all related behaviors such as advertising, promotion and public relations. This is a neutral encyclopedia. Conduct yourself accordingly. Cullen328 (talk) 20:03, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Ofcourse I understand this. I have in no way tried to claim or promote anything about my client. All we want is a valid Wikipedia page for the temple. It because of this specific reason why wiki page is so important for any institution to have. I'm sorry if I may have offended anyone by using the term marketing 2001:8F8:1F3F:33E:559B:E09D:5682:ED1 (talk) 20:23, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

There is no guarantee, after doing everything correctly, that the article will be approved for mainspace. The same guidelines and policies apply as it would with any other article with regard to notability and citing reliable sources. --ARoseWolf 20:16, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I have tried to use as many reliable sources as possible. I have over 30 pr links. I'm just not sure as tow here to use them to prove our credibility. Also how do we prove notability? 2001:8F8:1F3F:33E:559B:E09D:5682:ED1 (talk) 20:26, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Simply put, you really shouldn't use those as they're not independent nor reliable to establish wikinotability, which would require quality sources that aren't affiliated with the temple. Please remember to sign in when making comments. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:38, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

• Note: As a courtesy I fixed the template on Snehajanfy's user page. --ARoseWolf 20:12, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  truly appreciate it. I'm still wondering how you fixed it. Kindly pardon my unawareness 2001:8F8:1F3F:33E:559B:E09D:5682:ED1 (talk) 20:27, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Please log in to edit. I have reviewed and declined the draft. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:07, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

HI, I am trying to resubmit my draft again. However I see AFC submission and missing template. Im unable to understad how to proceed. Kindly help Snehajanfy (talk) 17:52, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @Snehajanfy. Generally speaking, a Wikipedia article about a temple needs to focus more on facts like "It is the country's biggest and most ancient Vishnumaya temple, with a tradition of nearly 400 years" and less on the birth of divine beings. Can you find independent sources (e.g., a newspaper article, a tourist guide book, a scholarly work?) that describe the physical building and its construction? Is there anything unusual about its appearance, or are there any activities (e.g., an annual festival) that have attracted attention from people unrelated to it?

Also, searching for "Vishnumaya Kuttichathan Swami", I found Kuttichathan (disambiguation) and Kanadikavu Shree Vishnumaya Kuttichathan Swamy temple. It's possible that the birth story would be better off as a separate article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:27, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

If I made claims of it being the biggest and the oldest, it deviated from being neutral and sounded like puffery. Hence avoided it. I will definitely try and find some material about the structure of the temple and it's architectural significance. Snehajanfy (talk) 18:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I have now added birth story as a separate page. Hopefully that gets approved Snehajanfy (talk) 06:32, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

i hope i have resubmitted the draft as I am not able to see it anymore, Could you please check for me? Snehajanfy (talk) 06:35, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

@Snehajanfy It is still at Draft:Peringottukara Devasthanam, awaiting another review. You may work on it while it waits, if you think of further improvements. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:11, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

:Pardon my irrelevancy here, but am I the only one here who has a reaction to the concept of a temple having a marketing department ??? A publicity department selling postcards and simple souvenirs, I could understand, but a marketing group ??? Autokefal Dialytiker (talk) 17:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

@Autokefal Dialytiker in that city temples of this deity is a business more than anything else. Their competitors all have a wikipedia pages which is affecting them when it comes to authenticity. This is also why they're trying so hard to get this page active.

These temples have been passed on for generations and it's really hard to find exact citations about them unless they're manage by rich families who afforded to publish books about these temples years ago. Other temples lose out in this aspect and are left to prove their authenticity. Snehajanfy (talk) 17:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Also, it's typical for groups to use the up-to-date terminology. Most "publicity departments" are now called "marketing", even when they're 100% volunteer-run. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:02, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, all I can say to that, is that if they call themselves a marketing group while being attached to a presumed religious institution, then they have lost the plot even before they started their work... Autokefal Dialytiker (talk) 18:14, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

In non-profit land, the main alternative is "outreach", but that usually means something more like recruitment or proselytizing. Compare, e.g., the Wikimedia Outreach: wiki. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:21, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Having a "publicity department" would work, also, as a religious group would want to publish their point of view, and the history of their edifices. But marketing is a term that directly implies being for-profit as the main goal, and that simply doesn't fit; a(n honest) religious society (possible example: a monastery) would only seek enough wealth to sustain their life and work. Autokefal Dialytiker (talk) 21:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

"Market" doesn't necessarily imply an exchange of money; after all, there's a Marketplace of ideas. The Wikimedia Foundation has a marketing team. The American Red Cross is hiring for two marketing positions this week. Goodwill Industries has a Chief Marketing Officer. The Nature Conservancy has a Chief Marketing and Communications Officer. The goal might be a little different, but the work's very similar, so they use the same names. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:38, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

You're right on point with that. Snehajanfy (talk) 18:34, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Wow, even religion is competitive and capitalistic now. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 23:15, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

AfC Review Requests

AFC draft review seem to be taking way longer than usual. Requesting these two to be reviewed by anyone who has time:

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Copyleaks Comintell (talk) 23:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Comintell, there are currently 1850 drafts waiting for review. Why do you think that your two drafts deserve special attention? What do you think would happen if 925 editors came to the Teahouse asking for the same thing? I recommend patience. Cullen328 (talk) 23:47, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Copyleaks was Declined on 19 Feb. You revised and resubmitted. Draft:UndetectableAI was created and submitted on 19 Jan, and is awaiting a reviewer. Given the system is not a queue, either may be reviewed in days, weeks, or (sadly) months. David notMD (talk) 01:10, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Creating an Article

Hi I am very much struggling to create a Wikipedia article. I tried submitting one then got helped from the Wikipedia chat and rewrote the article and found more sources. I haven't put that one fully together yet, because I realized this might be better for another person to write, so I was going to put in a request for someone else to create the article, but then I couldn't figure out how to submit a request. So how do I submit a request for someone else? When I originally was trying to submit it (I don't think I was doing it right), but it said that one of the links I was using was blacklisted for spam? I don't know if that's just because I was using the website link multiple times today because I was very lost or something else. AnnaRae803 (talk) 21:32, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Your account has no edits other than the above; could you tell the name of the draft? 331dot (talk) 21:38, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes. I like writing articles. Perhaps I could help. Please feel free to leave a message on my talk page. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:15, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Aurora Teagarden Mysteries

I want to know why I don't see the episode "Cut, Color, Murder" on the website https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurora_Teagarden#External_links That's all. 201.171.189.208 (talk) 02:31, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

huh? ltbdl (talk) 04:05, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

That movie does not seem to be an Aurora Teagarden story. You can ask at the reference desk for more info: WP:RDE. As always, if you have suggestions to improve an article, you can discuss it on that article's talk page. RudolfRed (talk) 05:16, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Infobox image

How is it determined to change an infobox image, especially of a highly notable BLP? For example, the infobox image for Javier Milei is updated almost every few weeks it would seem. I do not for one have any problem with that, but seems to almost be change for change's sake sometimes on many a BLP especially. I know that the image (for BLP's especially) have to be completely free use, but how is it determined which to use? Given that some can be more favorable looking and others less so. Would appreciate some guidelines on that. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:03, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

@Iljhgtn Unless there's some reason it shouldn't, WP:BOLD applies. Some loose guidance at WP:LEADIMAGE. The current one [11] is very recent and apparently donated by the Italian government, so it's a decent choice unless there's an actual official portrait that can be used. Consider starting a "Can we agree on the lead-image, at least for now?" discussion on the talkpage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:11, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Article review

Do articles get automatically reviewed after a certain period of time? I made one back in November that still has not yet been reviewed. No rush, just not sure how that works. Iljhgtn (talk) 18:15, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Iljhgtn. If you provide the name of the article, I can check on it. You can find out more about the review process for new articles at Wikipedia:New pages patrol. You can find out more about the review process for draft articles at Wikipedia:Articles for creation. Cullen328 (talk) 19:26, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

The Foundation for Harmony and Prosperity, I know there is a backlog, no rush. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:34, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Iljhgtn & @Cullen328: Wikipedia:New pages patrol has a link to the query at Special:NewPagesFeed. Running the query for unreviewed articles created by Iljhgtn shows that The Foundation for Harmony and Prosperity (created November 13) and VIADER (created December 10) have not yet been reviewed. GoingBatty (talk) 19:36, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

@Iljhgtn: I suggest reviewing WP:MISSION. GoingBatty (talk) 19:37, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes. I know they had not yet been reviewed. THank you though. I forgot I had one other too that has been awaiting review for a while I think. No rush though, I know there is a major backlog. I was just curious if there is automatic patrol after like 6 months or if it truly drags on for a long time. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:38, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Iljhgtn new articles are not automatically reviewed; in fact, NPP has a massive backlog of 10000 articles right now. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 19:29, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I am eventually going to try and get auto-patrolled. All of my articles have been reviewed and retained eventually, I just need to get up over 25+. I am at 13 or something right now. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:35, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

@Sungodtemple@Iljhgtn Well, from the POV of the editor who puts it in mainspace, it's "automatic", isn't it? As in something they don't have to apply for, it just happens. Or is supposed to, backlog or not. And after 90 days, even if not formally reviewed, they get indexed by search engines (as in shows up on google). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:18, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

The Foundation for Harmony and Prosperity is an interesting read. It mentions the aspirations claimed by the Foundation, and appears be be neutrally written, with no criticism of the Foundation. Yet all three of the independent sources it cites are extremely critical. Iljhgtn, in creating an article, you should report what the independent sources say. Maproom (talk) 21:38, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I am not paid to make this contribution to wikipedia

Previous discussion : #Update for current page

I am the wife of Stephen Holland, I am trying to update information. I have images, copy and citations, ready for the update. We hold the copyright for all the images, and permission for the one snapshot taken in 1960. How do I proceed? JNGHfromStephenHollandStudios (talk) 21:45, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

@JNGHfromStephenHollandStudios: If you trying to edit information about Stephen Holland (artist), you need to make a conflict of interest declaration and follow those instructions. Basically, I advise you to make an "edit request". Click here, select "I have a conflict of interest", and follow the instructions there. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 22:50, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

JNGHfromStephenHollandStudios, your username indicates that you work in the artist's studio, which means that you have a financial interest in the artist's success. As the artist's spouse, you have a financial interest in the artist's success. Accordingly, your first step is to comply with WP:PAID, as I advised you above. This is mandatory and non-negotiable. Cullen328 (talk) 22:53, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that I have a conflict of interest. How does one get the information, that only we have and the copyrights of the images which we own? JNGHfromStephenHollandStudios (talk) 00:36, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

If you want to add information that only you have access to, the short answer is that you can't. Sources on Wikipedia have to be published. See WP:RS. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 01:12, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Right. They must be in a secondary source or a published primary source. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:16, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

@JNGHfromStephenHollandStudios If you want to make pictures available for WP-use, we have a separate site where we keep most images, see Wikimedia Commons and Upload Wizard. You may be required to confirm that you have the copyright via mail contact at some point. Hope this helps some. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:34, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Hart, South Australia

Everything I have discovered on Hart SA has explained in writing that it is located in the far high NORTH...and others tell me that it is located in the mid-high north of SA...However, clearly, when you see it on any map, not matter who puts it out there, it is just above Adelaide in the far SOUTH. Any further south and it would be in the ocean. I am a volunteer for FamilySearch.org and one of my jobs is to research and locate the exact location of places and find their latitude and longitude. My supervisors have said, "We come across things like that all the time but we can't change it". I said, "Well, that isn't good enough, I want to discover how we can get the correct information. We use Wikipedia most of the time because it is usually the most accurate and gives the best information, but not here. I was actually working in NT and came across Hart, so I went into our FamilySearch spreadsheet to look for Hart NT to find out if we had it listed and ended up in SA by accident. I really enjoy working on finding places and their correct information. When people are looking for their ancestors, it is good if the place is where we say it is. I am sure you get complaints when things are in the wrong place, but this is not a complaint, I am trying to help. Many people trust Wikipedia and rely on it for accuracy when travelling or planning a trip. It would be good if you could give me feed back on what changes you are going to make to your article as to the location of Hart, SA. It says I can do it myself, but I wouldn't do that unless you knew what my intentions are. I prefer to let you know about the situation first. Kind regards, Evelyn Butler. 2001:8003:1471:DE00:A155:E74:EDB2:34E3 (talk) 05:28, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, Evelyn. Wikipedia does not really have a representative or a position of authority over content decisions. If you started editing that article, you would immediately be part of Wikipedia, with no more or no less say on the matter of what that article should say. If you want to discuss first, I suggest asking the opinion of ScottDavis who started that article almost nine years ago. The article has not been edited for almost a year, so no one is imminently working on improving it, unless you volunteer to take the job. Best, — Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:43, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

It all looks correct to me? Hart, South Australia is in the Mid North region of South Australia, north of the Adelaide Plains and south of the Far North and the outback. Theroadislong (talk) 09:00, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

The Mid North region of South Australia is in the south of South Australia, as shown in the map in its article. Maproom (talk) 09:06, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

That's correct, so what is the problem? Theroadislong (talk) 09:17, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

The article starts with "Hart is a locality in the Mid North region of South Australia." And as noted above, Mid North is south of Far North, also a region of South Australia. Your query mentioned that you were researching the state Northern Territory and came across a mention of Hart. It ain't there. David notMD (talk) 11:58, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

@2001:8003:1471:DE00:A155:E74:EDB2:34E3: Hi Evelyn. As others have said, Hart is in the Mid North region of South Australia, which on a map, you are right there's a lot more space north and west of it. I'd say the Mid North article could do with some care and expansion at some stage. The Mid North is dominated by farming on arable land. the Far North is dryer and generally only suitable for large runs of pastoral grazing. Environmentally, they would be divided by Goyder's Line which was surveyed in the 1860s and remains surprisingly accurate, based on the change in native flora corresponding to the reduced rainfall available. South Australia is strongly Adelaide-centric. The Mid North is accessible in a day from Adelaide, the Far North is not. There is also a Hart, Northern Territory, ultimately deriving its name from the same person. If I've said anything here that isn't in the articles, please let me know. I'm happy to find references and add it. If you want a one-on-one conversation, I'm happy to do that too, or user:Donama I think grew up in the Mid North but I only visit it. I spend more of my time lately on WikiTree than Wikipedia, so you and I have similar interests in spatial accuracy of historic placenames. --Scott Davis ^Talk 10:48, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Same source, multiple page number citations?

Hello! I am working on my first article. It is a BLP and so has a high standard for citations, which I am working hard to meet. As a writer and researcher in other areas (mainly history), I'm used to adding footnotes that refer to a specific page or pages of a reference, often multiple different places in the same source, with different page numbers for each citation. Unless I'm missing something, I can't see the best way to do that for Wikipedia references. I can add a page number to a reference -- but if I want to reuse the reference, I'm reusing the page numbers as well. What I want is to do what I do in other writing and have multiple citations to the same source with different page numbers: Swecker2010 p. 44, Swecker2010 pages 78-80. Best way to do this? Any way to do this? Thanks! Slane00 (talk) 01:23, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Slane00 Here is what I did: I created a reference which had the page range for an entire chapter, pages 95-165. I used the page name convention so that the reference showed as multiple uses of the same reference (in my case lettered a thru q). THEN, after every use of the reference, after the >, I added double curly brackets {{ }} and inside those put rp|pages= and the page numbers. If only one page, then page= and the page number. This shows in the text as the superscripted reference number followed by superscripted page numbers. David notMD (talk) 03:41, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @David notMD, that seems to be just what I need. Slane00 (talk) 11:54, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi Slane00! There are a couple ways to do this that you can choose from: WP:CITEPAGE has a description and examples for each, either the second or third option on that page is equally acceptable. Tollens (talk) 03:38, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Tollens that is a very helpful and complete guide! Slane00 (talk) 11:55, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Template:Irreligion sidebar

Some of the sections of {{Irreligion sidebar}} (Irreligion, Agnosticism, People, Books, List of irreligious organizations, and Related topics) aren't working for me. There seems to be some missing template or incorrect transclusion. Kk.urban (talk) 01:37, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

@Kk.urban:  Fixed Tollens (talk) 03:47, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Kk.urban (talk) 12:47, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

New Editor Help

Hello! As a new editor, what are some tips/guidelines to follow as I start editing? Pezfishy (talk) 02:36, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! There are actually quite a few pages we've written, but I think you would like Wikipedia:A primer for newcomers. If you have any other questions, let me know. Happy editing. Remsense诉 03:45, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Don’t forget to ask any questions you have here! Pablothepenguin (talk) 13:06, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Acceptable to remove subtitle?

I am not sure if this is acceptable but I think there has to be a rule against it but just don't know what rule it breaks. But maybe I am wrong. One editor firstly removed a lot of people's edits on a chapter in Amnesty International.[12] Then they unilaterally removed the specific subtitle chapter of (2021 alteration of Alexei Navalny's status) and changed it into just (Russia).[13] Despite the topic isn't meant to be that broad but more focused on specifically Amnesty changing the status of the individual Navalyn. I see such an editorialising only serves to make an easier environment that would allow to shift attention away on what Navalyn did, and the issues pertaining to what Amnesty have said about Navalyn. And in doing so, justifies in deleting a lot of key details on Amnesty's statements towards their decision on Navalyn, after framing it as not centred on (Navalyn status change) but broadly on (Russia) instead.HarmonyCrusador (talk) 08:17, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, HarmonyCrusador. You are a new editor and you should be aware that conflicts pertaining to Eastern Europe are considered contentious topics that are subject to stringent monitoring by administrators. Given that you have only 23 edits to date, I suggest that you stay far far away from the Russia-Ukraine topic area, and consider improving articles about butterflies or asteroids or the history of Nebraska instead. Or something else entirely unrelated. Cullen328 (talk) 09:35, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

The Teahouse is a place to ask for advice on Wikipedia practices and policies in general. Your question is being addressed vigorously and vehemently at Talk:Amnesty International and elsewhere, so asking here is not useful. David notMD (talk) 11:18, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

This specific question was not raised on talk. I didn't tell him it was wrong to change the subtitle because I don't even know what rule it breaks. And is why I am here to learn. Like you all remind me. I am a newbie. I hope you understand what I am trying to say.

Amnesty said it was an internal decision that made them revoke Navalyn's status at first and nothing to do with Moscow.They deleted that.'

Amnesty said they don't approve of Navalyn's actions in the past but they stated they now have refined their policy to no longer disqualify someone based on their past for POC. They deleted that.

If anyone did that. I would label it as vandalism as they are removing information that's relevant and well sourced.

But what violation did they do when they do the above but also change the subtitle to make it seem like it's offtopic to now include the forementioned recently deleted info?

I feel concerned that it is some sort of trickery at censorship of info they want removed, but at the same time, I am at complete loss on how to identify the rule they broken. The information I am defending, has stayed on that article for over 2 years and nobody deleted it until recently. I find genuine difficulty in labelling the rule they broke by changing the subheading and then making the recently removed information seem bit irrelevant. I'm saddened by the loss of valuable contributions by the many editors over the years. I'm eager to learn and receive mentorship on combating this issue. But if you still think this discussion belongs elsewhere, please let me know. I have no intention of causing annoyance or wasting anyone's time. Wishing you all a good day."🙂 HarmonyCrusador (talk) 13:27, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Your concerns are understandable, and laudable, but the Teahouse is simply not the appropriate forum to discuss them – the article's Talk page is.

There are grey areas between Content dispute and Vandalism, because human discourse is complicated. This particular issue promises to be a drawn out, knock-down fight because national interests and propaganda are actively at play.

Beyond the above links, I can't think of a more specific reply to your specific question, but Wikipedia's policies, guidelines and established practices are diverse, so perhaps others can. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 176.24.45.226 (talk) 13:49, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Suggested edits

I am trying something new and working on only suggested edits from the newcomer homepage. These are all tagged and need help. One page that came up in my feed was Space art. This page had numerous suggested edits, or maybe these were just AI generated examples of SIMILAR sounding edits? I am not sure, but it showed examples in the "Suggested edits" window on the middle right hand side of my screen that included very space-like and important grammatical or copy edit type edits to correct for. When I entered on my keyboard, control F the various specific "suggested edits", or even portions of them, they were nowhere to be found on the page. Were those just fake suggestions of lookalike type things to update? If so, they were all "on theme" space related to this space oriented page, so that was just either an amazing coincidence, or the tool itself is smart enough to make similar sounding suggestions. I was stumped. Iljhgtn (talk) 20:10, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

@Iljhgtn I would be inclined to assume that the newcomer home page software is fairly dumb and is making suggestions based on the tags clearly visible on the articles it is suggesting as needing edits. Space art is deficient mainly because it has no sources/citations in the section on astronomical art that was merged into it. Fixing that would be very worthwhile. Note that there is a very detailed list of possible article cleanup listings at this URL. There, you can look for cleanup work in areas that interest you, downloading the details to a local spreadsheet for sorting if you wish. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:17, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, I will check that link out. Iljhgtn (talk) 14:00, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

How do I get to my sandbox on phone?

Hello I’d like to use my sandbox on phone but don’t know how can someone teach me? Blackeyedpea2 (talk) 12:55, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Personal sandbox is typically found at User:username/sandbox or similar. Pablothepenguin (talk) 13:04, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

@Blackeyedpea2 Welcome to the Teahouse. In mobile view, log in and then tap the person icon on the top right of the screen. You'll get a dropdown menu, first giving a link to your username (=userpage), then your talk page, and thirdly your sandbox.

Although I use my small iphone screen to edit Wikipedia a lot, I rarely if ever use it in mobile view. I prefer still having desktop view on a mobile. To switch between viewing modes, scroll the the very bottom of any page. There, hidden away from view (for no obvious reason) you'll see a link to "Mobile view" or "Desktop". Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:23, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Why does the Template: Vandalism information on my user page indicate a moderate to high level of vandalism?

Hello everyone! Recently, I have uploaded some of my photos to Wikimedia and displayed them on my user page. When I check my Template: Vandalism information, it shows me moderate to high level of vandalism. I don't know why it show me that. This is my recent contributions. Can anyone tell me the reason? Thank you very much! Lam Nguyen (talk) 15:06, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Lam Nguyen, that template on your user page shows the same as it would anywhere else: a moderate to high current level of vandalism over English-language Wikipedia. Maproom (talk) 15:29, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

@Hanoifun In other words, it has nothing to do with your own contributions. Incidentally, your WP:Signature may be confusing people, as it has no relationship to your username. I suggest you change it. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:44, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

@Maproom, @Michael D. Turnbull Okay, thank you very much! I was a bit nervous when I checked my Wikipedia vandalism yesterday. I thought this reflected the current level of vandalism on my Wikipedia account. Recently, I've changed my signature to my user name so everyone won't be confused. Hanoifun (talk) 15:25, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

@Hanoifun I agree this is confusing. I don't think it's very helpful for the average user, inasmuch as you need to always apply common sense when you encounter dubious information on WP (similar to when using chatgpt, it may often be right, but there's nobody you can hold liable if the info is wrong). Fabrickator (talk) 16:17, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Announcement

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egov.Press The article requires corrections. 37.99.45.135 (talk) 13:36, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

what kind? ltbdl (talk) 13:38, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I think this user is evading a block. 331dot (talk) 13:39, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

This IP - now blocked for a week - is suspected of being the creating editor while not logged in. Creating editor blocked 23 Feb for 60 hours. David notMD (talk) 16:03, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Seems to be indef now. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:51, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Citation bot on fr.wiki

Most fr.wiki editors live in europe (and I do too, and am in great need of pills..), so I won't get an answer there. I want to use Citation bot on an article on fr.wiki. Does he exist back there? Is there anything similar? Encyclopédisme (talk) 23:07, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, Citation Bot only runs on English and Simple Wikipedia. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 23:12, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

@Encyclopédisme: Wikipedia operates around the clock. You just need to be patient for answers. Each Wikipedia is different, so you need to ask at the FR wikipedia about using this template there. Maybe they have their own bot that does similar work. RudolfRed (talk) 06:13, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

You may be able to get similar results using fr:Utilisateur:CodexBot. Reconrabbit 18:23, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

How do I activate it? Encyclopédisme (talk) 18:47, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

That I do not know. You will have to ask on fr.wiki. Reconrabbit 19:18, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

You can also use WP:REFILL which works on fr.wiki. Reconrabbit 20:30, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Defining who should (and should not) be consided a Ziegfeld girl

Apologies for the length of my question.

One of the issues I confront is "who should (and should not) be considered a Ziegfeld girl?" This is surprisingly a complicated subject. The Ziegfeld girl article states that: "Ziegfeld Girls were the actresses, singers, chorus girls, showgirls and other female performers appearing in Florenz Ziegfeld's theatrical Broadway revue spectaculars known as the Ziegfeld Follies (1907–1931, 1934, 1936, 1943, and 1957), produced in New York City. Ziegfeld girls also included female performers who participated in the Ziegfeld Midnight Frolic (1915-1921) and the Ziegfeld 9 O'Clock Revue (1919-1920)." Full disclosure: I contributed to the definition.

Florenz Ziegfeld, Jr. also produced other Broadway musical spectacular such as Rio Rita and Show Boat that relied on a host of female performers, at least some of whom did not participate in the "Ziegfeld"-branded shows. In addition, during the 1920s and 1930s there were many similar musical revues on Broadway for which Florenz Ziegfeld, Jr. had no involvement.

The bottom line is that I have found a number of instances in Wikipedia articles where specific performers are named as "a Ziegfeld girl" when, in fact, they do not meet the definition noted above. I make this judgement after a dig deep into sources such as the Internet Broadway Database and Playbill.com; I also troll through the Internet Archive text corpus, which contains a contemporary sources that have detailed information about show casting, such as "Variety" and "Billboard." Finally, I search for performer names on NewspaperArchives.com to see if they are linked to a "Follies" show.

I suspect that well-meaning editors use "Ziegfeld girl" rather broadly to describe performers who were on Broadway in the 1920s and 1930s. Also, since "Ziegfeld girl" was often considered flattering, especially in later years, the term tends to show up in friendly bios in places like IMDB.com.

Am I splitting hairs or is it valid to prefer a source conformation before naming someone as a Ziegfeld girl in Wikipedia articles? Conversely, if someone can't be confirmed via the method above, should the article be edited to reflect that?

Finally, if my nit-picking is indeed justified, should I publicize the issue? Via a user subpage? Another method?

Thanks! Bixly777 (talk) 20:19, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Bixly777, there should only be one criterion, and that is whether or not reliable sources call the performer a Ziegfeld girl. Wikipedia editors are not permitted to do our own original research. Cullen328 (talk) 20:27, 24 February 2024 (UTC) Cullen328 (talk) 20:27, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I concur with Cullen328, and would add that original research includes making judgments about whether someone meets the definition offered in the Wikipedia article concerned. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:33, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

IMDb is not a reliable source, per WP:IMDB. Cullen328 (talk) 20:29, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I think you're confusing the Internet Broadway Database with the Internet Movie Database, Cullen328 (I don't offer a view on whether the former is reliable). Cordless Larry (talk) 20:33, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Cordless Larry, the OP mentioned IMDb. Cullen328 (talk) 20:38, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Ah, so I see now. Thanks. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:43, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

accessibility modifications

is there any way to enlarge text when viewing source editor? or a .js add on i can use to be able to do that? even while editing my user page, i'm making small mistakes with certain characters and i want to be able to see the text. thx >:3 -Astral-(he/him/his) 17:40, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi AstralAlley, welcome to the Teahouse. You can add code like this in your CSS:

.wikiEditor-ui textarea {font-size:18px;}

Many browsers can make text larger with Ctrl++, smaller with Ctrl+-, and return to normal with Ctrl+0. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:57, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

tysm!!! i have no idea where half this stuff is documented so this will help alot :3 -Astral-(he/him/his) 18:02, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

@AstralAlley: A lot of it isn't documented. I know some CSS and inspected the HTML of edit pages to work it out. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:45, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

that sucks that they literally don't document possibly the best accessibility feature :[ i would atleast like to figure out why but we might never know. -Astral~(he/him/his) 18:53, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Simply put: This is a question of how large the text gets presented on the screen, and that's part of the job for the browser, not the web site. Autokefal Dialytiker (talk) 21:08, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Archive bot doesnt work

For some reason the talk page archiving bot doesnt work for me anymore. It last worked on 14 February https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FMSky&diff=prev&oldid=1207434867 but since then it stopped. I didnt change anything. What could be the problem? --FMSky (talk) 22:23, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

@FMSky: Did you ask a question at User talk:Σ? There was a report last month that got fixed. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:53, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

How to make public comments in articles

I frequently see other editors’ comments on articles such as “citation needed” but I don’t know how to do that. If it’s done with a template, then I’d like to know not only how to use one but also how to write a more specific comment that may not have a template.

This has come up for me in the article on baton twirling where many twirling tricks are listed but not described. I want to point out that descriptions would be very helpful, even if Wikipedia may not require clarification of jargon as such.

Augnablik (talk) 17:23, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Augnablik, these are not comments, these are inline tags added by editors. Examples of these tags as mentioned are {{citation needed}}, as well as {{dubious}} which creates . This description alerts users when a statement is unsourced or inaccurate. All of them are templates. Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 17:33, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

@Augnablik there are many of these, more than you think! Many I need to remind myself to use more, even. You can see a list of them here. Remsense诉 17:51, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense: What a great resource! Thank you! Augnablik (talk) 23:25, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

You could possibly use {{unclear|section}} and then start a discussion on the talk page. --Onorem (talk) 17:45, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Let's not overlook the fact that you can simply make suggestions on the article talk page. These will not be as visible, but it does not have to "fit" into some existing template and you can provide more details on the nature of the improvements you propose. Just keep in mind that it's WP:NOTFORUM. Also bear in mind that there's nobody who's obligated to do anything to improve the article, and it could literally be years and years before somebody else does something. Sad but true, if there's something you think could be improved on a WP article, the only way to be sure that happens is to do-it-yourself. Fabrickator (talk) 18:18, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Augnablik. In general, if you want to add a template or anything similar to an article and you don't know how to do it, you can always try to find another article that contains an instance of the thing you want to add. Then click the Edit button in that article to view the underlying code. Then copy the relevant code to the article you are editing. You might need to make some adjustments, such as to the date, but at least you will have something to start with. Mike Marchmont (talk) 18:26, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

@Onorem: I would have thought of {{unclear|section}} as meaning "this information is unclearly written" rather than "this information could really use explanation." I wonder if there are two different inline tags for these purposes. Augnablik (talk) 23:36, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

archived vandalism on a talk page

I recently removed vandalism from Talk:Debate and noticed that some of it had already been archived. My question is: what should I do - and is there even a point in doing anything? Oh, also: looking at the page's source, it looks like there are two different bots for archiving implemented on it, what's that about? JackTheSecond (talk) 23:12, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, JackTheSecond. I think you did the right thing by removing current 'off-topic' posts from the talk page. Most probably weren't really vandalism as such - especially considering the topic of the article. It would have been best had you included an EDITSUMMARY with each undo, so as to explain your reasoning. However, i wouldn't bother going back into archived talk pages to under off-topic or vandalism, and I certainly wouldn't 'warn' an editor if the post was more than a week or two old. Just let sleeping dogs lie, unless such posts are deeply offensive, libellous, or a copyright infringement. In that situation, pop back here with DIFF or a link and we can advise you on a case-by-case basis.

Regarding archiving methods, I think I'm right in saying that a talk page - like Talk:Debate - will be using an outdated archiving code (i.e. MiszaBot) whose functions are now carried out by a different archiving bot, such as Lowercase sigma bot, but is still acting upon the configuration settings used before the old bot ceased operating. See the documentation at User:MiszaBot/config and User:lowercase sigmabot III for details. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:56, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Why I am encouraged to create an account?

Why I am encouraged to create an account? 100.11.111.79 (talk) 00:00, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Primarily because of all the neat things you can only do with a registered account. As a simple example, I don't believe you can become extended confirmed without being a registered user. You also can't access the Wikipedia Library without being a registered user, which is an incredibly helpful resource that's saved my bacon on several occasions. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 00:04, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Additionally, without being registered, you can't edit on any pages with active protection templates, regardless of the level. I've added a welcome message to your talk page. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 00:09, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

In addition, no template editor privileges, no administrator privileges, no autoconfirmed privileges. Not even to create a page. 100.11.111.79 (talk) 00:05, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Without an account, you cannot upload images or directly start new articles. An account gives you better anonymity because IP addresses can disclose your location. Cullen328 (talk) 00:28, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

If you edit without your own registered account username, your IP address is used to identify you instead. Creating an account is easy, free of charge, and requires no personal information. You don't need to be registered to edit most articles, but using an account provides many benefits, which are described in this page: Wikipedia:Why create an account?. The privileges that you mention above are Wikipedia:User access levels, which can be earned or granted as you gain experience helping to build and improve the encyclopedia. —Scottyoak2 (talk) 00:39, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

See more at Wikipedia:Why create an account? RudolfRed (talk) 00:40, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Got good pictures of various LED strip lights?

Article: LED strip light

I'm looking for better pictures for that article. I'm not sure what users own the necessary LED strips coming in various colors, sizes, and capabilities, so I'm requesting them here. If anyone's interested. 2601:703:280:9C80:3007:C216:C9C:6163 (talk) 23:50, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I checked the LED strips category on Commons, but didn't find any good pictures for the variants. Here's a video of an "LED strip sample book" being tested: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhVH80ONu5Y — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:703:280:9C80:3007:C216:C9C:6163 (talk) 23:56, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello IP editor. Welcome to the Teahouse. This help forum isn't actually the right place to ask. We're more to give advice on editing problems, not for finding images. I was going to suggest the Commons category, but you've beaten me to it with your follow-up post.

I'd suggest posting on the talk page with your suggestions for the most appropriate image that the article could do with, in the hope someone might be motivated to take and upload one. It is possible to search for images on Google using the 'tools' filter which shows only those images licenced for commercial re-use. The element of 'commercial re-use' is absolutely critical as we cannot use images licenced under Creative commons which are marked as 'Non-commercial' reuse. Unfortunately, this usually filters out all the good images and leaves you with some fairly crummy examples. Take a look at this selection, which you could legally upload (providing you include the appropriate attribution and identical licencing conditions).

Looking on Flickr can also be worthwhile but, again, the licence its released under is critical. The default is All rights reserved, but the owner can easily change it for a single photo, if they wish. I have had some success in asking a Flickr user if they would change their licencing so that I can use it on Wikipedia or elsewhere. But it's a faff, and has no guarantee of success. So it might not be worth it. Hope this helps. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:10, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Ip editor: I'm going to add that your editing rights are perilously close to being removed! I've looked at some of your contributions, and you need to stop inserting your personal opinions or knowledge into articles. Most have been reverted and some of the IPv6 addresses you've used have been warned again and again about this. Unless you can include citations, you must stop trying to improve articles with your own views and thoughts, no matter how well-meaning that may be. Thank you. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:22, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Too late to save you - you continued adding inappropriate content, and now you have been blocked from editing for a week across the whole /64 range. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:46, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

When your block is over, you could add {{reqphoto}} to Talk:LED strip light, and even add a section describing the details of the photos you think would enhance the article. GoingBatty (talk) 01:02, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

What is moratorium

What is a moratorium Maestrofin (talk) 03:28, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi Maestrofin! A moratorium is a temporary pause on something – for example, if there is a moratorium on a specific request, making that request is not allowed for the time period specified. Tollens (talk) 03:33, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

More on that at WP:MORATORIUM. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:58, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Maestrofin (talk) 01:51, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Maestrofin! A moratorium in law is a temporary suspension of an activity or law. If that's not the definition you needed, here is a disambiguation page. Do you have a question about editing Wikipedia? —asparagusus (interaction) ^sprouts! 03:33, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Maestrofin, I am almost 72 years old, and am therefore old enough to remember the Moratorium to End the War in Vietnam, which was a gigantic mass antiwar movement back when I was a teenager. Cullen328 (talk) 09:47, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

No Maestrofin (talk) 01:51, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

The comment above was a accident Maestrofin (talk) 01:53, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Are cut-paste moves between my user pages okay?

I was drafting a new version of my userpage in one of my user sandboxes, and now I want to replace the current userpage (User:PenguinEncounter2) with it. However, the move button won't let me because the existing user page is still there.

Because I am the sole contributor to both pages, would it be okay to copy-and-paste the content from the sandbox to my userpage, then {{db-u1}} the sandbox? WP:CUT says this isn't okay for copyright reasons... and I really don't want to have to get a history merge done

Or do I need to request a technical move?

Thanks! penguinencounter2@enwiki:~/talk/contrib$ 06:52, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

PenguinEncounter2, yes, it's fine. When you are the sole contributor, copyright considerations do not matter. But when it's an actual article, it may help to have the history of exactly how the page developed instead of the final version only. It's your userpage, so it's completely fine. Best, — Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:21, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Danish withdrawal from the European Union

Is it possible to show the text and this reference on Danish withdrawal from the European Union page? == Political opinions == The Facebook page lists around 11,000 Danes who want to leave the European Union. This Facebook group was created on July 14, 2019 and consists of 5 administrators and moderators. Wname1 (talk) 12:07, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

References

TLDR, no. WP:Facebook is made up of WP:user-generated content and also there's no way to know how reliable the 11,000 figure is (how many are bots, or people who aren't Danish, or just there to see what happens), if it's been covered in a reliable source then maybe, but the group itself isn't a reliable source. Shaws username . talk . 12:39, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Previous discussion at Talk:Danish_withdrawal_from_the_European_Union#Facebook_group. Said pretty much the same thing but with more words. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:23, 25 February 2024 (UTC)