Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1219

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1215←Archive 1217Archive 1218Archive 1219Archive 1220Archive 1221→Archive 1225

Common names

Do I need a specific source to add common names to some animal pages? Like European marten and Iranian leopard. Firekong1 (talk) 10:16, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Why ever not? -- Hoary (talk) 11:13, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
You should stop edit warring and instead provide reliable sources for your assertions. Shantavira|feed me 11:58, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
@Firekong1: Yes. See WP:V. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:27, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
A quick Google search shows there are sources for the names you are trying to edit the article to include, so maybe try actually incorporating them instead of engaging in a frivolous edit war. Brusquedandelion (talk) 12:49, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
@Brusquedandelion My view is this vague name is not needed in the lede as it is not a name used (except in relatively poorly-researched sources), and simply serves to confuse the introductory statement, wherein 'pine marten' should be the second-listed name, as that's what's used by non-biologists needing to differentiate this taxon from others, whilst European pine marten is used in the literature. Whilst clearly made in good faith, I have reverted @Firekong1's edit, and am happy to defend that situation on the article talk page if required. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 13:54, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
@Nick MoyesThank you kindly, I was not attempting to start a conflict, I was simply acting in good faith. But now that you left a proper explanation in your removal, I understand the issue better now. However, if the rules for adding common names changes on Wikipedia, please let me know. Firekong1 (talk) 15:02, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
You have a very long history of being an active editor on many topics, but within last day or so got into a tiff about animal names. The disagreements have not progressed to the levle of edit warring, and for the pine marten, have been properly taken up on the article's Talk page. Carry on. David notMD (talk) 12:57, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
@David notMD I believe I found a few sources, I will try sharing them with you, so please let me know if they are allowed to be sourced on Wikipedia.

@Brusquedandelion @Shantavira As for the animal name issue, I was not edit warring, I was adding them back because they are justified in having those common names on their respective pages. Firekong1 (talk) 14:23, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I see that you and BhagyaMani had a discussion back in 2021 at the Talk page of Panthera pardus tulliana on whether a common name "Iranian leopard" could be added to the list shown in the Lead. Perhaps start fresh on the Talk page? Or abandon the effort if reverted again. David notMD (talk) 15:02, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Of course, I’d like that. Unlike European marten, Iranian leopard could be used as a suitable common name due to the specifics of the name and not being redundant like “European marten”. Firekong1 (talk) 15:03, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
@Firekong1 Just to explain that my concern only related to the Pine Marten, not any other taxon. Obviously, species have many names in many languages, so it's important not to drown out significant names by a plethora of obscure and rarely used names that might have been scraped off general sites which haven't even addressed the issue of the main names properly. Discussion is always good, of course. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:08, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
@Nick Moyes Thank you for clarifying. However, if the page for Panthera pardus tulliana has its changes reverted, what course of action do you suggest I take? Firekong1 (talk) 02:17, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
@Firekong1 The very best course of action is to understand the other person's perspective, just as they might like to better understand yours. So, drop by the reverting editor's page and say something like:
"Hi there, I saw you reverted my edit to X (insert diff). I wonder if you could explain your reasoning for removing it/reinserting it etc? I added/removed it for the following reason (insert reason here) and wondered if that helps to understand why I made it. It would help if I could understand why you thought it was wrong, please, and whether you'd be happy for me to reinsert it with a clearer edit summary this time, etc?
How does that sound? If you feel you still have a valid reason for proceeding, you could, once your discussion has ended with no progress, raise the issue on the article's talk page to gain a consensus for addition/removal. That takes some time, so don't rush to assert your viewpoint by reinstating the edit, lest you get into an WP:EDITWAR, which helps no one. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
@Nick Moyes I do view other’s perspectives, but in the case of users such as bhagyamani, they don’t seem to allow compromise, usually they don’t even answer.
But your tactic sounds good, I have been using that tactic ever since I first began editing on Wikipedia, and this helped me settle editing issues with many users. Firekong1 (talk) 11:56, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
@Nick Moyes I added a serial comma to panther pardus tuliana, but it was removed without explanation by Chidgk1 and Bhagyamani. Firekong1 (talk) 09:43, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
@Firekong1 That's what's called a Serial comma, and is not something I would use. I believe it's an American habitat, and one that grates on me. It might have been nice for the reverter to have explained why it wasn't necessary there, though, as its usage was not helping to avoid any ambiguity. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:53, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
@Nick Moyes Apologies, it’s not meant to irritate you. Sometimes grammatical typings can depend on the Wikipedian based on their country. However, I am glad you agree that the editor should have left an explanation. The only reason they gave was “last best”. Firekong1 (talk) 14:48, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
It seems my edit was reverted, I left a question on the talk page and am awaiting an answer. Should I go ahead and add it back if I am allowed? Firekong1 (talk) 14:53, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Confusing representation of the U.S. government's annual loss minting pennies

Penny debate in the United States

How does the scientific notation work when representing the U.S goverment's annual loss minting pennies? This is clearly not just simple multiplication, as multiplying 7,596,400,000 by -0.76 will yield about 577 million instead of 58 million (Note: this text has been changed to 13 million, which is even more confusing). Is this just an error? It may not be, though, because when editing the template, I see the multiplication sign within a field called "Uncertainty" and the second number in a field called "Asymmetric uncertainty", both of which I do not understand. And if it is an error, where did the "-0.76" come from? The loss of minting one penny would be $1.72 using the data from 2022, so the -0.76 must be something different. Hill sawyer (talk) 15:56, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Cost loss per minting each penny is stated as 1.72 cents, not $1.72 i.e., dollars. No comment on the rest of the article's math. David notMD (talk) 16:08, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

New Article or Subsection?

I have an idea for creating a new article about China-Russia-Iran relations since they are currently holding naval drills [1] together in the Gulf of Oman. The relations of these three countries have also been warming up to each other over the years. The problem is that is in the article Axis of Evil this dynamic between the three countries is mentioned with quotes from Senate Minority Mitch McConnell, Danielle Pletka describing a New Axis of Evil. I was wondering if I should make a subsection in the Axis of Evil about this topic, or if it warrants it's own separate article? Seisachtheia (talk) 19:56, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

@Seisachtheia I think that your first question should be whether you can find enough reliable sources that describe specifically the relations between these three countries as a group. Wikipedia forbids original research, so it is not appropriate for you to cherry-pick, for example, sources which discuss bilateral relations and somehow synthesize them into an account of trilateral relations. On the other hand, the very term "Axis of Evil" is clearly not neutral and it would be perfectly acceptable to have a separate article if the sources exist. Note that there is a large article on China-Russia relations where some material could go and it has a template at the foot showing multilateral relations with articles that could give you ideas. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:24, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
@Michael D. Turnbull Other than a few scattered mentions of alleged trilateral relations among mostly unreliable news sources there has neither been an official declaration of trilateral relations, nor a body of reliable resources describing such a pact between the three countries. It think this will maybe change with time, but currently it is hard to argue that it reaches Wikipedia's notability standards. Thank you for advice! Seisachtheia (talk) 16:17, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Can anyone help with the inclusion of a different photographic technique?

RE: 'Light Painting' or 'Projection Photography' Can anyone help introduce a different form of 'Light Painting'?

Ref: A World First in the 1960's

This technique enabled the creaation of 'Spirit of Spring' the first transparency, consisting of both a colour positive and negative image, on the same Kodachrome emulsion. The portrait is blended with a negative of a red tulip.  All created before digital images! This was just one of many created 'special effect' images that are so different from those described. To learn more see [https://www.jncohen.net/Projection-Photography/index.htm Projection Photography Special Effects - The Magic Lantern]

National Science and Media Museum Bradford, West Yorkshire BD1 1NQ NSMM Research Library Book database. Reference: 770.05.COH

Author: Cohen, John Neville Title: Painting With Light By Projection Photography: Pure Photography Using Light & Film Self Published,

Description: Essay and references to the pioneering technique developed by John Neville Cohen, which enabled the creation of ‘Spirit of Spring’, the first ever Kodachrome transparency that had both a portrait and a negative image of a tulip, on the same emulsion. John Neville Cohen (talk) 19:24, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

If you think that something should be added to an article (eg to Light painting, the article's talk page is the best place to suggest it. Note, however, that in order to include Cohen's work, you should be citing and summarising secondary sources: independent publications about Cohen or his work. Citing his own publications is not enough: why should Wikipedia take note of them if they haven't been written about? ColinFine (talk) 19:51, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
@John Neville Cohen A better way to contribute to Wikipedia might be to upload some of your photographs to Wikimedia Commons with Creative Commons licenses. That way, editors here without your obvious conflict of interest could use them in articles along with appropriate references. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:32, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
Dear Michael Turnbull, thank you for your reply, but I am concerned about my copyright, My pictures are available as limited edition prints (only 8 of each study). I was hoping some reference could be included on the page about 'Light Painting' or perhaps there could be one for 'Projection Photography'. My technique is totally different to those described and I think it merits a mention. Can you help? John Neville Cohen (talk) 13:51, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
@John Neville Cohen: Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought or techniques. The article can state only what reliable sources that are independent of you say about your technique. If there are no such sources, then it cannot be included in an article.
Furthermore, because you have a conflict of interest about yourself and your work (as everyone does about themselves) any change you would want to make to an article that references your work should be proposed on the article's talk page, and not made directly by you in the article itself. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:39, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
National Science and Media Museum Bradford, West Yorkshire BD1 1NQ
NSMM Research Library Book database. Reference: 770.05.COH
Author: Cohen, John Neville Title: Painting With Light By Projection Photography: Pure Photography Using Light & Film Self Published,
Description: Essay and references to the pioneering technique developed by John Neville Cohen, which enabled the creation of ‘Spirit of Spring’, the first ever Kodachrome transparency that had both a portrait and a negative image of a tulip, on the same emulsion. John Neville Cohen (talk) 06:44, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
Dear Anochronist, I did provide independant sources, but they were from the 1960's, such as 'The Times' newspaper, also there is the Kodak Press Release. But the National Science and Media Museum is more recent added last year. John Neville Cohen (talk) 06:59, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
It seems that the National Science and Media Museum piece was written by yourself, so it is not independent. An independent source is one that is not written by you, and not based on anything that you have said (for example, a press release written by you or an interview with you). CodeTalker (talk) 16:47, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Converting Inflation template citation into SFN

I am currently working on expanding the article on The Texas Chain Saw Massacre in another userspace, I have been citing everything in an "sfn" format to simplify things. I recently used the inflation template for the box-office sub section, which gives a citation, however it is not in "sfn" and I am at a loss at how to have that citation converted into that format. Is there a way I can do that without breaking the inflation template? Paleface Jack (talk) 22:42, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

@Paleface Jack: The current ref is produced by the template {{inflation-fn}}. It appears to me that you could just create a citation for the relevant (1800–present) portion of that ref in the "Web publications" portion of your "Sources" section and then replace each instance of {{inflation-fn|US}} with an sfn citation. Deor (talk) 12:55, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
The 1800-Present fits with the "Journals" portion, but I think you are right. I might do that suggestion. Thanks! Paleface Jack (talk) 16:21, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
Paleface Jack, not that I can see, but I don't know much about the technical side of templates. You could presumably check the reference used in the template and input it manually into the article, with a hidden comment reminding editors to update it if the template starts generating values for a year other than 2022. Or you could ask this question at the talk page of the template.
Have you been doing this a lot, making revisions in your userspace? What do you do after you are done, copy-paste it over the article? Why not just edit the article directly? — Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:01, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
I do it a lot yeah. Usually it allows me to make edits and whatnot and add things at my convenience. It helps when I am tinkering around with things and then, when I am done, I can add it to the main userspace gradually. This article in particular, a separate userspace is needed because the citation style is outdated and also a lot of information I have to double check on, so the large scope of this article i can do that at a reasonable pace. Paleface Jack (talk) 16:14, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
Paleface Jack, I asked because I see two potential problems. First, someone could object to your changes when you try to overwrite the article if there's someone else cares very much about the article. But it's a risk you can choose to take. Second, it's preferable to have the history of the development of the article with the article. In your approach, it gets left behind in your userspace. Again, breaks no rules, but I'd prefer otherwise. Technically, an admin could merge the history of that userpage with that of the article when it's time, but I do not know if any admin would be so accommodating. Anyway, there's no rule against it, so as long as it works for you, good luck! — Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:36, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, I am taking that into account. Unfortionately, the outdated citation style of the article might force me to do more substantial transfers of information, as the whole thing is in need of an update and revision. Paleface Jack (talk) 16:47, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
I will try to confer with the major editors of that article for assistance when the time is right. For now, I have been on my own expanding a Level 5 vital article.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:49, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

My main issue right now is, when I use that inflation template, it cites the source in a regular manner rather than the sfn format I have been doing things on. I dont know how to fix that.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:16, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Paleface Jack, you are using two different templates, one for the year and the other for the reference: {{inflation-year|US-GDP}} {{inflation-fn|US}}. You could use the template for the year only, the first one, and input the reference manually. As I said above, you could leave a hidden note reminding editors to update the reference when the year gets updated by the template. To find a better solution, if there is one at all, you could to ask at the template's talk page (Template talk:Inflation/fn). — Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:30, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
I converted the reference to an sfn without using the inflation footnote. Now its on to the other portions of this significant article. After all that is expanded, then its whittling it down into a reasonable FA quality with the potential to split section into their own article. Paleface Jack (talk) 16:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
Unfortunately, my expertise doesn't go far beyond basic formatting and core content policies. Once an article gets anywhere near FA quality, all I can do is stand a safe distance and marvel. I think I am going to watchlist this one too. Again, good luck! — Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:59, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Looking for moderator for Dispute Resolution noticeboard

The trap-neuter-return (TNR) page had a positive tone until about 2021 and over the past 3 years, it has been injected with anti-TNR talking points and now currently serves mainly to discredit TNR. I have a positive view of the practice and would like to make the page more neutral and informative. I'm also an inexperienced editor and a subject matter expert. From a recommendation on the Talk page, I opened a Dispute Resolution noticeboard ticket: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#trap-neuter-return. I also approached an active mediator on the page beforehand to confirm that this is the right next step. The editor who is responsible for negative bias on the page at first said he may not participage on the Dispute Resolution page. Then they went to my Talk page and said that I was making personal attacks against them. They then disputed the neutrality of the moderator after seeing that I had looked for advice before opening the ticket and that moderator had replied with humor that the editor objected to. Essentially, there are two editors on opposite sides and it looks like the Dispute Resolution ticket will need more than one moderator. Nylnoj (talk) 23:16, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

My suggestion is to refrain from anything that could be construed as a personal attack and focus on content not contributors. The quotes on your user talk page do not look good for you. Please assume good faith of other editors. It is required. Cullen328 (talk) 01:21, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
Pinging Nylnoj. Cullen328 (talk) 01:22, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
I understand the optics. And that's why I'm trying to present the background of the conflicts on this page in a neutral way, including anything that paints me in a negative light. Trying to keep moving forward so this page can become tone-neutral and informational.
Curious about whether you saw the Talk page of TNR where the quotes are pulled from in their full context and still view as a personal attack. Nylnoj (talk) 14:14, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
The final paragraph of trap-neuter-return does not mention TNR. It's about the rights and wrongs of killing feral cats. I think it should be deleted as irrelevant to the subject. Maproom (talk) 08:21, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
The entire page needs review. I was trying to start at the beginning and work down. Starting at the end and working backwards would certainly work as well. The problem is that any edits are not reaching consensus and the page is now on the Dispute Resolition noticeboard in need of an extra moderator since the available mod has been deemed unacceptable by one of the editors. Nylnoj (talk) 14:18, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
@Nylnoj: in the interest of "optics" and portraying everything in the proper light, as you're saying above, you've never said anything about the last paragraph. What you've been trying to do, as shown in these diffs, [2], [3] is to mass delete all science-based criticism of TNR, and then state in Wikivoice that it is "humane", which is a contested opinion. You've also asked to remove "controversial" from the Lead. I don't think this is possible due to the NPOV policy. Geogene (talk) 14:58, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
We aren't likely to get the article fixed (either improved or neutered) by discussion here. I concur with the Original Poster in asking whether an editor in this forum is ready to conduct moderated discussion at DRN. If no moderator is found, the dispute will be archived without action by a bot, and the article will continue to be contentious. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:03, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Grammar question/Commas with Nonessential Elements

Hello,

We have a grammar question about using commas in a sentence. We are currently editing the Israel page and have questions about comma use in regards to the below proposed sentence:

"Israel declared its establishment on 14 May 1948, the day the British terminated the Mandate, and the First Arab–Israeli War erupted."

I think the two commas in the above sentence are structurally offsetting a “nonessential clause” [4][5][6]. I think that this means a nonessential clause is something that can be removed without changing the core meaning of a sentence. Since two commas are placed around the British Mandate portion, and since that portion is grammatically removable, I think that portion is grammatically a nonessential clause. Removing the non-restrictive portion, the sentence becomes

“Israel declared its establishment on 14 May 1948 and the First Arab–Israeli War erupted.”

I think this is problematic because I think it gives the impression that Israel declared establishment, and the war immediately broke out. The war actually broke out the next day from an attack.

So I recommended changing to list format to avoid using nonessential elements:

“On 14 May 1948, the British terminated the Mandate, and Israel declared its establishment.”

@Makeandtoss thinks that I may be overthinking the grammar and interpretation, so this is why I am seeking clarification about the grammar and whether or not the British terminating the Mandate is being used as a nonessential element in the sentence: "Israel declared its establishment on 14 May 1948, the day the British terminated the Mandate, and the First Arab–Israeli War erupted."

If it is being used non essentially, are there any suggestions on how we can improve the sentence grammar?

Thank you! Wafflefrites (talk) 17:57, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

@Wafflefrites, if it were me I would just rewrite the sentence. I suggest asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors since they have more expertise in this kind of thing. StarryGrandma (talk) 18:46, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks! I have asked them there! Wafflefrites (talk) 18:55, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

My username

Hey folks, Sorry for this weird question, but does anyone here think my username sounds misogynism? Should I change it? Thanks, with warm regards! Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 19:19, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Nahh. To me, it doesn't sound like it has any ill meaning ("not that deep" as they say). Feel free to start a discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names though. ObserveOwl (chit-chat • my doings) 20:31, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks you @ObserveOwl!! Cheers and happy editing. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 20:34, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Mass changes needed for retirement of Drug Information Portal

The National Library of Medicine's Drug Information Portal has been retired, with all information moved to the Library's PubChem database. I think all the links to the Drug Information Portal should be updated to the corresponding article in PubChem. I suspect that someone can set up a bot to do this, but I don't know how. Perhaps someone can point me to instructions to do this or turn this over to someone who already knows how? — HowardBGolden (talk) 20:40, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

@HowardBGolden: You can ask at WP:BOTREQ. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:51, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
It appears that this has been changed by WP:MED (see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#druginfo.nlm.nih.gov_is_dead). Thanks to all who have attended to this! — HowardBGolden (talk) 22:49, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't know why, but apparently I'll be reported.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I had a conflict with a user editing an article, and I thought it was a strange edit, so I undo the edit, but it was done again. I told the other party on the article's talk page that the editing was strange, and then undone the edit again, but the other party called me a making disruptive edits and said that they would report me. I have already posted it on Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard, what should I do? Minchuchui (talk) 22:45, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Let's make it a little clearer, you obsessively edited just one article over and over again. You did not agree to reach agreements on the talk page. You spoke in an unpleasant language. You repeated the same edit over and over several times in one day which is not allowed. 北京555 (talk) 22:56, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
You made edits before reaching an agreement. It can't be a destructive edit since I just undoed it to the previous version which is what it should be. Minchuchui (talk) 23:11, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
You both seem to complaining about one another with fervent passion. If it's at the Dispute resolution noticeboard, then follow guidance there. AND STOP EDIT WARRING, BOTH OF YOU!🌺 Cremastra (talk) 23:35, 16 March 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.

Book sourcing / ISBN?

Hello! I was looking to edit Ryō Ramiya's page, since I have physical copies of two of her books, Lunarium and Artemis, and I've now noticed that the publishing dates on her page are incorrect. Lunarium was first published in 1992, and Artemis in 1990, while her page says 1993 for both of them. However, I'm extremely confused at how ISBN works... The ISBN numbers on my copies are different to the ones on the page, however those ones look correct too since the scans online for Lunarium has the same ISBN. From what little information I can gather it seems like they're different for different editions, however nothing between the editions of the book is different aside from publishing date/ISBN. I think my copy of Artemis is a first edition, however as I don't speak Japanese and had to use online translation, I can't be 100% sure. I haven't seen a first edition of Lunarium online, and the one listed seems to be a second edition. Should I just edit the dates, and leave the ISBNs alone? Or should I edit those as well? Any answers or even just a simple explanation of how ISBN works would be greatly appreciated!! Illudens (talk) 08:28, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

For a simple explanation of how ISBN works ... you might try the article ISBN. In particular, for every 10-digit ISBN there is a 13-digit ISBN; and although I'm too lazy to reread the article now, I think that for every 13-digit ISBN there may still be a 10-digit ISBN (until recently, there certainly was). It's rare but possible that two "editions" (impressions, printings), differing only in publishing date, have different ISBNs: after all, if a publisher pays for an additional ISBN that you or I might think unnecessary, they get it. However, this ISBN matter is minor. I know nothing about Ramiya (or indeed about manga), and for all I know she may be very notable; but as the article stands, it utterly fails to demonstrate notability. What has been said about her or her work in reliable sources? -- Hoary (talk) 09:24, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation! I read the article but was still a bit confused. I wonder if maybe the older date + the fact it was published in Japan has something to do with it. The reason I ask about ISBN is because I'd specifically like to correct the false publishing dates, and currently on the page it shows the ISBN beside each book, so I was unsure if the ISBNs would also need to be corrected alongside the dates. Even if she isn't that notable I still think that the page should have correct info, and since I have reliable sources, physical copies of her books with the original publishing date noted in them, I wanted to contribute and fix up the page. However I will be looking into more sources about her as well, its unfortunately a little hard due to the language barrier. I currently don't have sources on hand for her work but there should be a link on her page, its a bit hard to navigate and its in Japanese but as far as I know it has a list of almost everything. Illudens (talk) 12:11, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Illudens, for a Japanese book I'd normally click on the ISBN link and, at the ISBN page, click on the CiNii option provided for Japanese libraries. I tried this for a couple of the ISBNs provided, whether accurately or not, in the stub on Ramiya. CiNii, Webcat and NDL each had nothing. For one book, I also clicked on the amazon.co.jp link. I arrived (via a question asking me to confirm that I wasn't a minor) at this sales page. It's a book marketed as softcore porn. (Like the Wikipedia stub, Amazon titles it スパ-クリング・チェリ- even though (i) this looks bizarre, and (ii) its cover clearly says スパークリング・チェリー, with conventional chōonpu.) The kinds of library that participate in CiNii are unlikely to use their funds to buy or shelve softcore porn manga; but this genre clearly has been a major industry, so I imagine that there'd be a certain "reliable-source" literature about it. You might ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga; and perhaps Nihonjoe (who created the stub in virtually the same form as that it's in now) would have some ideas. -- Hoary (talk) 22:59, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks! Yeah, I did try that but as you mentioned not much came up with the ISBNs themselves. My biggest confusion is just what the sources would be as I have sources on the stuff she's made, including mentions of it on old magazines, various sites that have info on it, etc. However, there's not many, if any, sources about her personally (due to language barrier again, or due to her being a private person, I'm unsure) and I wasn't quite sure if you were referring to adding sources about her or the stuff she's made. Either way thanks for the suggestion! I'll ask at the wikiproject you mentioned.
Aside from that I would like an answer to the main question I had put forth; Would the ISBNs need to be corrected or changed alongside the publishing date? Or can those just stay the same as they are the same book, and I just edit the publishing date? Illudens (talk) 04:28, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
Illudens, is it possible that, despite your efforts, you're misunderstanding what you're reading in the respective colophons? If you don't read Japanese, perhaps leave the ISBN/year matter to somebody who does read it. But if you understand the material you've gathered about her works, and if this material is from reliable sources, then why not add it? -- Hoary (talk) 10:05, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
That is fair, however in the physical copies of the books I own, the years are printed in the book (Specifically, 1990 for Artemis and 1992 for Lunarium.) Also worth noting that the Japanese version of her page shows those years for those books. I know for sure those were the years published and I was planning on fixing that part either way. Again, my main issue is that I am unsure if the ISBN would need to be changed alongside the year, considering both ISBNs are for the same book, just published at different dates. Illudens (talk) 11:17, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
I don't even remember creating the page, though since it's been 16 years, that's not surprising. It's likely they are two editions of the same book. Are both books from the same publisher, or did the publisher change, too? There are any number of reasons why a new edition might have a different ISBN. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:43, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
It seems like they're both different editions, yeah! My copy of Lunarium says that its a fourth edition, while my copy of Artemis is a first edition. Both editions have the same publisher though, so that doesn't seem to be the case. I also checked for differences between two different copies of Lunarium (Mine, vs an online scan) and aside from the edition number and the date that specific edition was published, I saw no differences at all.
My main source of confusion is just on if it's important to include both ISBNs in the page or not. I'm thinking it might be a good idea, so if anyone wants to search up the book using the ISBN, more results would show up if both the ISBNs are there, but at the same time I feel like it might clutter up the page a bit too much. Illudens (talk) 00:01, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

reliable sources

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Igal_Stulbach.   << declined because not supported by reliable source...I think it includes several known and reliable sources What should I do to approve the page? IgalSX (talk) 19:56, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

@IgalSX You should read the reliable sources page mentioned in the decline reason and try to find sources more like that. There is also comments from reviewers that you should take into consideration. Kline • talk to me! • contribs 20:55, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. IgalSX (talk) 21:19, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
Note that reliability is just one of the criteria for evaluating sources. Another one is independence: Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. . Ideally, each source will meet all the criteria in WP:42. ColinFine (talk) 21:02, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
@IgalSX: See the short essay Wikipedia:Golden Rule to get an idea of what kind of sources are needed. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:41, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply.
All the sources cited there are independent, many of them well known in the field. Thats why I don"t understand the decline. IgalSX (talk) 21:28, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
@IgalSX, I had a look at the first few sources in your draft to see if I could give you any clues. Here's what I would say:
1) is a gallery of Stulbach's work, which cannot be used for information about the artist as there is no information;
2) is more of Stulbach's work;
3) has a short statement Stulbach has made about themselves, which might be usable for basic biographical information (name, age, place of birth, etc) but does not count as a reliable source;
4) is the same as 3;
5) tells us Stulbach has won an award, which is a good start! Unfortunately I am not sure how notable this award is and would have to defer to more experienced editors to help decide whether having won this is something that helps show notability;
6) is much the same as 5;
7) is also much the same as 5;
8) is a single sentence stating that one of Stulbach's works was shown.
In short, I do not think any of these can be used. What you are looking for are things like newspaper/magazine articles written about your subject, or books, or other longer documents that tell us about your subject and why they are notable. You need significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, and unfortunately I do not think any of the sources I looked at meet those requirements. This is not what you want to hear, and I am sorry. The good news is that the sources don't need to be in English (if the English sources don't meet the requirements, you can definitely try other languages!) and they don't have to be online - but we do need to be able to track them down, so make sure your citations are good and the sources can be found.
It's also possible that there just aren't any reliable sources available yet, and that it's WP:TOOSOON (too soon) for this article to be written. That's often the case with younger artists; they haven't been noticed yet, so no one's written about them. All you can do then is wait for them to become notable. I hope all of that helps, and happy editing. StartGrammarTime (talk) 00:24, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Page deletion

I just found that any pages created by sock puppets will be deleted unless there are significant contributions from other users to the page. That sounds too harsh to me since plenty of the articles made by sock puppets meet the requirements (notability, references, and citation) and are written in Wikipedia's standard style. Those articles contribute to the encyclopedia. Why do the administrators do that? Faldi00 (talk) 05:12, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Faldi00, administrators do that to deter sockpuppetry which is a serious form of ongoing disruption on Wikipedia. Blocked editors are not allowed to edit Wikipedia in any way, shape or form while blocked, except to discuss their blocks with adminstrators and to appeal their blocks. Period. Blocked editors are free to appeal their blocks unless their disruption was deep, profound and intense. So, blocked editors, other than the worst of the worst, should appeal their blocks and only then return to productive editing. They should never evade their blocks, because that makes matters much worse. I have answered your question, and now I have a question for you: What, precisely, is the basis for your assertion that plenty of the articles made by sock puppets meet the requirements (notability, references, and citation) and are written in Wikipedia's standard style? Can you please provide specific convincing evidence for that claim? As an administrator, I might restore some of these excellent deleted articles that you allude to without mentioning any one of them. If what you say is true, then I will take responsibility for them. Name at least a few of them. Cullen328 (talk) 06:39, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
Cullen328, Thanks for the reply. Here are the deleted pages created by sock puppet account that have to be restored:
1). Keo people
2). Ngada people
3). 2022 Haruku Island riot
4). Bajo Wuring people
5). Tenun Nagekeo
6). Aluk Todolo
Hope you restored it. Faldi00 (talk) 07:10, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello, Faldi00. I do not have the ability to deeply understand and evaluate the reliability of sources written in Indonesian languages. Google Translate is not good enough. What is your connection to blocked editors such as Jeff van Timor and Jellywings19? Also, please clarify your comment have to be restored.Why the urgency?Cullen328 (talk) 09:05, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
@Cullen328: Why was 2022 Haruku Island riot restored? The sockmaster is banned and globally locked. WP:BMB is policy. ✗plicit 10:42, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
??Appears that 2022 Haruku Island riot was tagged for Speedy deletion in 2023 but never acted on?? David notMD (talk) 12:28, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
Explicit, it was a misclick when I was examining the deleted articles. Another administrator corrected my error. Cullen328 (talk) 18:40, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
@Cullen328 Frankly, I do not have any connections and never interact with Jeff van Timor and Jellywings19. I just like that user because he wrote pages about ethnicity and languages in Indonesia which can enrich the Indonesia-related topics in Wikipedia English.
Regarding the urgency, those are not too urgent. But I hope you can restore it. Faldi00 (talk) 00:59, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Should incident like musicians having memory lapse in concerts be added to controversy section of their biographies? And seeking for GA Nominee Advice

I am currently working on this classical pianist's biography, hoping to improve the vital article to GA status. I just noticed a two times debates/discussions on its discussion page on whether him having memory lapse in a 2015 concert should be added to the controversy section. In the first discussion in 2016, the two editors (according to edit history) seemed to have reached agreement that the inclusion may violated WP:BLP trivial/gossip and it was not kept at last. In the second discussion in 2021, the other two editors didn't reach an agreement on the matter. So now, I am confused and want to know whether the memory lapse incident should be added to controversy section or not, and I want to get it resolved to one step forward meeting GA standard.

I have read some other musicians' biographies concerning memory lapse as references. I notice that although having memory lapse is a usual mistake in classical concerts, only a few musicians having long term (yearly) memory lapse were included in their career/personal life section, not controversy section e.g. Vladimir Horowitz, Anton Rubinstein. It makes me doubt that whether a one-time concert memory lapse is necessary to be included in controversy section, and whether this may violates WP:BLP. Can experienced editors provide me some advice? Thanks a lot.

Also, I would like some additional advice/feedback to improve Li Yundi, allowing it to meet GA status. Thank you so much, once again. EleniXDD※Talk 09:31, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:PROPORTION seems relevant here. Since I haven't looked at the articles in question, I have no idea what trying to apply would result in. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:15, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, got it. I have looked at the past history of the paragraph, it seems not being in proportion and maybe one of the reason considered why it was considered as possible violation WP:BLP and removed in the first time.
Currently, the article does not have that section, maybe I will inform the editor who proposed in the second discussion and tried to add this every few months, about proportion, if he/she tries to readd this in the future. EleniXDD※Talk 11:22, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
@EleniXDD Even if such a memory lapse warranted a mention: which it might if it were discussed in reliable sources, why would it go in a "controversy" section? A controversy is a public dispute concerning conflicting opinions which sometimes lead to a legal dispute. None of that is relevant to a memory lapse. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:37, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
@EleniXDD: Articles should ideally not have "Controversy" sections. See WP:Criticism § "Controversy" section. Bazza 7 (talk) 10:51, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
@Bazza 7
Got it, thanks a lot.
Any idea how can I know whether the whole section is necessary to be added or not. EleniXDD※Talk 11:45, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi Mike, thanks for offering me help once again XD.
To be honest, I have no idea why it was added as controversy. The editor (second discussion, they had no agreement) who proposed and added the section, stated the reasoning in the discussion page as “That's because I only checked his page and realized such a big incident, almost world embarrassment, was not part of his Controversy section which should have been. I like Yundi and owns several albums of his, but I'm a neutral Wikipedia editor…”
”And like said, if you know classical music then you know how it's almost unheard of to commit such a mistake in a live performance. The fact that this happened in the past doesn't change anything. If someone caused a controversy it'll forever be on a person's profile, just like how years in the future people will still talk about how Yundi allegedly hired prostitutes. He may be a great pianist, but his attitude and reckless lifestyle caused others to raise eyebrows.”
In fact, I doubt a one time memory lapse worths a mention after checking other musicians’ biographies. Seems like only memory lapse in concerts lasted for years were added as description, but not a one-time concert.
Currently, the article does not have this controversy section (deleted by another experienced editor). But deduced from edit history, this editor, who added the section, is likely to add it back in the future (he considered removing this section is sanitising the musician and may result in conflict of interest ) and I am not sure if whether the whole memory lapse incident is necessarily worth mentioning.
Any further advice for me? Or should I just ignore this matter unless it is brought up again in the future, or should I leave a message in the discussion, defining controversy? EleniXDD※Talk 11:37, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
I think you can ignore it for now. Gråbergs Gråa Sång and Bazza 7 have given relevant guidance if it arises again. Even Joe Biden's memory loss, which is much in the news now, hardly gets a mention in articles: see Public image of Joe Biden#Age and health concerns for the only case I can find. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:29, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
Thank you so much, I will focus on improving the article then. EleniXDD※Talk 12:32, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
I am pinging Gerda Arendt who is one of our most experienced classical music editors, and a very helpful person. Perhaps she can offer an opinion. Cullen328 (talk) 18:45, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
I'd improve the article and ignore an incidence if it was not something mentioned several times in reliable sources. For GA advice: I wrote several articles about singers that are GA but no pianist yet. Perhaps read similar articles to get ideas. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:45, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind advice. Sure, I will take other articles as examples and references (so I see similar long-term incidents are one sentence description in similar biographies, maybe I will include it if it becomes long-term) EleniXDD※Talk 01:37, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Random question

What are your pet peeves on Wikipedia? TWOrantulaTM (enter the web) 05:43, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

@TrademarkedTWOrantula: I could be facaetious and reply "people who ask silly questions" - but I won't. ;-) You will get a different answer from each person, and even for me it changes from day to day depending on what I am dealing with at the time. Today, it is the frustration of trying to find reliable public sources about scientists and medical researchers. There is truck-loads of media coverage about athletes and entertainers, but traditionally it was frowned on for a scientist to get their name in the paper (unless they won a Nobel prize; then a brief mention was considered to be acceptable). So many people have done amazing work that we just can't cover due to lack of sources. Anyway, that is my answer for today - tomorrow it will probably be something different.--Gronk Oz (talk) 06:58, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
New editors who as their first effort try to create an article, either about themselves or a company they work for. David notMD (talk) 07:11, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
American editors who "correct" the spelling of articles written in, say, British English or Australian English, on topics obviously relating to those countries, to American English, both in defiance of Edit notes about the language to be used, and in seeming ignorance that different versions of English even exist. HiLo48 (talk) 07:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
I see it happening both ways, including people who don't know that alternative spellings are acceptable in more than one variety of English. But my real peeve is with people who say they will never donate to Wikipedia again because they were blocked or reverted or some other grievance. Doug Weller talk 12:06, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Uncited WP:DOB:s of living people. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
For me, people who announce they donate to Wikipedia as if they expect it will give them special privileges.
Or unnecessary use of "would" in the past tense. For example "in June 1980 he would move to Canada. He would release his first album in 1981. In 1982, he would form a new band." MarchOfTheGreyhounds 11:12, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
MarchOfThe - You may appreciate WP:INTOTHEWOULDS, and the entire article around that link. That strange tense seems to inexplicably arise a lot in articles about Australian football clubs. And by that, I mean Australian rules football, not soccer. HiLo48 (talk) 21:24, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Ah, thanks! Their usage is common in soccer articles too, no idea why. MarchOfTheGreyhounds 12:57, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
The silliness of some of the pet peeves of other editors. -- Hoary (talk) 11:42, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
the only correct pet peeve is people who use "it's" as the possessive form of "it"
they deserve a lifetime supply of used velcro and slightly molten sliced cheese cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 03:18, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

What if I request to revert to the version before the editing war?

I caused an editing war due to an editing conflict with a certain person. The article List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita has been edited, undoed, and redoed many times since February 15th. These edits are still being discussed on the discussion page. In order to prevent future editing wars, I think it would be better to revert to the 14:02, 15 February 2024, which was before the editing battle, and then wait for discussion. Who should I ask to revert? Minchuchui (talk) 02:41, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

No, making yet another revert will not "prevent future editing wars". You strongly overestimate the importance of a specific version being the current version; these are not biographies of living people and the perceived urgency doesn't exist. Keep discussing, and a change can be made when a consensus is found. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:59, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but what I meant was, could you please do the same thing as the article on List of countries by GDP (nominal)?
Cremastra reverted the article to a previous version due to the same editing war as this article.
I can edit other articles, but I cannot edit the two articles above. Minchuchui (talk) 03:28, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
I personally see no benefit in any specific revision being the "current" one during the discussion. Restoring a stable revision is an optional option an administrator can take when dealing with an edit war (WP:PREFER); when done by others, it's always done with a risk of simply having joined an ongoing edit war instead of stopping it. I understand why Cremastra did this at List of countries by GDP (nominal), but this is not the norm nor a reason for requesting it elsewhere too. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:43, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
I understand, thank you for your response. Minchuchui (talk) 03:45, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Name, Rank, and Allegiance

Writing about the American Civil War, one often has many officers that are mentioned with their full name and rank in an Opposing forces section. Many officers will appear later in a Battle section. Traditionally, the second time the person is mentioned, it is without their rank, first name, and allegiance (Union or Confederate). I recall a discussion a while back where it was decided that it was OK to mention the officer's rank a second time, and even their allegiance, if it happened in a different section. I think this would be helpful for readers who are not familiar with the subject (American Civil War). Is that true about the second mention, and is it in the MOS somewhere? TwoScars (talk) 20:28, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

TwoScars, MOS:BIO likely has everything that's in the MOS on this subject. There's MOS:MIL but it does not talk about the particular issue. Best, — Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:03, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Significant Coverage

Everytime i think i gain an understanding of SIGCOV i am proven wrong. So i will like to ask

  1. In simple terms what does Wikipedia mean by SIGCOV?
  2. 2. Explain SIGCOV on the premises of the following a. Quality of the source (news portal, research portal (example research gate etc) and b. Quality of cited material (length, level of details or description of claim you want to make). For example if i want to say that a movie was nominated for an award, and i find an article that lists all nominated movies in all categories for that award, why is that not enough to be used as a Citation.
  3. The thing line between SIGCOV and passing mentions when in the example above, there is no available stand alone article or Citation for this.
  4. Does the sourcing of an official website (sourcing the Oscars official website for list of winners) violate the concept of secondary and independent sources even though it is notable and the most credible.
  5. How do you determine if a citation (independent, secondary and verifiable qualifies for a citation), if the claim you are citing is in just one paragraph.
  6. Finally how long should the content of a source be to qualify it for use as a reliable source?

Yes I know these are quite a handful but I do appreciate the time you will spend in breaking this to me. I find it that as an editor I can only look for sources. But we don't have control over the source or information on it. Unfortunately, sources are not creating content with Wikipedia policies in mind. Hence this is my bid to decipher which sources count as cite worthy and which ones don't. Heatrave (talk) 22:53, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Wikipedia:Notability § General_notability_guideline   Maproom (talk) 23:36, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
@Heatrave, many of your questions are answered by the link Maproom gave you, so I won't address all of them. You seem to have gotten "significant coverage" jumbled up with "reliable" a bit - there is no requirement that all sources you use are significant coverage. There need to be enough sources with significant coverage for the topic to be notable, but once that is shown, it doesn't matter how long or independent the other sources are. You can of course use the Oscars website for the list of winners - that would be the best possible source for that. -- asilvering (talk) 03:18, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello, Heatrave. The first challenge to overcome when writing an acceptable new Wikipedia article is establishing that the topic that you are writing about is notable. That requires providing references to several secondary sources, each of which meet a stringent three part test: First, these sources must be reliable. Second, these sources must be completely independent of your topic. Third, these sources must devote significant coverage to the topic. "Significant coverage" is defined as a source that addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. So, if the source says, "Singer A was also on the concert bill, and did a good job performing oldies", then that is a trivial mention (often called a passing mention) that is of no value in establishing notability. On the other hand, if another source goes into significant detail about Singer A, including many facts like where the performer was born, their musical education and influences, the history of their career over time, their genres, unique aspects of their voice, their biggest hits, their upcoming tour and how professional music critics assess their work, then that is significant coverage.
Once you have provided references to several such high quality sources, you have passed the threshold and have established notability. At this point, you can begin using references to other sources that do not meet that three part test. These additional sources still must be reliable, but if used cautiously, they need not be fully independent or devote significant coverage. So, if Singer A's website or verified social media states that they were born in Boston on the bicentennial day of July 4, 1976, you can use that for such uncontested facts despite the source not being independent, unless Singer A has a known reputation for lying. If a reliable source review says "Singer A, who began began their career as the lead singer of well known oldies band B, was also on the concert bill, and did a good job performing oldies as a solo performer", then you can use that source as a reference for their early career and the fact that they are currently performing solo, even though that coverage is not significant enough to establish notability on its own. You have already established that the topic is notable, after all. Cullen328 (talk) 04:12, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Page re edited

Im not understanding why the Yahuah page keeps redirecting to jehovah, jehovah should not be the redirect for yahuah due to the fact of jehovah and Yahuah is not the same. It appears biased that people would even make that redirect exist and it seems agenda driven. Kaboom Holy (talk) 02:05, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

@Kaboom Holy, it is meant to be a redirect to Yahweh (disambiguation). People kept trying to turn it into an article or redirecting somewhere else, and that is where it ended up. I've changed it back. StarryGrandma (talk) 03:59, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Kaboom Holy, you should start a discussion on the talk page of the redirect or the target of the redirect, and explain why they are not the same thing and what should be done instead. In general, you should always start out with an assumption of good faith. You just wrote "The name of god" in place of the redirect. Have you ever seen an article on Wikipedia that was just four words that didn't even make a sentence? — Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:15, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Upload a Picture

Hi there i have been facing this problem of state banned Wikicommons website, due to which i am unable to my work on wikicommons. When i use a Vpn to access it does not let me upload either. what can i do in order to upload stuff on Wikicommons. Rahim231 (talk) 18:02, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

@Rahim231: I am not certain the problem is with VPN. You have triggered an edit filter designed to stop copyright violations. Under no circumstances will you be allowed to upload an image where the source is "google" and the author is "unknown". If you do think the problem is with VPN then you could make a post in c:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard and request for c:Commons:IP block exemption but I am not certain it would be granted as your account is still quite new. MKFI (talk) 18:46, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
Rahim231, leaving aside your access issues, no one is allowed to upload any images to Wikimedia Commons unless one of two conditions is met: Either the image is indisputably in the public domain, and you can prove it. Or, the image has an Commons acceptable free license issued by the copyright holder, and you can prove it. These requirements are strictly enforced. Cullen328 (talk) 18:57, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
I actually meant Wikicommons website is not accessible here normally and blocked but when i use a Vpn to access the website, it does not let me upload. It says the Vpn Ip is a blocked range. Also i was gonna upload Some maps which i made myself. Rahim231 (talk) 06:54, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Translation error

Hi,

I translated the page of Albert Bockstael from Dutch to English.

But I cannot publish it...

An error occurs telling me I cannot upload a new page.

I put so much work in it.. What causes this error?

Thank you so much in advance!


PAGE:

Draft:Albert Bockstael

Lamaisondanslinfini (talk) 13:36, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

@Lamaisondanslinfini: Currently, only autoconfirmed users (and beyond) have the permission to create main space articles. But you can submit the article for review! ExclusiveEditor Notify Me! 13:41, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
@Lamaisondanslinfini You'll also have to fix all of the citation errors, it seems most of them are date and archive date related. CommissarDoggoTalk? 13:46, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
I understand what the boxed quote says, and if it were helpful, I'd recommend adding it to the article in English, and leaving the French for an explanatory note in the Appendix. But it is not helpful at all, imho; I would simply remove it. Mathglot (talk) 07:10, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Interest vs CoI

Most people edit Wikipedia's those articles in which they have interest. Does the CoI come into play here, as if it is yes, then it will stop people from editing as we(most) do it for fun. (Ignoring the wp:ignore here, otherwise it is obvious). ExclusiveEditor Notify Me! 14:30, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I can have an interest in Taylor Swift, but it would only be COI/personal if I was more than a just a fan, for example a family member or friend. David notMD (talk) 14:59, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
You have an interest, but you don't have a conflict. Therefore, COI does not apply. Mathglot (talk) 07:12, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Asking for help on removing a rotted link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stacey_Evans#cite_note-Leg_bio-4 404 NOT FOUND

Thanks Blackjackdavee (talk) 11:09, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Blackjackdavee, the URL is accessible via the Wayback machine. I'd suggest amending the citation to include an archived link. See WP:DEADLINK for more details. Feel free to reply here if you have any further questions. Unexpectedlydian♯4talk‽ 11:24, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
And I've done that for Blackjackdavee here. Deor (talk) 11:33, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Difference between revisions

I normally get a clear view of what was changed in a revision with deleted parts highlighted in red and added parts highlighted in green. However this wasn't working today. does anybody know why.

Thanks Tescomealdeal1 (talk) 11:28, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

The only thing I can think of is that you accidentally switched from visual to source viewing, I've never had that issue with visual editing. CommissarDoggoTalk? 11:33, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
That worked cheers Tescomealdeal1 (talk) 12:54, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello everyone, i have been pondering on how to do the right thing when it comes to Wikipedia:External links policies, as per my understanding and what i have red so far, I do firmly knew that external links shouldn't be treated as reference and thus I have been following this policy so far. Just for example: in my draft project Li Ziting, i happen to use 《Baidu》as an external link just as I did with《上海韶愔音乐娱乐有限公司/SY music Ent. 》 I have never used them to Cite for reference but only for purpose of detailing the Chinese companies profile information that is not on Wikipedia, making it easy for anyone who wishes to learn more about such company rather than leaving just a plained written words. The reason I asked for more clarification on Wikipedia:External links is because the previous decliner of my AFC draft project made mention of that, and thus given the impression point of me using 《Baidu》for references of which wasn't the case. I have firmly known that both Instagram, Weibo, Facebook or Baidu should only be treated as an external links but should not be use to Cite for references, I hope my understanding is right? Thisasia (talk) 06:25, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

@Thisasia,
I think you are confusing external links with references or citations. You are thinking that you have to be following the Wikipedia:External Links. We can not cite wikipedia itself on wikipedia so we ONLY cite external links. I went through the website which was all in chinese and searching about Baidu, I found that it is also a wiki, so I feel your article for creation got declined due to the reason of you citing another wiki. If you want to cite, it is also referenced, so you can refer to the citations there and cite them instead of Baidu itself and don't straight away copy it from there but rephrase to avoid palagrism.
If you are facing any other problem, feel free to reply back.
And, I too am not expert, and I would appreciate any corrections.
Yamantakks (talk) 08:40, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
@Yamantakks Thanks for your reply. But that's not the case, I'm not using Baidu to Cite for reference rather I only use it to detail about chinese companies that is not on Wikipedia. I probably understood the difference between reference and detailing,
References: must be talking about the person of the artist while
External Links: don't necessarily have to be otherwise, they can detailing about company profile that the person of the article is affiliated with.
But I do appreciate your reply, i definitely will remove all Baidu External links used for detailing if proven wrong Thanks. Thisasia (talk) 08:53, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
@Thisasia,
You are saying that you are using Baidu for "detailing". I do not understand what do you mean by "detailing". Are you adding it in the section of "Further Reading" or what? I would be happy to know.
Yamantakks (talk) 08:57, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
@Yamantakks Well when I said 'detailing', I simply means providing further information about such company for readers who wish to learn more about the company, just like you may provide a detail information about Wikipedia:Template while we are not even talking about Template here, but we might detail about Template may be because it has some little affiliation with the topic of discussion in general, making it easier for readers who wish to no more about Wikipedia:Template and why they where mentioned on that topic. That's probably not reference but just an External link used only for the purpose of detailing Thisasia (talk) 09:09, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
@Thisasia,
Isn't that 'Further Reading'.
Btw, I was seeing you are making it in chinese wikipedia, so, would not it be better to be asking there (No offence).
Yamantakks (talk) 09:23, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
@Yamantakks of course that can be also defined as further reading depending how you put it in English. For example: do you know that you may want to detail about (Template) but what if Template has no description page on Wikipedia? You can do so with an External link just like (Template) this does not mean you are using it for references but just for Detailing. You have not used it to Cite for the project you are writing about, but rather for a further information about an affiliated topics which shouldn't be narrated on the page. Thisasia (talk) 09:35, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
checkYThis is right: It is a company.[1]
External links

☒NThis is wrong: It is a company and this is their website.

☒NThis is also wrong: It is a company.[2]

References

  1. ^ Doe, Jane. example.com 17 March 2024
  2. ^ Unreliable source

🌺 Cremastra (talk) 13:52, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Removing orphan and encyclopedic tone messages

I have created a new entry which currently has messages at the top about it being an orphan and "tone or style may not reflect the encyclopedic tone used on Wikipedia". I have added links from other articles and edited two sentences that I thought might need a more formal tone. How do get these checked and the messages removed please? Shockwave cosmology Hewer7 (talk) 12:11, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

@Hewer7: You apparently refer to Shockwave cosmology. The "orphan" issue is binary, so you may remove the tag as soon as that article is linked from another. I'm short of time, but I'm sure someone will soon advise on the other matter. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:00, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. I see that I can, in fact, delete both of those messages. Hopefully the edits I made mean that the article now does conform to the encyclopedic style and tone. Hewer7 (talk) 13:08, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Before you do that, please see MOS:WE. Shantavira|feed me 13:09, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
I assume, Shantavira, that you refer to "our expanding volume of space and matter". I think this means, the volume which includes us and everything we can observe. If I'm right, I don't see MOS:WE as applying. Maproom (talk) 14:01, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
we are still inside an expanding black hole... Shantavira|feed me 14:54, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
The MOS does not deprecate the "Author's we" so that one may be kept. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:04, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikidata on Microsoft Edge

Hi, I need some help on updating the software version for the article Microsoft Edge. I added information on the wikidata. Could someone help me? Myrealnamm (talk to me) 18:39, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

mobile tags in edit summaries

is it really necessary to display to the world that a user made an edit from a mobile device? soibangla (talk) 20:41, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello, soibangla, and welcome to the Teahouse. WP:Tags explains how tags such as "mobile edit" can be helpful. Note that you can use them to filter History or Contributions lists.
If you think that there is some reason why that tag shouldn't be shown, then WP:VP is the place to argue that - I'm not sure which section of it would be best. ColinFine (talk) 22:12, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

How do i make a Wikipedia page that could be accepted

 Courtesy link: Draft:The XDFilpDaf Channel
 Courtesy link: User:HeyTiSee/sandbox

I tried over and over again, but I think i get it, It needs a good reference, but how could the article be approved HeyTiSee (talk) 16:57, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

It would be helpful if we knew what page you're talking about, that way we can give tailored advice to that page.
Without that, the most I can tell you is to look at Your First Article for some good advice. CommissarDoggoTalk? 17:03, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
@HeyTiSee: Welcome to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1219. You are going to want to look at Your first article and Easy referencing for beginners to establish wikinotability for whatever subject it is you're writing about. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:04, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello, HeyTiSee. I'm afraid that you are having the same experience as almost everybody who tries the challenging task of creating a new article before they have spent time making improvements to existing articles and thereby learning how Wikipedia works. My advice to new editors (and yes, I see you created yhour account six months ago, but you have made only seven edits, so you are a new editor) is to put aside completely the idea of creating a new article for several months while you learn about crucial ideas such as notability, reliable sources, neutral point of view, and verifiability.
Creating a new article starts with finding the sources, because if you can't find them, you will know that every second you spend on the article after that will be time wasted, I'm afraid. ColinFine (talk) 18:10, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
WP:BACKWARDS may be of help to you. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:18, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Draft:The XDFilpDaf Channel was created and Declined back in October. You have done no editing on it since then. Try to figure out if you can add reliable source references, but if not, abandon the draft and in time it will be deleted. David notMD (talk) 22:49, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Cancellation of Draft: Arno Vanmassenhove

 Courtesy link: Draft:Arno_Vanmassenhove

Dear Wikipedia Editorial Team,

We noticed the cancellation of our client Arno Vanmassenhove's Wikipedia page and would appreciate clarification on the decision. Arno's significant contributions to entrepreneurship and personal development warrant recognition on Wikipedia. We are eager to address any concerns and ensure the accuracy of his page.

Thank you for your attention.

Sincerely,

Cris Cawley Game Changer Publishing Itsarnovnm (talk) 19:14, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

That message and the current status of Draft:Arno Vanmassenhove are the exact reasons why it got denied at WP:AFC. The draft is filled with puffery and clearly violates guidelines on neutral point of view, something rather near and dear to us as Wikipedians. You call him a "visionary", said "this project showcased his early creativity and set the stage for his future endeavors" and "Vanmassenhove's ability to create compelling content and navigate high-stakes negotiations demonstrated a unique blend of creativity and business acumen that defined his path" among other examples. It reads like a CV.
In the references section, there's a distinct lack of any secondary references, one of the major Golden Rules of Wikipedia editing, with all of the references saying what is essentially "come and marvel at this fantastic man's work!"
It's a PR piece, and I'd seriously call into question whether you're here to make an encyclopaedia at all based on its content. I implore you, if you want to turn this page into something that belongs on Wikipedia, you need to research a lot more about Wikipedia's policies. Look to Your First Article for more. CommissarDoggoTalk? 19:29, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Draft now deleted. Maproom (talk) 21:01, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
CommissarDoggo, it reads like a CV? I've had to skimread a lot of CVs in my time (before examining the more interesting ones more carefully), but never have I encountered one like this. (If I had, I'd have swiftly rolled it into a ball and tossed it into a wastebin.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:02, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Now now, who said it was a good CV? CommissarDoggoTalk? 23:04, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Internet Archive and copyvio

Hey there, I wanted to cite the English version of the documentary 'London Calling: Cold War Letters' produced by ARD and shown by the BBC. Can I include a link to the documentary on the Internet Archive? That's all copyvio territory, right? JackTheSecond (talk) 19:39, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

JackTheSecond, you word your question obscurely. But if you are saying that London Calling: Cold War Letters (whatever this is) is copyright, and that it's at the Internet Archive in violation of the copyright, then no, you should not provide a link to it to it at the Internet Archive. -- Hoary (talk) 22:49, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks Hoary. Hm, yes, that sentence does not communicate the question I have all that well... Ehm: "Does the Internet Archive have a policy against copyright violations similar to Wikipedia, and can I trust it?" is probably concise. JackTheSecond (talk) 22:56, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
JackTheSecond, I'm sure that it does, and I'm sure that you can't. (An article here about a then-recent and definitely "all-rights-reserved"-ly copyrighted book linked in 2009 to a Wayback scrape of a web page illicitly reproducing the entire book. Back in 2009, I removed the link, but the copyright status of the book is unchanged and the Wayback scrape is still as it was.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:14, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Note though that there is no policy that says your cite must have a url. I have no view on if the documentary is an RS for what you want to use it for, that is a separate question. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 23:26, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
@Gråbergs Gråa Sång Oh, I used the documentary in Draft:BBC German Service to build the article. Without the url. JackTheSecond (talk) 23:33, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Evidence where citation is required.

How do I satisfy. For example,myappointment to a Court is questined but I have a photo of my commission. Amberino10 (talk) 23:36, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

[This appears to be about the article Shane Marshall. -- Hoary (talk) 23:45, 17 March 2024 (UTC)]
As you, Amberino10, are the subject of the article Shane Marshall, please read, digest, and edit in accordance with Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Help. (This normally means not editing the article itself, but instead making suggestions on its talk page.) If you have a problem interpreting or applying what this says, feel free to ask here. As for citing a photograph that you possess, the page I've linked to says: "Three main policies cover content:[...] 2. Verifiability (facts in articles must be verifiable from reliable sources) [...]". The page on verifiability says, inter alia, "Unpublished materials are not considered reliable." -- Hoary (talk) 01:50, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Deletionpedia seems to be dead

Had to use the site to get back articles, which wasn't notable at time of deletion. Guaka seems to be open to external contributions: https://github.com/guaka/deletionpedia/issues/35

But, seems like no one's going to pick up the gauntlet... Greatder (talk) 15:40, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

And your question about editing Wikipedia is...? ColinFine (talk) 17:59, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
@ColinFine Oh, I thought this was the Tea house, so any blabbering about Wikipedia was done here. Greatder (talk) 23:26, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
@Greatder: Deletionpedia in not related to Wikipedia. We can't help you with any problems you are having with that project. RudolfRed (talk) 02:44, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

sandbox thing

why the hell do I get a message saying my edits were unconstructive and they told me to go to the sandbox for that stuff, TURNS OUT I WAS DOING THE SANDBOX SO WHAT DO I DO! I DIDNT EVEN VANDALIZE THE LITTLE TING THEY SAY NOT TO MESS WITH!

ok my rant is done 2601:281:D87E:6880:54B3:1ABE:2B5A:CC15 (talk) 00:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

What you were doing was perfectly OK. I'll discuss with the editor that warned you – making test edits in the sandbox is just fine. Tollens (talk) 00:42, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Do understand though, that the Sandbox is blanked automatically, frequently, so not a place to create lasting content. Use your own Sandbox. David notMD (talk) 02:01, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
@David notMD: I don't believe IP editors can create personal sandboxes, since they can only create pages in the Talk namespaces (though I suppose they could use a subpage of their own talk page). Even then, on an IPv6 address it's very likely they will just be unable to find the page once their address changes. Tollens (talk) 02:07, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
My error. I overlooked that this was an IP that wishes to take over the general Sandbox for personal purposes. David notMD (talk) 04:24, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Creating new names...

What's 1st - _ , . 2600:1700:A1C1:8210:B9E4:F997:3463:9548 (talk) 09:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello. Can you be more specific as to what you are asking? 331dot (talk) 09:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

New to Wikipedia

I just joined today and can see where this will be a most entertaining and educational site for me. When I set up my homepage I selected topics that were of interest and that will be needed for research. My question is how do I select these topics or do I just put them in the search bar? Thank You for your Assistance Caryb7 (talk) 02:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

@Caryb7, the topics you select on your homepage are topics of interest for editing articles. If you're just reading wikipedia for fun, use the search bar to find articles you're interested in and go from there. -- asilvering (talk) 04:12, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
...I think both of you are talking about the Wikipedia:Growth_Team_features#Newcomer_homepage, but I'm not too familiar with it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:44, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
@Caryb7: Yes, this is about Special:Homepage and the topics of interest are only used by the "Suggested edits" feature. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:58, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Need Help for my first article

Looking for someone to edit / write correctly my article YPAFine Art Foundation in Wikipedia. Thank you very much for your understanding. Loreta Ypafaf (talk) 09:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

(Draft G11'd, user blocked.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:11, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Teahouse hosts are here to advise, not to author or co-author drafts or articles. David notMD (talk) 13:08, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

permission new languages

I do an intership and they asked my if i cloud make an new translation, Because they say we cant do that

Yours sincerely 91.126.218.231 (talk) 12:50, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

@91.126.218.231 I'm not sure what you are asking with this question. Could you please explain a bit more? Kline • talk to me! • contribs 13:08, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

My page is getting rejected

My page is getting rejected and even deleted. I am unable to understand the mistake being made. Is there any reference. Page " Ambarish Anand:

136.185.212.108 (talk) 10:39, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Did you forget to log in? When you have an account, it's best to not edit logged out because there are rules about it and you'd have to learn those too. The relevant guidelines for you are WP:N and WP:NPOV. WP:V comes next. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It's easy to make the mistake but Wikipedia is not at all in the same category as either LinkedIn or IMDB. Click on all the blue links that were included in the messages that you received on your account's talk page, and read the pages those open, please. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:49, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Draft:Ambarish Anand by User:Ambarish2anand was deleted as "Unambiguous advertising or promotion" per Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#G11. It was extremely promotional. Under the heading "Ambarish Anand: The IT Maestro and Visionary Leader" it said: "Ambarish Anand stands as a beacon of innovation and leadership in IT services, digital transformation, and entrepreneurship. With a track record adorned with accolades and achievements, he is playing a part in reshaping service delivery in tech industries but also inspiring a new generation of leaders." And that was just the start. It's not "your" article but an encyclopedia article about you. This is not how our encyclopedia writes articles. See also Wikipedia:Autobiography. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:28, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with articles, not social media with pages. You may have grandiose opinions about your own importance, but unless people with no connection to you are publishing about you there is no potential for there being an article about you. David notMD (talk) 13:20, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

recent changes show new changes button not appearing

so recently when i have used recent changes, the button that appears when a new change happens that shows the new change has not been appearing. i tried using live updates, but that doesnt work either, does anybody have a solution to this? Gaismagorm (talk) 13:21, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

nevermind its working now Gaismagorm (talk) 13:22, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Are all images on Government of India-owned websites subject to the Government Open Data License (GODL)

About the picture I included and found on a Government of India website, depicting Santi Sudha Ghosh, does the Government Open Data License apply to this specific image? Also, does the permission for using this image follow the general rules for using pictures on Government of India websites? Or are there special rules just for this image? Charlie (talk) 02:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

To maximize your chances of getting a knowledgable and informative answer to this compound question, Charlie, try asking it at commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright. -- Hoary (talk) 07:22, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks Hoary. Charlie (talk) 13:23, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Northwestern College (Iowa) Wikipedia page

Northwestern College (Iowa)

I have worked on improving this page by adding citations and removing academic boosterism. May the the two maintenance templates be removed now? According to Wikipedia's guidelines, I'm not qualified to remove them because I have a conflict of interest: I am employed by Northwestern College (Iowa). Please reply to VisualEditor. Thanks in advance for your help. Skielark Skielark (talk) 13:39, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

You have only added primary sources to most of the sections. Wikipedia requires independent secondary sources to verify the statements. Maybe, someone could replace it with a {{Primary sources}} tag. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 16:03, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

How do I disambiguate two churches with the same name?

Suppose a city, say Wikitown, has a Catholic church and a Protestant church, both named "St. Peter's Church". I wish to create articles for both of them–how should they be named? Is it like

  • St. Peter's Church, Wikitown (Catholic), or
  • St. Peter's Catholic Church, Wikitown, or
  • St. Peter's Church (Wikitown, Catholic)?

Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 15:23, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello, The Lonely Panther. The relevant policies are in WP:TITLE, specifically WP:COMMONNAME and WP:TITLEDAB. Off the top of my head, if the church is customarily known as "St Peter's Catholic Church", then your second option would be best, but if not, then your first. ColinFine (talk) 16:07, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Minor edits

What exactly qualifies (or doessn't) as a "minor edit" when editing an article? For example, if just one or two sentences are replaced in order to eliminate an unsourced conjecture, or a single citation is inserted to support an existing text, is that major or minor?

This arises because Wikipedia asks whether an edit is "minor". I don't know how this designation is used, or how crucial it is. Johsebb (talk) 21:28, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

@Johsebb WP:Minor edits would be a helpful page for you to look at. To sum it up, it's generally used for small changes such as typo correction, table fixes, or simple formatting. Edits to not be marked as a minor edit would be adding or removing content, or adding and removing templates. Kline • talk to me! • contribs 21:36, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Many editors never mark edits as minor unless they're semi-automated. Frankly, for other editors invested in an article, it's much more desirable to skim through 30 tiny edits they don't care about than miss one they did because it was marked as minor. Remsense诉 22:13, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. Should have looked at that WP page in the first place! Johsebb (talk) 15:17, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
I have been mis-labeling edits as "minor". I see from Help:Minor_edit#Things_to_remember that I can ameliorate this by making a dummy edit. But since I've done this repeatedly, is there a way to make a single dummy edit to cover all the edits that should not have been so labeled? Or would I need to make a separate dummy edit for each instance? And what are the consequences of failing to make any corrections? Johsebb (talk) 17:05, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
Honestly, I really wouldn't worry about it that much. If it's too much trouble, you will be fine if you don't mark edits as minor—as I said above, people would be more concerned with false positives than false negatives. Remsense诉 17:10, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks! At least, now I know, going forward. Johsebb (talk) 16:21, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Institute for Uranian Psychoanalysis

Friends,

I am working on this draft, can you please send me any advice? Draft:Institute for Uranian Psychoanalysis Jamplevia (talk) 09:20, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

That draft tells us nothing about the Institute and doesn't cite a single reliable source. Before you do any more work on it please read WP:Your first article and WP:BACKWARDS. Shantavira|feed me 10:02, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
See also WP:NORG. If the sources required don't exist, a WP-article will not be accepted. If you haven't, consider asking for input at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:19, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Jamplevia, Draft:Institute for Uranian Psychoanalysis has an external link near the top, to https://treeroots.org/. That page refers to "the dissolution in 2020 of ... the Institute for Uranian Psychoanalysis". So the first source you link to says that your subject no longer exists. That's not a promising start. Maproom (talk) 11:12, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
The draft is not a place to ask questions about how to make the draft. I deleted that. If there are not references about the Institute published be people with no connection to the Institute, then the draft cannot succeed. David notMD (talk) 13:16, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Sorry I'm too busy updating the draft article's Talk page to respond any further on this unhelpful tea-whatever-it-is. ---- Jamplevia (talk) 16:44, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Obituary as the main source and reference

Hi, with regards to Draft:Farid Allawerdi, all the article is from multiple online obituary publications about the subject, Farid Allawerdi, and all the online articles are referenced. The obituaries are from Arabic source websites of news, newspapers and publications by journalists and writers (all are published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject). I have merely toned down and re-written/translated them in the article body. There are 16 references about the subject matter and only 2 where the subject name is mentioned in passing. I do not understand why the reviewer rejected the article questioning its qualification for wiki. Rogerdoyle1 (talk) 15:49, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

You have not re-submitted the draft since it was declined, it has NOT been rejected. Theroadislong (talk) 16:06, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
There are large unsourced sections (I think the record in this article is 12 paragraphs in a row without citation but do correct me). That is a massive problem and needs to be fixed before resubmission. CommissarDoggoTalk? 16:09, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for highlighting that. Could I place the same reference after each paragraph as each paragraph refer to one long online obituary. Rogerdoyle1 (talk) 16:43, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
As long as what's sourced in the paragraph is from a certain citation, that citation should be placed at the end of that paragraph.
If one half of a paragraph is sourced to one citation, and the other half is sourced to another, put the first citation after the first half and the second after the second half. Please see WP:CITE and, as the first example that comes to my mind, take a look at one of my more recent biographies; Catherine Jordan. CommissarDoggoTalk? 16:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Moving redirect page

Hi there, I've probably asked a similar question in the past, but I can't seem to remember what the procedure was. I'm trying to move the page Kampot Province, Cambodia to Kampot Province, which is currently a redirect, with the rationale that there is no other Kampot Province anywhere else, so the disambiguating "Cambodia" is unnecessary. Unfortunately, I don't know how to get rid of the redirect page. Please help! Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 17:43, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Revirvlkodlaku! The instructions are at Help:How to move a page. Since there is a title at the target "Kampot Province" already, you may have to request the move be made. Once moved, the original page with ", Cambodia" should be tagged with Template:R from name and country. Cheers, Sdkb talk 18:01, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Edit Conflict

Hello!

Please tell me how to recover lost edits during an edit conflict. When I act instinctively, I end up losing my work and having to start over, which is a pain. Any advice on how to avoid that going forward? Thank you very much! Fenharrow (talk) 19:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello. When an edit conflict comes up while attempting to publish an edit, your attempted edit is provided at the bottom. 331dot (talk) 19:38, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Ah I see. I will check it out. Thanks! Fenharrow (talk) 19:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

First Article

I've recently been asked to make a page for well known, notable percussionist. I've made several edits and citing every claim. I keep finding articles online that say "...now click the MORE menu in your sandbox and click MOVE to move the article..." but I don't see a MORE menu. I'm sure this is user error, like I didn't something incorrectly, or I'm just not seeing the menu, but can anyone help me out?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:WikiDMM/sandbox&oldid=1212412209 WikiDMM (talk) 16:31, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @WikiDMM, I've moved it for you, and it's now at Draft:Gumbi Ortiz. When you are ready to submit it for review, simply press the blue button. -- asilvering (talk) 16:57, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Thank you so much! I submitted it for review. WikiDMM (talk) 17:07, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello, WikiDMM, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia. I'm afraid that you are in the same position as hundreds and hundreds of people who come here to create an article, and do so before they have spent any time learning how Wikipedia works. My prediction is that you are going to have a frustrating and miserable time for the next few weeks - I may be wrong, but that is what my experience tells me.
Like most such people, I think you have written your article BACKWARDS, starting with what you want to say and then looking for sources. You have few or no independent reliable sources. You have non-neutral language in your draft.
In addition, your wording above, saying "I have been asked to make a page" implies that you have a conflict of interest in writing about Ortiz. It is important that you clarify what your relationship is to him: if you are in any way paid or employed to do this, then you must make a formal declaration of your status as a paid editor. You should probably also read WP:BOSS.
In my view your draft has no hope of being accepted in its present form. You may continue to work on it while you await a reviewer - if you are going to do this, you should first and foremost look for sources where people who have no connection with Ortiz have chosen, off their own bat, to write at some length about him, and been published in reliable places: see Golden rule for what we are looking for. Note that anything based on an interview or press release does not count.
Then you should remove everything from your draft that is not found in one of those sources.
But my more general advice is that you should put aside the whole idea of creating a new article for several months, while you learn about Wikipedia by editing existing articles. When you have understood about notability, reliable sources and neutral point of view will be the time to read your first article and come back to it. ColinFine (talk) 17:38, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
I agree with most of this, but would like to add that you can indeed keep information that is sourced from interviews, press releases, etc, provided that it is neutral and the topic is shown to be notable through other sources. -- asilvering (talk) 20:46, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Your not submitted draft is at User:WikiDMM/sandbox. It should be submitted to the Articles for Creation review process for a reviewer to evaluate and accept, decline, reject or speedy delete. David notMD (talk) 16:34, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

@David notMD, a new editor who can't find the tools menus is really unlikely to be able to usefully understand this kind of comment. It would be more helpful if you could move the draft for them and tag it for AfC. -- asilvering (talk) 16:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
WikiDMM Asilvering was kind enough to do what I only pointed to - adding a Submit function. There is a backlog of drafts and the system is not a queue, so could be days to months before it is reviewed. As currently written, there is a lot (a lot!) of content that is not verified by references. David notMD (talk) 17:22, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
I'm definitely going to keep working on it. Thanks! WikiDMM (talk) 19:57, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Mallcore

I want to re-create this article and make it a redirect to Scene (subculture)#Criticisms. Its actually a fairly common term and used in that section so imo a redirect makes sense. However the page is protected. Could an admin lift the protection or create the page themselves? Thanks --FMSky (talk) 19:00, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

@FMSky, WP:AFC/R is for this problem. -- asilvering (talk) 20:47, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

A little help....

First time here, just not sure what to do or how to start contributing? I was not even aware we could edit Wikipedia! So just a little direction if you please... Connoramam (talk) 22:54, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, a good place to start would be the Task Centre. I'd personally recommend citation hunting and copyediting. Citation hunting will help you learn the citation system, where you should be adding citations and what sites are acceptable to cite with.
Copyediting is a great way to learn things like how the Manual of Style works.
When you've gotten a little experience under your belt, I'd recommend grabbing WP:TWINKLE and trying out Recent Change Patrols. That'll show you how often people vandalise and how quickly those edits get reverted. It's a good way to learn about how issues with Wikipedia are solved, how the various administrative noticeboards function, how to deal with vandals when (yes it is a when, not an if) you find them and how robust the systems are for keeping Wikipedia honest.
Finally, when you feel ready and when you have something you're interested in, check out Your First Article. It'll help you to find out how best to make an article. Never work backwards.
Ultimately, I'd advise joining the Wikipedia Discord server, it's a great place to get quick advice from experienced editors, much like right here in the Teahouse. CommissarDoggoTalk? 23:06, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
@Connoramam: Welcome to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1219. As a new user, you should have access to your own homepage, which will suggest some tasks for you to do. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:07, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Important question

Does WP:A3 apply also to drafts? 37.160.173.21 (talk) 22:53, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I asked the question while I was unlogged 14 novembre (talk) 22:54, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
In my admittedly limited experience, I'd say no. If it did then note-taking the night prior would be impossible because it'd get speedy deleted before you even get to start. CommissarDoggoTalk? 22:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
@CommissarDoggo Ok. Thanks for your answer. I was wondering if there was some criterion under which Draft:Nelson Mandela, an empty draft with the same title and on the same subject of an existing mainspace article, could be listed for speedy deletion. Kind regards 14 novembre (talk) 22:58, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
I'm not massively familiar with deletion categories, I've never really had a reason to use the articles for deletion or speedy deletion areas.
That being said, I can see you've already left a message on their talk page. That should really be enough. As there's already a page on the topic, it won't pass submission through articles for creation and will at most have the information the user collects merged with the existing article where applicable. CommissarDoggoTalk? 23:11, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
@CommissarDoggo OK. Thanks for your answer. Kind regards 14 novembre (talk) 23:28, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
I've checked your talk page and I can see you've been informed previously about how speedy deletion criteria's do not apply to drafts. Of course, as previously stated, that fact is news to me.
Please see User talk:14 novembre#Speedy deletions. CommissarDoggoTalk? 23:39, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Well, with some exceptions, the "G" criteria of CSD do apply to draft pages and may be used with discretion to tag pages, since some things, like copyvios and attack pages, should be speedily deleted whenever they're found. It's the "A" criteria that don't apply to drafts. Deor (talk) 00:27, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Need help and advice for a beginner

I recently joined Wikipedia English. I started by making small editions, then creating a few articles based on existing ones (which didn't seem like a bad idea to me). Unfortunately, my articles were rejected because they were not developed and sourced enough. I took the time to rework one of the articles to see if it would pass the draft this time. But he was rejected again. Would a kind soul give me some advice on what I should change on this article: Draft:Lonza Arena. I am criticized for not citing enough references even though I included 24, which represents one for 30 words depending on the size of this article. Since I spent time writing it and I feel like I described the subject well, I would like to be able to validate it. Could someone guide me in this direction, please?

Thank you Gotch87 (talk) 14:10, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

All your references are to one regional newspaper. To be suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia, a subject must have significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. This generally means at least three different sources. Shantavira|feed me 14:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Please stop creating articles in mainspace. All of your efforts to date have been turned into drafts because of serious shortcomings, including the lack of any references. The one you submitted to AfC (Draft:Lonza Arena) was Declined (not Rejected) for reasons given by the reviewer and above (21 of 24 refs to local newspaper). David notMD (talk) 15:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, the link you gave me is very useful. I will try to vary my sources. Gotch87 (talk) 00:32, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Request for PCR

Can I ask any admin to review my pending changes reviewer request or is that not allowed? Mseingth2133444 (talk/contribs) 00:29, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

@Mseingth2133444: Just wait. The note at the top of the page says Editors should not expect their request to be answered right away and should remember to be patient when filing a request. RudolfRed (talk) 00:39, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
@RudolfRed Sorry my brain seems to have missed that. Thank you anyway. Cheers, Mseingth2133444 (talk/contribs) 00:40, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Create an article

I would like to request for an article to be created titled Disappearance of Riley Strain. Strain is a college student who attends University of Missouri who went missing in Nashville on March 8th. Cwater1 (talk) 22:55, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Cwater1, if Strain is notable as defined by and for Wikipedia, then you can create Draft:Riley Strain. Asking others to do it is not going to work. -- Hoary (talk) 23:17, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Oh okay, thanks! No worries, I'm not asking someone to do my homework. Cwater1 (talk) 00:15, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Cwater1, see in particular WP:BLP1E. -- Hoary (talk) 01:53, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
I agree. Strain is currently newsworthy (a mysterious disappearance) but I strongly doubt he will ever be Wikipedia acount-worthy. In the US, thousands of people are reported missing every week. Most of those are eventually located alive (often, children taken by parents who do not have legal custody), but that still leaves thousands who are not found, or are found dead. David notMD (talk) 04:38, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
It is better off for this article to instead be a redirect at this time. This case has drawn attention across the US. Missing persons cases does often draw national attention. Cwater1 (talk) 01:37, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Eric Mays

In all my years at WP I don't think I've come across an article like this one: Eric Mays. I'd like to go in and clean-up but honestly I'm at a loss. Without any real inline citations, let alone sources to back up a good portion of this entire article, I'm afraid most of it will simply be scrubbed. Obviously it was written by someone who knew the subject closely or at least has an extreme WP:COI. The article itself follows no MOS. I guess what I'm asking is: how would some other WP editors approach this task? I'm not afraid to get my hands dirty, but this will be quite the undertaking. Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 21:43, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not personally gunna read through it right now, but due to the lack of proper citations (there is a reflist but there's absolutely nothing inline) it'll be very difficult to do much with this without just nuking it.
The last time I came across something like this with such a dire lack of citations (at least it had citations already), I ended up just finding citations and rewriting the majority of it. CommissarDoggoTalk? 21:48, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
It should look a bit better now after I reverted a recent edit adding reams of unsourced puffery. MarchOfTheGreyhounds 21:48, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
It does, March - but I see you haven't (so far) communicated with the editor who added all that. I suggest it would be a good idea to do so. ColinFine (talk) 21:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Good point, thanks for the reminder. MarchOfTheGreyhounds 21:54, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah. That's what I thought was going to happen. Short of nuking it, most of the sources for this "controversial" Mayor were ... controversies. Not much of a legacy; but it is what it is. At least it reads more like a WP (MOS) article. Sad all that content had to be scrubbed; but without putting in the time, I guess there was no other way. I'm sure though the subject did do some good; since he was Mayor from 2013 until his death in 2024. Perhaps a template should accompany the article to help improve it. Not just clean up. Thanks to all though who swiftly attended to this. Maineartists (talk) 23:44, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I can very easily think of politicians who have contributed nothing to society or indeed anyone or anything (aside from favored family members, a few cronies, etc), yet are uncontroversially "notable" in Wikipedia's sense. So "notability" isn't negated by uselessness. That said, it's not clear to me that this fellow is "notable" in Wikipedia's sense. But in order to decide if he is or isn't, I suppose I'd have to look at a number of the references already cited, not an alluring task. (Also, chronic non-achievement can be notable in its humble way: example.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:32, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Regarding map pointing feature

Hello there,

I was thinking on editing the wikipedia page Naya Sanwara and was thinking if a map showing its location in india and rajasthan would be available and how to add it, can anyone help by explaining me what is this and how can it be used.

Thanks in advance

Yamantakks (talk) 10:05, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

And I was also looking for citable resources like websites and the only I got were following
  1. Village Info.in, i could not link it because it is blacklisted
  2. Census 2011 . Co. In or simply "Population Census"
  3. Local Body Data.com*
  • This website only offers the details of the municipality or that things
Kindly tell if these are reliable enough to be used as citations ir should I nominate the article for deletion as it does not offers notable citations.
Regards
Yamantakks (talk) 10:24, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
@Yamantakks: Try adding Template:Infobox settlement to the article. Ask here again if you still need help, after reading its documentation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:26, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing, before spending my time to improve the article, I was thinking of finding citations and as I mentioned later, I am seeing a problem in notability of the article, so, can you see and tell me if it is eligible for being nominated for deleting or can I get any other to help.
With warm regards
Yamantakks (talk) 08:20, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
@Yamantakks: A settlement recognised in a government document such as a census is generally considered notable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:15, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing,
Ok, but, from the websites, they do not look like official government websites but are just some websites shosing the informwtion from census.
Yamantakks (talk) 03:22, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Using a YouTube source

Hello, I have an issue and I am wondering if it is reasonable to use a YouTube source to cite something. I am working on the article CaseOh, and I mention that he collaborates with streamers such as Jynxi, but somebody said I need a citation for it. There are no news mentions of it, but there is a video uploaded to YouTube by Jynxi himself, which proves exactly that it happened, better than any other type of source could. The link to the video is Caseoh | Jynxzi Podcast #1 - YouTube. I understand YouTube links are usually discouraged, but I am not sure if this is an exception. Thanks. Antny08 (talk) 21:07, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

YouTube sources are discouraged as WP:PRIMARY sources, but using them as a statement of fact is generally ok as long as you aren't trying to extrapolate anything from that.
If that video says specifically that they collaborate, that's fine, if it's just them two in the same video then all that really is is them in a video once. An example of this would be on Ren Gill, where a YouTube video he put out is used to spell his middle name. CommissarDoggoTalk? 21:11, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Consider also that if no independent source has bothered to notice that these two collaborate, it probably fails WP:PROPORTION to include it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:07, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Today's photo of the day

You mean billion, not million! 2A02:3100:5F99:F101:1DC7:ED5F:A866:6CD4 (talk) 10:33, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for spotting this; I have corrected the numbers. Lectonar (talk) 10:47, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Wrong judgement by editors

I tried to update the company financials of a page (Ramco Cements) with the information from 2022- 2023. The source is BSE( Bombay stock exchange- India's first and largest stock exchange-https://www.bseindia.com/). The edits were reverted by User:The_Herald ( Benison). He also threatened with blocking my id. I have seen this behavior earlier as well where the first response of an editor is to threaten with blocking the user. Many of them are not subject matter experts(like in this case) There should be a way to remove their points or curtail their editorial privileges. Deepa vasudevan (talk) 08:24, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

The problem is your edit also added an unsourced paragraph of promoional material. Theroadislong (talk) 08:32, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
This is another editor threatening to block a valid edit- User:Theroadislong.
BSE is the largest stock exchange in India. Updating revenue or any other wikipedia standard information on financials is not advertising or promotion. It is just adding valuable information to a stub. Deepa vasudevan (talk) 08:51, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
I have updated the revenue but the article was full of unsourced promotion. I have removed some of it, as it stands it should probably be taken to WP:AFD as a non notable company. Theroadislong (talk) 08:52, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
What you deleted are Brands and Products related to the company and the location of its factories- Information that will help people who look for these ( eg. job seekers, investors, students and professionals doing a company research). You can also check some more company page like HUL's.
Promotion will entail claims about product/ service features or quality. Deepa vasudevan (talk) 09:27, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Deepa vasudevan: Would you mind telling us what your relationship with Ramco Cements is? Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 09:49, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
I suspect that @Deepa vasudevan may well be a “Business Specialist, with more than 20 years of experience in Sales & Marketing” and that they need to swiftly declare their connection to the company on their userpage per WP:PAID, or risk falling foul of our policy of Undeclared Paid Editing (WP:UPE). Nick Moyes (talk) 10:33, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Why would I do that, Nick? The page currently contains no inputs from me. @Theroadislong has deleted my inputs as well as other existing data :). Deepa vasudevan (talk) 11:22, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
@Deepa vasudevan: because paid-editing disclosure is a hard requirement under our T&Cs of use, not an optional extra that you can choose to either make or not. Besides, c 15% of the article contents is still your contributions. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:35, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
@DoubleGrazing - Please cross check. None of those edits exist. Drill down the 15% and see if any of those content exist.
Unfortunately, in all the zeal, you editors have vandalized and have converted a page which was a stub into something worse. Congratulations!
In an ideal world, someone should have editorial knowledge to understand and evaluate what content is detrimental and false and what is standard industry information. Deepa vasudevan (talk) 11:47, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
No you have miss-understood how Wikipedia works, we have zero interest in "standard industry information" we rely on what independent sources report. Theroadislong (talk) 11:51, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
All of the information you added previously was unsourced, that is why it was removed. Any unsourced information will continue to be removed. Please see WP:CITE and WP:RS for more.
Do not falsely accuse other editors of vandalism, I can see no evidence of any editors removing information maliciously from the page. CommissarDoggoTalk? 11:55, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Can we ratchet the heat down somewhat? Deepa vasudevan, listen, we always welcome questions here at the Teahouse and are glad you brought your concerns here but the information @Theroadislong is teeling you is true. We do not build Wikipedia on standard industry information. Wikipedia is not where people need to come to find out about products for every business and there is no guarantee a business will have an encyclopedia article because we can only include content that is found in reliable sources. If you are interested I can leave a few tips on your talk page but you will need to read them. Going forward please do not make claims of vandalism until you learn what that means on Wikipedia. When used improperly it can lead to sanctions because it is a claim we take very seriously here. Let me know if you want additional information but as it stands, I agree with the other editors here and this company is probably not notable enough for inclusion. --ARoseWolf 12:09, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Submission has not gone "live" on Wikipedia

Hi there.

I submitted a page about Terrence McCauley (author) for releasee on Wikipedia about a month ago, but have not seen it go "live". It appears to still be in my sandbox. (here's the link to my sandbox and the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:DutchessR/sandbox&oldid=1210452346)

Can you tell me if it's been submitted and if it's in the cue for submission OR if I've done something wrong? If I've done something wrong, how do I properly get submitted for release?

Much appreciated!

Thank you! DutchessR (talk) 13:08, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

You haven't submitted it, you published it. That's essentially how you save your work, not how you publish it to Wikipedia. What you're looking for is Articles for Creation. As an aside, you need to have secondary references for what you're adding to that page, otherwise it'll never pass AFC.
Please see Your First Article for more helpful information. CommissarDoggoTalk? 13:15, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks @Theroadislong for adding that submission template. CommissarDoggoTalk? 13:16, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Now at User:DutchessR/sandbox David notMD (talk) 13:28, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

As you claim that the photo is your own work, what is your connection to McCauley? David notMD (talk) 13:31, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Just noting for the record that it was a carbon copy of the author's website and has thus been deleted. Primefac (talk) 13:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
I really hope that you didn't delete my sandbox as I was planning to edit based on comments that others have left to have better, more factual data that can be verified/reference. Is there any way that you can put the data BACK in my sandbox so that I can edit properly instead of starting from scratch again? DutchessR (talk) 16:48, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Copyright violations cannot be restored. 331dot (talk) 16:55, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikitrivia

What are the three most active WikiProjects today? TWOrantulaTM (enter the web) 14:27, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I'd say that WP:WikiProject Military history and WP:WikiProject Video Games are two of the most active, aside from that I'm not sure. I'm sure someone has accurate statistics. CommissarDoggoTalk? 14:40, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
By one metric, the amount of article/talk page watchers, the three most active are WP:WikiProject Contents, WP:WikiProject Military history, and WP:WikiProject Medicine; you can see more at Wikipedia:Database reports/WikiProject watchers. Unknown-Tree🌲? (talk) 18:00, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Adding an usurped web reference

Hi! This question references this article.

I recently requested that a spamlist URL be unblocked for a reference and it was approved here, since it was a usurped URL and the old version through internet archive was relevant.

In the request, they are advising me to add the ||url-status=usurped template to the reference. When I edit the reference, where do I add this? Or would I have to create a brand new reference and delete the old ones? Citation [37] is an example of a citation I need to add an usurped link web template to.

I don't mind doing it with either visual or source editing on desktop, I'm just not sure how to do it! Thank you! ← 𝐋𝐞𝐟𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐝𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧 17:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Lefthandedlion. Use Template:Cite web to format the reference. It has a url-status field, as well as the archive url field. See Help:Introduction to referencing with VisualEditor/1 for how to do this in Visual Editor. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:13, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
Thank you, I successfully added the sources! ← 𝐋𝐞𝐟𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐝𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧 04:08, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
Lefthandedlion, to the best of my knowledge, a link that leads to a 404 page is not usurped/unfit. This is the case at least for the Citation 37 example you used. Are the rest like that? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:12, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
The domain issd.org previously belonged to the International Society for the Study of Trauma and Dissociation and has now been usurped by some Thai blog on the spam blacklist. Even if the specific page linked doesn't have a page on the blog it still is usurped IMO. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:34, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

help with speedy deletion or regular deletion

can i tag Farhad Zaidi with {{Db-person}}? they dont seem very notable, and i think i read something in Wikipedia:Notability (people) about being only notable for one thing natelabs (talk) 18:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Natelabs, welcome to the Teahouse! Personally, if you were to tag that page with A7, I would decline it. The standard that articles must meet to rise above A7 speedy deletion is "significance", which is an intentionally lower bar than "notability". While you might be correct about the subject's overall notability, I would say they certainly make a credible claim of some kind of significance, and while obituaries, the only citations in the article, aren't great sources, they do indicate some level of significance even if they're not suitable for establishing notability. The guidance at WP:CSD is not to speedily delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases; if you have to ask yourself whether something is suitable for CSD or not, most likely it's not. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:42, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I have a problem with the translation tool

I was attempting to translate an article from Italian, but when I click to translate a paragraph, the system puts the exact Italian test in the English translation I am doing. Can anyone help? Kind regards 14 novembre (talk) 18:36, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

@14 novembre The idea of the content translation tool is to make it an easier way for people to get articles over from other Wikipedia's. You still have to do the translation part if you want it to be in the English Wikipedia Kline • talk to me! • contribs 20:56, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
@Kline Ah ok, thanks for your answer. On itwiki it was different, it was possible to do a first, automatic translation which was then to be improved and corrected. Anyway thanks again for answering and kind regards 14 novembre (talk) 20:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello, 14 novembre. Please look at translation, if you haven't already.
It is rarely useful to try and translate an article directly from another version of Wikipedia, because unless it is adequately sourced it will need to be rewritten based on better sources anyway. Articles in other languages aren't necessarily poorly sourced, but considering that 1) many articles in English Wikipedia are poorly sourced and would not be accepted if written today, and 2) most Wikipedias have less strict standards than English Wikipedia, they are often inadequate.
You can of course use a translation (even a machine translation) as a guide, but in most cases, it should be treated as a new article rather than a version of the existing one. ColinFine (talk) 21:37, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

How do I upload an image of a film poster on a film submission draft page "Draft:Wash My Soul In The River's Flow"? Thanks

I'd like a reply specific to visual editor please Kim alice film (talk) 00:54, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

@Kim alice film: I don't use VE, do I can' thelp you with that part. Howver, you cannot put non-free media such as a film poster in a draft. You will need to wait for the draft to be moved to an article before adding the poster. RudolfRed (talk) 01:09, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
thanks @RudolfRed I will wait to see if my draft corrections get approved. Is there a way to tell if you have submitted corrections in the right way. I dont mean if the corrections are right but rather is whether my new draft is sitting in the new submissions pile. Sorry I'm just new to wiki so trying to wrap my head around it. Kim alice film (talk) 01:30, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
@Kim alice film: Yes, it's been submitted for review. Draft:Wash_My_Soul_In_The_River's_Flow, you can see in the yellow box that its waiting for review. RudolfRed (talk) 02:09, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
thanks @RudolfRed Kim alice film (talk) 06:23, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Kim alice film, although Draft:Wash My Soul In The River's Flow has been submitted, and although it looks promising, material such as The 2004 shoot was filmed by cinematographer Allan Collins. Seventeen years later, the landscape footage of the Coorong and painterly abstract images were shot in 2021 by Bonnie Elliot in preparation for the editing of the film. / Ruby Hunter’s surviving brothers Eric Richards and Jeff Hunter were involved with the filmmakers in the production, in particular shooting on Ngarrindjeri Country. Rosslyn Richards, Hunter’s sister-in-law, working with Ngarrindjeri Elders, translated and supplied the subtitles in Ngarrindjeri language which appear with English text on screen. is unreferenced. You'll increase the chances of a quick promotion to article status if you provide references for what is currently unreferenced. -- Hoary (talk) 02:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
thanks @Hoary Kim alice film (talk) 03:35, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
To upload a non-free image, use the file upload wizard. One way to display the image in the article is to use the infobox film template once your article is moved to main space. {{Infobox film | image = File name.jpg | caption = Release poster}}
Before using the image on the article, you need to place and fill out a fair use rationale template for the image. A bot will remove the image if no non-free fair use rationale is present for the image/ poster. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 10:04, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
thanks @Jeraxmoira very helpful Kim alice film (talk) 22:13, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Help with citing.

Im working on a page for the Flettner-339 and Im not sure what part to cite since its from a book. here is the link to my article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Vincent_Pickus/Flettner_Fl_339&action=edit Vincent Pickus (talk)

That links gives me an error message "No such action". Maproom (talk) 23:10, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
A functional link is Draft:Flettner Fl 339. I am not sure what you mean by "what part to cite" – did you copy the text of the article directly from the book, or did you use only a segment of a book as a reference, or did you use a book as a reference for only part of the article? Tollens (talk) 23:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Ah, I see now that you have directly translated the content from the book into English (page 46, can be accessed at [7]). This is not allowed as it is a copyright violation; I've reverted the page back to the version which was in your own words. You can cite the book for the content which is in your draft already: please see Help:Referencing for beginners for a guide. Tollens (talk) 00:06, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Is "born and bred" an acceptable term on an article about a person? And is using acronyms alluding to swears in edit summaries (not directed at any people) not allowed?

So I edited Nandipha Magudumana (see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nandipha_Magudumana&diff=prev&oldid=1214454189), and removed the "and bred" from that article since it sounded weird (and at the time I didn't know it was a real phrase and I thought it had some dehumanising connotations since as far as I have heard, "bred" is usually used for animals, but now I know what it means). I also used the acronym "WTF" in the edit summary to express surprise at that phrase being used, though I agree I could have used some lighter language.

My edit was subsequently reverted (see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nandipha_Magudumana&diff=next&oldid=1214454189) and the user who reverted it told me "mind your language please". So, is there any rule or guideline against using swears not directed at people in edit summaries, or is it just a recommendation? Tube·of·Light 15:02, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

You really shouldn't swear on Wikipedia as a general rule. It's different when you're quoting something for an article, no need for it in edit summaries. As for "Born and bred", it's just a little thing that doesn't belong in an article. CommissarDoggoTalk? 15:12, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Tube of Light, first of all, I think you were correct to remove "born and bred" from the article. If nothing else, it's an idiom, and we have a policy about that in the Wikipedia Manual of Style, in the section MOS:IDIOM, which discourages the use of indirect expressions in favour of direct and literal language. I can also understand your strong reaction to the content. The expression "born and bred" is applied to people in everyday speech, but if you aren't familiar with it, the idea of a person being "bred" would surely seem extremely bizarre and dehumanizing. In that context I think a stray "WTF" is understandable. However, in direct response to your question about the use of swears which are not part of personal attacks: while Wikipedia is not censored and swear words are not banned by any means here, two core policies come to my mind which I think directly discourage this, namely the section of the civility guideline called WP:ESDONTS and the section of the edit summary guideline called WP:SUMMARYNO. Both of those guidelines stress that edit summaries should be both civil and neutral -- so, yes, even if you encounter something totally bewildering and even offensive in an article, writing "WTF" in the edit summary is discouraged. I will say, though (for whatever it's worth) that I personally think this is not a major infraction in the grand scheme of things. You should be commended for promptly removing what you thought was offensive or degrading material from a biography of a living person, which absolutely should be priority #1. However, even if I think that tone policing misses the main point, that doesn't mean you have free license to say whatever you want in edit summaries. All else equal it would have been better to remove that content with a straightforward and polite reference to the guideline about not using idioms, rather than to remove it with an acronym that brings to mind an expletive. - Astrophobe (talk) 16:25, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Got it. Thanks, @Astrophobe and @CommissarDoggo! Tube·of·Light 01:58, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Editing

I am unable to edit a semi-protected article and I believe I did all the training modules. How can I get to where I am able to edit it? Groundhogluv (talk) 02:19, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

@Groundhogluv: You just did by making the edit that asked this question, actually! Being autoconfirmed requires 10 edits over at least 4 days, you had made only 9 before asking this question. Tollens (talk) 02:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
So what do I press to be able to edit the page? Groundhogluv (talk) 02:26, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Just the edit button like any other page should work now. If you can't see it, try refreshing the page while holding down Shift. Tollens (talk) 02:31, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Thank you so much you saved me!! Groundhogluv (talk) 02:53, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Problem adjusting file size

I'm trying to upload an SVG image that is 2754 x 1398 pixels and shows up as that size in Adobe Illustrator. However, when I upload it into Wikipedia, it changes the size to 295 x 150 pixels. The image is for Fragile States Index 2023 [(Fragile States Index 2023.svg - Wikimedia Commons]). Putting the image into a web viewer also gives a size of 2754 x 1398 pixels. DarkMatterRealm2 (talk) 02:41, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

The file-description on the commons page for the file says "2,754 × 1,398 pixels", so the file itself is intact. But one major aspect of SVG files is that they don't really have a definite "size", but instead are infinitely scalable up or down. The Wikipedia software lets you pick what size you want each time you embed it in an article, and does the necessary scaling each time.
Some pages have a default size, and there are some rare cases that cannot be over-ridden. I can definitely say that an image of 2754x1398 should not be displayed as such...much to large. Could you point us to where you tried to embed it, so we can see what you're seeing and help figure out what trick is needed to control the size? DMacks (talk) 03:06, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
I was in the file history section of Wikimedia Commons (not an article) to overwrite a previous version of the file, and I clicked "upload a new version of this file". Then, I uploaded the version that's #3 in the file history, and it turned out to be 512 x 260, not 2754 x 1398. DarkMatterRealm2 (talk) 03:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
@DarkMatterRealm2: When I look at File:Fragile_States_Index_2023.svg it is available in several sizes, from 320x162 up to 2754x1398 RudolfRed (talk) 03:10, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Censoring my name

Hi. I wish to ensure that my name never gets posted on the wiki page ever again. This pertains to a traumatic event that plagues me until now. I dont wish to be associated with this event every time someone googles my name. I am fine with case being up but not my full name disclosed within. The removal of the name does not change the sequence of events. but for my privacy sake.

I have removed it but someone keeps editing it back. what can I do to ensure this stops happening? 115.66.218.17 (talk) 04:21, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Your request seems reasonable. I will watch the article to make sure those details stay out until and only if there is an explicit consensus that they need to be included for readers to have a complete understanding of the topic so much so that that's more important than your wishes. It would help if you'd post to the talk page of the article, explaining your reasons for removal, and asking that, as prescribed by WP:BLP, the material not be reinstated without consensus. Best, — Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:40, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
I have removed it but someone keeps editing it back. Are you talking about another language Wikipedia? Your removals have not been reinstated. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
missed out a "If" in my earlier post. "I have removed it but if someone keeps editing back, what can I do..."
Thanks for your input, I will monitor the article accordingly. I have stated that I removed for privacy. 115.66.218.17 (talk) 04:58, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
If something would put someone's life in danger is when admins have in the past pre-emptively protected articles. That isn't really the case here. So, one would have to follow the processes. The first step is a WP:BOLD edit such as the ones you've made. The next step, if someone reinstates it, is to discuss the matter with them. You would be able to make your case per WP:BLP; especially WP:BLPNAME and WP:AVOIDVICTIM may aid your case. WP:BLP policy allows for removal of material without consensus, putting the onus on those who want to include to make the case for why inclusion of contested material is necessary and within policy. But you'd still have to discuss and defend your position. WP:BLPN is the noticeboard for raising concerns regarding living persons, that don't get resolved on the talk page. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:34, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
that's interesting that it isn't redacted from the court documents given your age at when the traumatic event happened. Nonetheless, I have also put the article on my watchlist. – robertsky (talk) 05:35, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

CONCERN!

If every Tom, Dick and Harry can edit Wikipedia without the information having been checked and clarified, are we even reading actual facts anymore? SillyBoar121011 (talk) 01:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

@SillyBoar121011: There is an excellent response to this criticism at Wikipedia:Replies to common objections § Letting any Internet user edit any article at will is absurd which you may be interested in. The primary issue is that your assumption that the information is in fact not checked is false: the information contributed is checked all the time. There are indeed errors that make it through, but this is true of every reference work. Tollens (talk) 01:47, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Other than very obscure articles, articles have 'watchers' who are notified when they login about every article they have chosen to watch. And correct. David notMD (talk) 04:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
SillyBoar121011 Wikipedia should not be trusted blindly; no one expects this. Sources should be examined by readers and evaluated when determining what to believe. Wikipedia does not claim to be the truth and does not guarantee accuracy, see Wikipedia:General disclaimer. 331dot (talk) 08:28, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
What do you mean by "anymore"? That has always been the case with Wikipedia (since the start in 2001), though it has gotten stricter over the years, and, for that matter, much of the internet. There is also, nowadays, this thing called "social media." See also Wikipedia:General disclaimer, which is linked on every Wikipedia page. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:12, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Melvin Hudson

I've been having a bit of an altercation with User:Melvin Hudson in response to this edit, which he reverted as vandalism and then sent me a vandalism warning. When I objected, he surreally claimed that I was motivated by bigotry and transphobia. Maybe some input from third parties would be appropriate. He has been getting a series of warnings for unrelated incidents at the same time. 62.73.69.121 (talk) 09:36, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Most of his recent contributions seem to be reverting other editor's edits and warning them on their user talk pages. In fact, he tried to revert this message too. CanonNi (talk) 09:50, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
(Note: matter also raised by a different querant on the Help desk.) {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.241.39.117 (talk) 10:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Has been blocked as WP:NOTHERE. Lectonar (talk) 10:47, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Active Discussion archived

What to do when a discussion you started which was active, got archived by a bot? This is a general question, not pertaining to any specific case. ExclusiveEditor Notify Me! 12:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Revert the bot, I guess. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 12:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Depends on the situation. "No consensus", in various forms, is very common. Sometimes the comments made gave some sort of guidance and you go by them. WP:RFCL is an option, even if archived. And a discussion can be restored from the archive, hoping for more comments. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:23, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Reverting directly will restore all the discussions, almost all of which would be not active other than mine. Should you 'cut and paste' it from the archive to discussion page? ExclusiveEditor Notify Me! 12:26, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

@ExclusiveEditor It seems so: Help:Archiving_a_talk_page#Continuing_discussions. Perhaps one should also consider pinging the participants. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:41, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: That's the answer, thank you. ExclusiveEditor Notify Me! 13:43, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Writer of a TV film credited on screen as the "screenplay by" writer

Should he go in the TV infobox as the screenplay writer, which is what is displayed on-screen?

Or should he go in the TV infobox as the teleplay writer? Danstarr69 (talk) 18:52, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

If he is officially credited as the "screenplay" writer, then we should follow suit. Shantavira|feed me 09:41, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Danstarr69, see documentation. Documentation says use whatever the credits say. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:52, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Shantavira Usedtobecool I'd normally use Screenplay, but after noticing Teleplay in the infobox, I read the definition on the Teleplay article, and it made me question which to use.
Teleplay definition: "In general usage, the term is most commonly seen in reference to a standalone production, such as a television film, a television play, or an episode of an anthology series." Danstarr69 (talk) 13:43, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Danstarr69, no, I understand the dilemma. It's legitimate. I had the same until I went and looked at the documentation, Template:Infobox television/doc. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:19, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
@Danstarr69: WP:COMMONALITY suggests "screenplay". "Teleplay" is unknown in my version of English. Bazza 7 (talk) 14:28, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I have a Problem!

I was trying to rollback some vandalism using Twinkle, but if I click ok "rollback" or "vandalism" it doesn't do anything, instead of reverting the edit and opening the user's talk page. Any ideas? Thank you so much 14 novembre (talk) 15:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

@14 novembre The database was read-only for a few minutes earlier this afternoon, which may have caused the problem. Try again now and report back (including link to the problematic edit) if you still can't undo it. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:49, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
@Michael D. Turnbull The edits in question were on the article Dune: Part Two and have been reverted. However, the problem persists. Thanks for your help 14 novembre (talk) 15:53, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
@Michael D. Turnbull If it can be helpful I add that, if I keep pressed for some time (sorry if my English is bad) the rollback or vandalism icon and I select "open in new tab" it opens the same diff page. 14 novembre (talk) 16:15, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
@14 novembre I don't use Twinkle, so I can't be of further help. If no-one else replies here and the problem persists, I suggest you ask the experts at WP:VPT giving as much detail as possible. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
@Michael D. Turnbull Ok, no problem. Thanks for your help and kind regards 14 novembre (talk) 16:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Sparkle

i want to play the movie sparkle 50.203.209.210 (talk) 16:48, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Good for you. What is your question about editing Wikipedia? (That's what this page is for). --ColinFine (talk) 17:00, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Proposed renaming of Bolshevization to Stalinization

I proposed renaming the above article on 1 March. There were no comments in the talk page so far. On reviewing the page on Stalinism I see that my proposed change would, I believe, align with the definition in that. Do I need to specifically invite people to discuss this on the talk page? Should I just go ahead and see if someone changes it back?? Hewer7 (talk) 20:40, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

This makes no sense, as according to the article, "Bolshevization" took place during the mid-20s, and Stalin did not even get power until 1928. Although it does mention some things in the year of 1928, the movement was not started by Stalin and had little do with Stalin, so that renaming does not fit. Antny08 (talk) 20:53, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
I would say that Stalinism really starts in 1923 or 24, following Lenin becoming totally incapacitated by a stroke, then dying in 1924. I think the article on Leninism makes this plain. " Lenin [soon before he was totally incapacitated by a stroke on 7 March 1923] warned the Party that Stalin had "unlimited authority concentrated in his hands, and I am not sure whether he will always be capable of using that authority with sufficient caution" and formed a faction with Leon Trotsky to remove Stalin as the General Secretary of the Communist Party.
"To that end followed proposals reducing the administrative powers of party posts to reduce bureaucratic influence upon the policies of the Communist Party. Lenin advised Trotsky to emphasise Stalin's recent bureaucratic alignment in such matters (e.g. undermining the anti-bureaucratic workers' and peasants' Inspection) and argued to depose Stalin as General Secretary. Despite advice to refuse "any rotten compromise", he did not heed Lenin's advice and General Secretary Stalin retained power over the Communist Party and the bureaucracy of the Soviet government."
The article goes on to explain that "socialism in one country" was adopted in 1925. "socialism in one country" is also part of the definition of Stalinism in the article of the same name. The "unlimited authority concentrated in his [Stalin's] hands", and the "Stalin's recent bureaucratic alignment in such matters (e.g. undermining the anti-bureaucratic workers' and peasants' Inspection)" - both mentioned in the above quote - were key parts of the consolidation of the "one-party totalitarian police state" also given as part of the definition of Stalinism. Hewer7 (talk) 21:41, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
But it is still different. Stalin still didn't have much power until the later years, they wanted to prevent him from getting power. Bolchevism generally refers to communist movement in general, not Stalinism, which could be considered a completely separate variant of Stalinism. Going off of that, Stalin had a very different way of running the Soviet Union then previous people in the USSR like Lenin. I do not have an extreme knowledge of this, as it isn't my specialty, so I'd say open a formal rename request and let the community decide. But, based on the information I do know, it is highly unlikely to succeed with a community consensus. Antny08 (talk) 23:14, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

EDIT - Additional point - the 'Bolshevisation article refers to Antoni Gramsci as boshevising the Italian Communist Party and the article of that name states that it happened in 1924-25. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hewer7 (talk • contribs) 21:50, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I would suggest moving this to the talk page of the article in question. Geardona (talk to me?) 17:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

book cover additions

i have added hundreds of book covers on many different pages over time, and i refer to Category:Books with missing cover for the books to work on next. one question i have is why do some pages like The Dancers at the End of Time show up on the list that obviously do have book covers in their infobox already? what might i be missing? Iljhgtn (talk) 17:33, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

The Dancers at the End of Time shows up because it has several {{infobox book}} entries, but only the first has image=. The rest obviously don't because to do so would be in contravention of WP:NFCC; but the code therefore puts the article in that category.
Looking at the documentation for the template, it looks to me as if adding exclude_cover=yes to all the other infoboxes after the first one would solve the problem, but I haven't tried it. ColinFine (talk) 17:46, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Urgent - problem with a page about someone on here

Hi this is quite urgent about a page on a person who has been in police trouble for their campaigns against something which personally involves me and I need help with please as I think it is very serious. Richard D gill has been campaigning against the recent conviction of Lucy Letby, who was convicted of injuring a baby that is the daughter of my close friend. But on his page which is Richard D. Gill it doesn't mention at all that he's been in police trouble for this even though the press has mentioned this. These English news reports talk about how he was warned for contempt of court during the trial for his online actions: https://thetab.com/uk/liverpool/2024/02/22/supporter-of-convicted-baby-killer-lucy-letby-invited-to-speak-at-university-of-liverpool-65631, https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/lucy-letby-activist-who-argues-32151666, https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/lucy-letby-supporter-who-thinks-28668584. In the 'Tab' one, he responded himself and confirmed it and said it did happen, although he played it down. Also in this Dutch-language newspaper he confirms it in an interview: https://www.destentor.nl/apeldoorn/apeldoornse-wetenschapper-maakt-zich-hard-voor-onschuld-moordzuster-ze-hebben-onzin-verkondigd~a0d502a0/?. So it seems very bad that this hasn't been mentioned, at least in a short neutral way, because the police warning seems notable enough to mention, even if his response playing it down is also mentioned. This is causing a lot of pain as you might understand 86.187.235.41 (talk) 20:45, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

This is clearly not an urgent matter I suggest you start a conversation on the Richard D. Gill talk page. Theroadislong (talk) 20:53, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

page submission

hi! i was creating a page for my client but It was declined by you even thou he has plenty of notable resources under his name. could you guide me through the right process? thank you so much WikiGuerrini31 (talk) 16:19, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

@WikiGuerrini31 I suggest reading WP:FIRSTARTICLE for suggestions. However, as you apparently are somehow linked with the subject, you should declare you conflict of interest in writing the articles. Kind regards 14 novembre (talk) 16:26, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
(ec) @WikiGuerrini31 If you are writing for a client, then in Wikipedia terms you are a WP:PAID editor and must comply with the mandatory procedures mentioned at that link. Your draft has to demonstrate that Filippelli meets the wikinotability guidelines, which the reviewer did not think was the case at present. You would be best to use only those sources which meet all of these golden rules and be aware that once created, your client might not like what others add to the article (see WP:PROUD). Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:27, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
.... for example, your very first citation goes to the top level of the Disney website, and thus does nothing to verify the text of the article. It is policy that sources verify content: see also WP:BLP. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:31, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying! Considering all the other notable publications that he was featured on like Billboard, Grazia Magazine, Forbes etc included in external links shouldn’t that be enough? WikiGuerrini31 (talk) 16:45, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
@WikiGuerrini31 Not in external links. You need to incorporate in your own words the content and cite the sources that have significant coverage of him. See WP:REFB. Before you do anything else, however, comply with the COI disclosure mentioned at WP:PAID. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:48, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
To be frank, WikiGuerrini31, you have taken on a task that you are at the moment completely unable to perform, because you have not acquired many of the skills that you need to do it.
If you were starting to learn engineering, would you make your first project to build a car from scratch? If you took up a musical instrument, would you arrange a public recital as the first thing you did? No, you would practise on less demanding projects while you learnt the craft.
I would very strongly advise you that you will save yourself a great deal of frustration and disappointment if you forget about creating a new article for several months, while you gradually learn about how Wikipedia works (and most particularly about Verifiability, reliable sources, and Neutral point of view) by making improvements to some of our six million existing articles..
What effect that has on your relationship with your client, I couldn't say. But if you don't follow my advice, I doubt that you will satisfy your client anyway. ColinFine (talk) 16:57, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
"i was creating a page for my client" means you must declare paid on your User page. And, per my deletions and my comment on the draft, many (most?) of the 'references' are not valid, as there is no mention of AF. See WP:42 for references guide. I did not look at the External links content, but some of those - if about him - may be valid as references. What you know to be true cannot be included unless verified by references. David notMD (talk) 23:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Why don't some references create automatically? I'd expect all newspapers references to be automatic.

I've just tried to add a reference from the Dewsbury Reporter automatically (which like all references I add, I edit them once they've been added), yet it wouldn't create automatically.

I had to create it manually[1]

As it's a newspaper, I would've expected it to be created automatically.

Can someone fix it so that any references from the Dewsbury Reporter are automatically created in future. Danstarr69 (talk) 23:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Dewsbury landmark to star in new ITV drama Eternal Law". Dewsbury Reporter. 24 May 2011. Archived from the original on 20 March 2024. Retrieved 20 March 2024.
The automatic reference function uses a program called Citoid, which runs off of Zotero. You may have luck getting this particular publication added to whatever libraries are needed to make it work properly with the citation function by asking at the Citoid link or the Zotero forums. Reconrabbit 00:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello Danstarr69 , sometimes such situation does happen often and I have faced that a lot, I don't know wether to call it a glitch or some technical error. But I normally bypass such problem by using a different browser to recreate the reference after which its done successfully, then all you have to do is to just come back to your main browser and try it again ✅

|-

File:Default image.jpg
Default Image

| style="font-size:15px; font-weight:bolder;padding-right:1em;" | Invoke | Yes |- | style="font-size:15px; font-weight:bolder;padding-right:1em;" | Sign | 00:26, 21 March 2024 (UTC) |-

Account on other wiki platforms

Hello, I have registered an account with the same username on alternative wikis such as "Wikialpha" and "Everybodywiki," but have not yet published anything on those platforms. Before proceeding further, I would like to clarify whether it complies with Wikipedia guidelines to use this username on other platforms and if I may publish on those websites if any of my pages are declined on Wikipedia. Could you please provide clarification on whether this aligns with Wikipedia's guidelines and standards? Thank you! Elizzzzz (talk) 20:52, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

No, this does not go against standards, Wikipedia cannot stop you from making pages on different Wikis. Other Wikis have different notability rules, so it is completely fine to post a page on there rather than here. As for usernames, once again, Wikipedia does not control that. As long as it is not already in use, and does not violate guidelines, you are free to use it. Antny08 (talk) 20:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification. So, if my draft is rejected on Wikipedia, am I allowed to publish it on other wiki platforms? Should I delete the declined draft on Wikipedia before posting it elsewhere, or is that not an issue? Additionally, if I use the same account/user name on other wiki platforms as I do on Wikipedia, please confirm whether this complies with Wikipedia guidelines. I appreciate your feedback. Elizzzzz (talk) 22:17, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Elizzzzz, the many platorms driven by wiki software are all independent entities with their own rules. If your article is accepted, or declined, or rejected on Wikipedia, you may still submit it at Wikialpha, etc., at least as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Maproom (talk) 22:44, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Absolutely, I would strongly encourage you to do so. Its a great way to get your article out there without having to worry about all the pesky Wikipedia guidelines. Antny08 (talk) 23:10, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia's license allows anyone to copy text for any purpose as long as you attribute the creators. If you are the sole contributor to the article you want to copy, you don't need to attribute yourself. ♠ Ca talk to me! 00:19, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Elizzzzz, I notice that you are using "declined" and "rejected" as if they were synonyms. They aren't. "Declined" means "This draft does not yet meet Wikipedia's standards. Please improve it to bring it closer to compliance, and submit it again." On the other hand, "Rejected" means "This draft is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia and will not be considered further." Please understand that distinction before taking your work to another website with lower standards. Cullen328 (talk) 08:25, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
@Antny08 @Ca @Cullen328 @Maproom, I understand, and thank you for clarifying this issue and assisting me. I truly appreciate it. Elizzzzz (talk) 20:11, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Of course, have a good one :) Antny08 (talk) 20:36, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
You are welcome! ♠ Ca talk to me! 01:03, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Double standards in notability?

I noticed a discrepancy over the weekend and this prompted me to return here and ask how come there are a little double standards when it comes to establishing notability for historical figures and modern entertainers, especially youtubers. I followed this rabbit hole after I saw in the news Tristan Tate's article was deleted for not passing WP:GNG, yet passes notability under WP:GNP, I mean the same rational can be used for articles like Gessius Florus, which I can argue doesn't pass GNG. I saw many other youtubers like Niko Omilana have similar like coverage to these roman guys, in that it's really all just general information of them around nothing widespread yet he is still deemed not to pass GNG but under GNP undoubtably passes yet this was ignored in the deletion discussions. This is a genuine question as I honestly can't wrap my head round this. Serrwinner (talk) 10:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Serrwinner, the difference is material on those people survived for 2,000 years, from a time when paper wasn't even invented, let alone computers. I am sure Wikipedians from the year 4500 will consider Tristan notable if they find him in their archives, provided stories on everyone else from this time does not similarly survive. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
I mean I totally get and really I'm not saying those Roman guys aren't notable and I agree with you. However how come using the logic that their life stories have survived 2000 years make them notable isn't the same as me saying someone like Tristan or Niko or even Iman Gadzhi (as much as I don't like him) have influenced a lot of young people in this generation with widespread proof to this ie. their following and all, hence proving their notability. Or as used in WP:GNP a "cult following" Serrwinner (talk) 11:07, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Serrwinner, sure, it's possible some of them are already notable, in the real world sense. Wikipedia has just determined they are not yet, in the Wikipedia sense. That is, there isn't enough usable material in the available reliable secondary sources to write a balanced article making a proper case as to why the life story of a given person is knowledge worth knowing. We're too close to the events right now. It's possible we will see a culture shift or a shift in gender dynamics, marriage and divorce rates, etc. And academics will write about how the influence of people such as Tate over the new generation is what's causing it. Maybe in forty years, an American president will say Tate was a big influence for him growing up. He's immediately notable as soon as anything like that happens. Maybe tomorrow, a couple newspapers will publish a few paragraphs with Tristan on focus. And, he's immediately notable for Wikipedia. Wikipedia has deleted biographies on nobel prize winners a short time before they won and immediately recreated the article soon as they won; that's just how Wikipedia works. WP:GNP is an essay. It does not guide Wikipedia. No way to know if there's one person agrees with WP:GNP or ten thousand. Anyway, reread the first two sentences. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 11:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
But wait can't I say that the Roman guys are not notable in the Wikipedia sense as well due to the references not passing all three criteria? Serrwinner (talk) 12:13, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Ultimately, GNG is still a guideline. Its the minimum criteria we've agreed on for when we can't agree whether or not a person should have an article. Sometimes people who are not notable meet GNG and Wikipedia may retain those articles even though it should not. Sometimes people who never get written about, so don't pass GNG, we agree to keep based on other criteria just because they are important, under the presumption that eventually there will be sources. Don't ask me where I got this from, but people who lived before the priniting press was invented, we presume are notable. Maybe Gessius Florus does not meet GNG, maybe he does. It ultimately is not even about him. He's a window through whom we can see a picture of a place and time in history. There isn't much that survives from so long ago, it would be a shame to lose anything that's reached us. Sure, if everything that's known can be included in another article, merging is fine even with Florus, but we don't want to lose any detail. So, it's not a fair comparison, because any random person living now isn't worth knowing about, but any random person from 2,000 years ago is, because of what we can learn about our own past through them. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:25, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
On "not passing GNG", not exactly the case: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tristan Tate (2nd nomination) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:56, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
The guys who voted delete did so on the basis of not meeting GNG but only addressing WP:PERP hence why I said it. Serrwinner (talk) 12:20, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, but the closer was more BLP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:30, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
@Serrwinner: Still, I don't think there is a double standard in notability. The main critereon is if secondary sources are available on the topic, even if they are not present in any given article. If they can be found, the WP:GNG requirements are fulfilled and an article will usually kept in the case of a deletion discussion independent if it is a modern or ancient topic. I think it just has been summarized above, that if a person or topic from antiquitiy remains known at all in modern times, then it is very likely that there are secondary sources about it. But that's not applying a different standard. Daranios (talk) 11:02, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
@Serrwinner I get where you are going, though modern entertainers are typically mostly covered by publications like Dexerto or Sportskeeda which aren't reliable for Wikipedia. I personally think the Tristan Tate article should exist as some kind of a stub, someday. TLAtlak 12:26, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
@Serrwinner, something else to keep in mind is that many older articles absolutely would not be accepted today - standards have become much higher over the years! So if you find yourself wondering how an apparently non-notable subject has an article, check out the history and see when it was created. The article for Gessius Florus was first created in 2008, whereas Tristan Tate's was only created this year. New articles get a lot more scrutiny and are more likely to be deleted for lack of notability. So if you think an older article is non-notable, you can always start a deletion discussion and help clean up Wikipedia that way! StartGrammarTime (talk) 01:56, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Editing an article title

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Resistance_(Book)

How do I edit a title? 3.14 (talk) 02:12, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

3.14159265459AAAs, one WP:MOVEs a page to change its title. But you don't necessarily have to when writing a draft. If there's a better title, reviewers will change to it when accepting the draft. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:18, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. 3.14 (talk) 02:26, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

VisualEditor

Hello, How do I install Extension:VisualEditor for my Wikipedia account? I read the guide on the extension page, but it's too complex to install. Could you please guide me to an easier installation method? TheGreatPeng (talk) 21:36, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

@TheGreatPeng: You don't need to install the extension at all – it's installed on wikis, not user accounts. You can easily turn it on in your preferences by checking the box under Editor → Enable the visual editor. Tollens (talk) 21:40, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
@Tollens: Hi, I didn't mean original VisualEditor but an Extension. TheGreatPeng (talk) 05:32, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
I assume you are referring to mw:Extension:VisualEditor? If that is the case, the instructions I provided above are correct. The extension is an extension of MediaWiki (the underlying software that runs Wikipedia), not an extension of VisualEditor. If the page I linked there isn't what you were looking at, could you provide a link so I can try to help? Tollens (talk) 06:58, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi, thank you so much. The instructions you provided above are correct. Now, I found the way I meant. TheGreatPeng (talk) 07:03, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Food

Query not related to Wikipedia, rather an unrelated statement. ExclusiveEditor Notify Me! 09:03, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

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

Food is basically something thatbwe need in our daily lived 41.114.195.22 (talk) 06:42, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. But what is your question about editing Wikipedia? (That's what this page is for). CanonNi (talk) 06:44, 21 March 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.

Is this considered COI editing?

Hello, I am a contributor at a wiki site which is notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article. This wiki is owned and operated by a for-profit organization. I am not a paid employee of the organization; my role is purely acting as a volunteer editor and admin, much like how you are all volunteer editors and admins on Wikipedia. That being said, does WP:COI disallow me from editing said Wikipedia article? I'm well aware of WP:NPOV and other related policies when it comes to adding new content, but my question pertains more to the COI policy. Compare it to a Wikipedian (not a WMF staff member) editing the article about Wikipedia itself. Is it still considered problematic COI editing if I have a connection as a volunteer contributor/editor/admin even though I'm not receiving any sort of compensation at all nor was I asked to publish an edit to the page on behalf of the organization? 2604:3D08:6E7D:2100:2C7F:C689:E6DB:82FE (talk) 05:54, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

That's perfectly fine. In my opinion, asking about a borderline COI before making edits in the affected area is more than enough proof that you're aware of the effect it might have on your writing anyways, so even if this was borderline COI (which I personally don't think it is), I would still suggest it's likely no big deal. Tollens (talk) 07:13, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
CoI is for conflicts which arise from interest, but interests do not always result in conflict, as many editors on Wikipedia edit articles they have interest in. See: David notMD and Mathglot's answer to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_1219#Interest_vs_CoI. ExclusiveEditor Notify Me! 09:15, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

(Re)submitting a rejected draft?

Now that I know the difference between 'declined' and 'rejected' and used to think they are synonyms within Wikipedia (liek with block and ban. It may be synonymous outside Wikipedia), does having your draft rejected mean that it is no longer possible to resubmit it again Like what would happen if new reliable sources started to appear. Basically at the time the draft got rejected there were no sources, but two months later, there are five.

And note that none of my drafts are rejected only declined this was just curious. JuniperChill (talk) 22:45, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @JuniperChill.
When a draft is rejected the Re-submit for review button no longer appears - though you can manually resubmit it by adding the right code to the draft source. It is however seen as disruptive and a waste of volunteer time to re-submit rejected drafts. However if draft authors belief the draft has fundamentally changed since the rejection, then they should appeal directly to the rejecting reviewer for a reconsideration, or ask at the AfC Help Desk if the rejecting reviewer is no longer active. Qcne (talk) 22:52, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
@Qcne - I just think of rejected drafts being the end of the world as what people say. A bit like failing your theory test (a written driving test) and have to wait an eternity to take it again. Draft:Gorilla Tag is an example of this as there are likely little to no realiable sources at the time of rejection. I also normally hear the phrase 'your draft is rejected and we will not consider it further' or something along those lines. That's why drafts are normally only rejected if it has been submitted without improvement at least once since the first decline since many people don't know Wikipedia should only use reliable sources. Declined drafts allow users to resubmit it again easily but rejected ones are hard. JuniperChill (talk) 12:04, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Notability Issue not being removed

Can you please help me remove the notability issue? I'm not sure where it is going wrong as all the references are correct to the notion? And the information given in the content of the website is only factual and no flowery language has been used


Draft:Rahul Singh (Information Commissioner of Madhya Pradesh) BhatiaKushagra (talk) 03:54, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

It seems that the draft does not cite any sources. See WP:REF for instructions on references. You can resubmit the draft after the issues are fixed. CanonNi (talk) 04:00, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Help:Referencing for beginners is also a great place to start. Feel free to ask if you have any more questions. CanonNi (talk) 04:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
@BhatiaKushagra The link you provided was to an older brief draft. The current one is at Draft:Rahul Singh (commissioner). Aside from not providing sources which meet these key criteria you use language such as "Through adept management and innovative problem-solving skills, Singh successfully...." which is overly flowery and unencyclopedic. Such promotional text must be removed as it sounds like an advert, not a neutral article. You clearly know Singh, since you took the photo of him, so you should read about conflict of interest. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:26, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Map correction

The map relating to my address would benefit from some correction. 1.The house numbering along the road is very obviously wrong. 2. The outline map of relative buildings shows my garden workshop as "floating" between my garden and that of my neighbour. These are small errors, but very irritating! 91.85.51.75 (talk) 11:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Could you clarify which page the map appears on? CanonNi (talk) 11:13, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello. It would help to know who you are and/or what article you are referencing. 331dot (talk) 11:14, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Our maps are OpenStreetMaps, which is generally where you would have to edit the map. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:03, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
If you mean a Google map, that is not Wikipedia generated. David notMD (talk) 12:29, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

How should I format this citation?

There's an article from The Observer (which is published on Sundays), on an old page of the website by its sister newspaper The Guardian (which is published on weekdays).

Should I put The Observer as the publisher, or should I put it as something else? [8] Danstarr69 (talk) 01:16, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

@Danstarr69: Your link doesn't work for me, but if it was published in the Observer, then cite that. RudolfRed (talk) 01:52, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
@RudolfRed I copied the wrong link. The link works now. Danstarr69 (talk) 01:57, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello, Danstarr69. Unless the resource is online only, the link is not an essential part of the citation, but merely a convenience for the reader: you can link to any (reliable, legal) place where the resource is to be found. ColinFine (talk) 10:04, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
@Danstarr69 There is a Wikipedia principle to WP:SAYWHERE you saw something. Hence it is the Guardian's citation that is most relevant here. {{cite news}} has a |via parameter that is sometimes useful for these cases but I don't think you need it this time. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:44, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

My Page was declined

Hello, i am trying to post this page on wikipedia, but it was declined, what should i do?

Draft:Nuhad Fuad Es-Said

Regards Salimkanbour (talk) 12:16, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Salimkanbour, it seems the AfC submissions were declined because it didn't meet the notability guidelines for people. See WP:BIO for details on the criteria and what you can do to improve your draft. CanonNi (talk) 12:20, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Improve it. There are several unsourced paragraphs, all of them need to be properly sourced. You also need to have a quick read of the Manual of Style and our policy on maintaining a neutral point of view as there are several issues there. "A highly motivated and visionary businessperson, Nuhad grew and expanded the company into a leading Pan Arab organization, operating in several countries like UAE and Jordan, Syria and Iraq." is clearly not wrote in a neutral point of view. "A collection worthy of its origins, and later proved to be worthy of carrying his name." is much the same.
Additionally, you really do need to explain things properly. "However, due to problems we all know now, they never went back." just doesn't fly. Please improve the draft, and take a look at Your First Article as well for some more tips. CommissarDoggoTalk? 12:21, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
It is not clear in the draft as to what you believe makes him notable. Appears that he collected art that, after his death, was featured in a book "Islamic Metalwork: The Nuhad Es-said Collection" (2001), and has been displayed at museums. Much of what is in the draft, i.e. refugee history, his business career, is not relevant to that. David notMD (talk) 12:58, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
It is possible that the art collection is notable. Does it still exist in private hands, i.e., the family, or has it been auctioned off or donated to a museum? David notMD (talk) 13:09, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Draft approval

Hello,
I submitted a draft, but was declined promptly. I wrote an article on Julian Kim. I can reference all the sentences that need proofs. I wish to go simple with the sentences and an infobox in the beginning, and add tables later on. Please advise me how to proceed, and thanks in advance! Draft:Julian Kim Rosuacamus (talk) 11:09, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Rosuacamus Hello and welcome. I've replaced the text of your draft with a link to it. Please see the advice left by reviewers- you need to greatly improve the sourcing. 331dot (talk) 11:13, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Can I use Apple Music as a source for discography? Rosuacamus (talk) 13:41, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
All assertions require references. Anuwrites has already explained what you should do, Rosuacamus, on Draft:Julian_Kim. -- Hoary (talk) 12:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Thank you. Can I link a site like operabase.com as a whole for his opera career or articles for each and every performance? Rosuacamus (talk) 12:52, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Please avoid windy prose. Quote: Apart from his stage performances, Kim actively collaborates with orchestras and partakes in concert engagements, demonstrating his skill and adaptability within the opera and classical music sphere. What does active collaboration with orchestras actually mean? Does "[partaking] in concert engagements" mean singing in concerts? How does "the opera and classical music sphere" differ from opera and classical music? -- Hoary (talk) 12:21, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Goodness, thanks. The sentence is repetitive indeed. I meant to describe two different things. I am working on a new draft with everything referenced. Will post again soon. Rosuacamus (talk) 12:57, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Citations

In the entry for "AOAH", the opening criticism is that it lacks "inline citations". The text does have inline citations, but there are initial references (1 - 4) that don't relate to the topic at all. Starting with reference (5) the inline citations are correct. Please tell me why "citations"/references 1 through 4 were added and what I must do now to fix the AOAH entry. Antilps (talk) 13:28, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

@Antilps The article AOAH uses an infobox ({{infobox gene}} which, I think, gets its first four references straight from the Wikidata entry at this URL. I don't think you need to worry about that unless you are an expert on these gene references. When the article has a full set of citations, you can remove the tag at the top. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:26, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Using government documents as a source

Hello, before I start, I understand that WP:BLPPRIMARY says that public records should not be used, but I am confused if it applies to this scenario. I am trying to add a source for a birthdate for a politician, Draft:Christopher Del Borrello, and I am wondering if I could use this document as a source for his birth. It does not reveal his exact current address. Antny08 (talk) 20:03, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#FamilySearch has some guidance. DMacks (talk) 03:11, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
So would you think it would be okay for me to use that source only to prove his birth? Antny08 (talk) 11:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
I do not think that would be a valid ref for that detail. PRS says it has questionable accuracy and is user-generated without fact-checking, but does also collect other documents. The documents it collects may themselves be usable (familysearch is just a third-party host of it), but depends on the specifics. I cannot access the "this document" link. What sort of document is it? DMacks (talk) 15:32, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

articles aprove

how lon does it take for an new article is be reviewed? Knowrz7747 (talk) 09:01, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. There is no set time frame- but you don't have any drafts submitted for a review. You have content in your sandbox, but lack the information required to submit it. I will add it. I would suggest that you read Referencing for Beginners to learn how to format and place references before you submit it. 331dot (talk) 09:05, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
@Knowrz7747: Template:AfC submission says it may take 2 months or more, but it is not necessary. Some may get instantly reviewed, other may take a week or so, and others may go in months. ExclusiveEditor Notify Me! 09:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
The point being the system is not a queue. Most reviewers look at the pile of unreviewed and decides what is next for them. Some reviewers do keep an eye on the oldest unreviewed to address those. David notMD (talk) 12:35, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
User:Knowrz7747, if you mean the draft you started at User:Knowrz7747/sandbox, you have not yet actually submitted it for review. DMacks (talk) 15:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Regarding discussion of the Arabic Wikipedia banner

Where on Wikipedia do I go to talk about the Arabic Wikipedia banner? I know it's not in the Teahouse, because this page is for advice with navigating and editing wikipedia. Thanks in advance. JohnR1Roberts (talk) 11:57, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi, could you specify what banner you are referring to? If you're looking for the Arabic Wikipedia, it's located at https://ar.wikipedia.org. If you're looking for the Arabic WikiProject on the English Wikipedia, it's here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Arabic. CanonNi (talk) 12:04, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi, I'm referring to the sitewide banner that, according to Google Translate, reads:
"In solidarity with the right of the Palestinian
people, No to genocide in Gaza .... No to killing civilians.
No to targeting hospitals and schools .... No to deception and double standards.
Stop the war .... and spread just and comprehensive peace" JohnR1Roberts (talk) 12:39, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
I believe you are referring to the banner on the main page of the Arabic Wikipedia, which is located here: https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B5%D9%81%D8%AD%D8%A9_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B1%D8%A6%D9%8A%D8%B3%D9%8A%D8%A9 CanonNi (talk) 12:42, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
@JohnR1Roberts I'm not familiar with the Arabic Wikipedia but I believe a discussion about the banner can be found here: https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%86%D9%82%D8%A7%D8%B4_%D9%88%D9%8A%D9%83%D9%8A%D8%A8%D9%8A%D8%AF%D9%8A%D8%A7:%D8%A3%D9%88%D9%82%D9%81%D9%88%D8%A7_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AD%D8%B1%D8%A8_%D9%88%D8%A7%D9%86%D8%B4%D8%B1%D9%88%D8%A7_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B3%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%85 CanonNi (talk) 12:44, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
There's also Wikipedia:WikiProject Arab world, which is more active than WikiProject Arabic. CanonNi (talk) 12:05, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
@JohnR1Roberts: The English and Arabic Wikipedias are not related in nearly any way – if you would like to discuss the Arabic Wikipedia you'll need to do so there. I (and likely most of us here) am unfamiliar with the Arabic Wikipedia's centralized forums so am not able to provide much more help than that, unfortunately. Tollens (talk) 12:05, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
JohnR1Roberts, the only place on English Wikipedia where it would be appropriate to discuss this matter further would be the talk page of the founder of Wikipedia, which is User talk: Jimbo Wales. Cullen328 (talk) 15:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Declined article

Hi, I am trying to create articles about prominent Croatian companies that do not have Wiki pages yet as there seems to be very little pages connected to Croatian companies.

My first ever article that I submitted about a prominent Croatian company has been declined, and I am not sure why the references I provided are flagged as not in-depth and not notable although they are from reliable and notable websites and articles? I have also gotten a conflict of interest flag, but I am not connected to the company in any way, and I am not sure how to resolve this conflict of interest? Will I be getting flagged like this for any articles I write about a company?

Draft:Nodefusion - Wikipedia AnaKuta15 (talk) 13:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Things like "A pivotal moment in their trajectory...In a stride towards global outreach", "showcasing its commitment to collaborating with key players in the IT landscape" and "Nodefusion proudly sponsored" are likely why it's believed you're connected to the company; they make it sound like an advertisement.
You need to remember to use WP:WIKIVOICE, this is after all an encyclopaedia, not Forbes. You shouldn't be pumping up the company, you should be describing them fairly. Something else that might help you is looking at the page on words to watch out for when you're writing.
As for the references I'm not sure, most of them are in a language I simply don't understand so I can't comment on that. CommissarDoggoTalk? 13:54, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
You were queried on your Talk page because your editing history was of a pattern similar to accounts that are undeclared paid editing or conflict of interest, to wit, 10+ edits to random articles in December, followed by this recent attampt to create an article about a Croatian company. Is there a reason you see as your future an intent to create articles about Croatian companies? — Preceding unsigned comment added by David notMD (talk • contribs) 15:48, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Article Review

Is there anywhere I could post an article to get it peer reviewed? Chauncey E. Goodrich MallardTV (talk) 14:27, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

@MallardTV You moved the article to mainspace yesterday, as you are entitled to do. You are not WP:AUTOCONFIRMED WP:Autopatrolled, so it will be reviewed by the new pages patrol in due course, and won't be indexed by search engines until it is (or after 90 days). You could nominate it for a "did you know" which would certainly subject it to scrutiny or you could ask for a formal peer review via WP:PEER, although I don't know the details of how that works. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:37, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
.... I notice that an experienced WP:AfC reviewer has now decided to WP:DRAFTIFY the article, so it is now at Draft:Chauncey E. Goodrich, where it has comments. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:40, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Michael D. Turnbull I believe you meant to say that the OP is not autopatrolled. If they were not autoconfirmed they couldn't create pages in mainspace nor move anything to there (or to anywhere else, for that matter). Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:50, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I did! Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:59, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

User Preferences - 12 Hour Time Format

Hi everyone, I was changing some settings for my account under the appearance section and set my preferred date/time format. All the options are only in a 24 hour format however, and I personally like the 12 hour format. Does wikipedia have an option for this? Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering Haris00911 (talk) 23:38, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

@Haris00911: I suggest you asking the question on WP:Village Pump (Technical), maybe they can help. Teahouse is more about asking questions related to editing on English Wikipedia. ExclusiveEditor Notify Me! 09:30, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing me in the right direction, appreciate it:) Haris00911 (talk) 16:34, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
I don't believe Wikipedia does have any 12-hour time format options in its preferences; all times referenced on-wiki (edit timestamps, etc.) should always be in UTC time, which is 24-hour. But, activating the "Change UTC-based times and dates, such as those used in signatures, to be relative to local time" tool (in Gadgets > Appearance) will cause converted local times to be displayed in 12-hour format, if your timezone is in a 12-hour-clock locale. FeRDNYC (talk) 19:50, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Is it worth changing this citation format?

In the article The King and the Beggar-maid there are several inline citations. I have the information to change the Agatha Christie entry to a <ref> </ref> footnote for a different edition of the book listed. I believe that this would be the favored style. I do not as of yet have enough information to confidently change the other inline citations. Is this piecemeal work encouraged or should it wait until all the references can be updated? Oldsilenus (talk) 00:55, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

@Oldsilenus: You should use the citation style already in the article. See WP:CITEVAR RudolfRed (talk) 00:58, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
I thank you and will leave this alone. It is interesting that someone else responded that it SHOULD be changed. I believe the page that you cited has priority. Alas, when I first read the article while reading Christie's book, I did not notice that multiple works were cited using the same style. As usual "Haste makes waste." Oldsilenus (talk) 01:07, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
@Oldsilenus Thing is, though, that article already uses a mix of various citation styles, which complicates the following of that simple advice. So as an addendum to what @RudolfRed wrote above, your other source was correct that you SHOULD change parenthetical references (which some of the cites in that article are) to a footnoted format. Wikipedia no longer uses parenthetical references, and they're no longer a valid "existing citation style" to continue emulating in any article. FeRDNYC (talk) 20:09, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Oh, and to respond specifically to your question, if you have information to convert one parenthetical reference to a citation template <ref>...</ref> tag, then convert that one reference. Any and all work to migrate away from parenthetical references, even piecemeal, is appreciated and encouraged. FeRDNYC (talk) 20:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Merge pages

Hi. I don't edit WP much these days, so I forgot where to post this. Loop (education) and Looping (education) look like the same thing and should be merged. Shall I just make one a redirect of the other, and smush all the content into it? Phacromallus (talk) 19:03, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

First of all, welcome back! - Secondly: One of the articles seems to be about teachers teaching the same class or not, and the other about students that skip a grade ahead. So, while unfortunately named, these are indeed different articles. JackTheSecond (talk) 20:02, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
JackTheSecond, which one do you think is about skipping a grade? Seems to me, they're both about the same thing. Maproom (talk) 21:18, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Unbelievable... 'my own biases' seems to be the answer to your question. Looking at it again, yes they absolutely should be merged. JackTheSecond (talk) 21:23, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
I merged them, which was quite satisfying. I guess I did something wrong though, and imagine I'll be reverted soon. I believe Wikipedia:Proposed mergers/Log is the place to get other merge jobs. Phacromallus (talk) 22:05, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
@Phacromallus Nope, you're fine. The editor who reverted your move self-reverted themselves shortly after, and your merge stands. FeRDNYC (talk) 20:14, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop a good place to request transit maps?

Is Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop a good place to request transit maps? I'm in need of a better map for the article on this cancelled rail project in Montreal. I've just found out about the map workshop, which seems perfect except I see no transit maps being requested there. I'm wondering if there's another workshop specifically for transit maps that I'm missing. WikiFouf (talk) 20:36, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

@WikiFouf: Yes, it is good for that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:48, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I need help validating this page about a Central American cultural magazine.

I need help. We've added all the references from the articles and the website, but we are still not validated.

https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/(Casi)_literal 2803:D100:9918:ED:4B1:788F:DF7:FF53 (talk) 22:20, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

That link is to an article on the Spanish Wikipedia. We here are the English Wikipedia, and have no specific information about or influence over what happens on that other site. You'll have to ask there for assistance. DMacks (talk) 22:43, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Question about talk page

On Germany–Kurdistan Region relations I want to start a talk in the talk page, but I’m iPhone and don’t see the option to do so, there are no subjects in the talk page and I’m guessing that’s why I don’t have a option to start one? So if there’s no button to start a talk as usual then how do I do it if I’m on iPhone? Bobisland (talk) 01:43, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Bobisland, Talk:Germany–Kurdistan Region relations already exists, although nobody has yet written any text on it. I know next to nothing about using a phone for editing Wikipedia and therefore can't comment on the elusiveness of the talk page. -- Hoary (talk) 01:52, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
On my phone there is no blue add topic button which is usually there, but for other talk pages with topics the blue button is there Bobisland (talk) 01:58, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
I assume you're working in the iPhone app - I'm seeing the blue add topic button in mine. Might need an update or refresh. Have you tried opening it in your phone browser and editing the source from there? Wow Mollu (talk) 02:31, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
I have the same issue when editing in mobile view (through a mobile browser, not the iPhone app). It's also happening at Talk:1st Cavalry Division (Wehrmacht). I tried adding a talk page header but that didn't affect it. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:33, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
I'm seeing a way to add a topic in the mobile browser as well. Across the top, right under "Talk:Germany–Kurdistan Region relations" I see a row of tab-like options: Article, Talk, Read, Edit, Add topic, View history, Tools. Are you seeing any of that? Wow Mollu (talk) 02:37, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
No I’m just using the browser I can just wait until I have access to a pc if no one knows as I don’t know how to start a topic without the blue button Bobisland (talk) 02:38, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Do you see the row directly under "Talk:Germany–Kurdistan Region relations"? Article, Talk, Read, Edit, Add topic, View history, Tools. If you click Add topic, if will allow you to add one. Wow Mollu (talk) 02:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
No but I found out how on my phone there is a text that says to learn more about the page and when I press it a pop up box with info and the option to start a new topic shows up thanks for the help Bobisland (talk) 06:43, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Citing noticeboard

Hi, I noticed that Merrion Street Gardens cites an image of a noticeboard which is on display in the gardens. I imagine that is decent as a primary source but what is the proper way to format that citation? -- D'n'B-t -- 07:38, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello, DandelionAndBurdock. I suggest Template:Cite sign, but I also recommend that you try to find more conventional sources to cite as well. Many editors would doubt the notability of a topic referenced only to a sign. Cullen328 (talk) 07:50, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the speedy reply Cullen328, that looks just like what I was looking for. And I will certainly seek out more sources when I get round to improving that article (for time being I've tagged it as been one-sourced). ---- D'n'B-t -- 08:03, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
DandelionAndBurdock, happy to be of assistance. Cullen328 (talk) 08:09, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Notability

What if a notable person from old time like 60s, 80s era doesn't have online references such as news articles or media reports and have only Offline nwespaper references, then what should i cite on wiki articles? TheSlumPanda (talk) 07:35, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello and welcome TheSlumPanda. Sources do not need to be online; if a source is not online, you need to provide enough information for someone to be able to locate it in order to verify its content. WP:OFFLINE provides some information about this. Please also see Referencing for Beginners. 331dot (talk) 07:53, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
If you can get access, try newspaper archives like ProQuest. archive.org may be of help:[9] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:04, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
I would recommend checking out WP:LIBRARY where you can get free access to online newspaper archives. TipsyElephant (talk) 12:14, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
That's about 6 months away though. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:18, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
But some old Indian newspapers are not archived like Dainik Bhaskar and patrika, what about those ? TheSlumPanda (talk) 13:05, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Read the pages that 331dot linked for you above. As long as the newspaper name, publication date, page number, article title and the article writer's name where credited are known, it can be used – if you don't have these details, how can you be sure what it says in the first place?
An online link to an archive copy is 'nice to have', but not a requirement. As long as some copy exists somewhere, perhaps in the National Library of India or the British Library, that in theory a reader could visit and consult, the source is usable. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.241.39.117 (talk) 08:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

viewing full width of graphics

Hey folks. I'm frustrated that I'm not able to see the full width of certain graphics, such as List of English monarchs#Timeline. Such graphics are often cut off on the right side, and I haven't been able to figure out how to see the whole thing. I've tried going into my preferences and trying different skins, but I can't find a view mode that solves the problem. Is there a way I can see such graphics at full width?

Thanks. Yesthatbruce (talk) 10:20, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

@Yesthatbruce: You haven't said what device and software you are using to view Wikipedia. On the article you mentioned above, I can scroll the image left and right in my Chrome desktop browser to view hidden parts of it; I can also right-click the timeline image and open it in a new tab, where I can magnify or reduce it as I need. I can't do the same on the Wikipedia app on my phone, though. Bazza 7 (talk) 10:26, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick and very helpful reply. I hadn't tried the right-click/open in new tab trick; that seems to do the trick. Cheers. Yesthatbruce (talk) 10:55, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
@Yesthatbruce: You still haven't named your browser or device. In all four tested Windows browsers I see a working horizontal scrollbar right below the box with graphics (not at the bottom of the window). If I click the heading to the grahpics or the narrow whitespace right above or below the box then I can also use keyboard arrows to scroll in all four. In three of them I can also click the graphic itself but not in Firefox. PrimeHunter (talk) 08:33, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Can #Redirect be used (intelligently!) with templates

I was trying to add a talk header template Template:WikiProject Arabic to talk page of a relevant article, but to my surprise that template doesn't exist. Suppressing the shoot-first reaction to just create the template (because there is a WP:WikiProject Arabic), I thought maybe I should investigate further. And yes, there is a relevant header template: Template:WikiProject Arab World (which I have added to the talk page in question). WP:WikiProject Arabic is a sub-project of WP:WikiProject Arab World.

Which leads to my question: could I (should I!) create a Template:WikiProject Arabic that contains only a #Redirect to Template:WikiProject Arab World. Would that work and would it create more or less problems than it solves? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:01, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Technical note: the actual template is Template:WikiProject Arab world not Template:WikiProject Arab World (note underlined capitalization difference. A redirect to a template usually works seemlessly as usual for redirects and for templates, but a redirect to a redirect (a "double redirect") does not ever work (see Wikipedia:Double redirects). DMacks (talk) 16:16, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Note also that a merge of WP:WikiProject Arabic and WP:WikiProject Arab World is flagged as having been proposed, though weirdly the merge banner notice only appears on one of the two pages. (The merge proposal didn't generate much discussion, but nobody was opposed to it...) FeRDNYC (talk) 19:27, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
While technically creating a template redirect would work, it would be kind of pointless because the template content would still be the same. Which means you could use the real template name to transclude it. Unlike with encyclopedia terms, there's no real advantage to being able to type {{WikiProject Arabic}} instead of {{WikiProject Arab world}}, when they'll both label a page as being "within the scope of WikiProject Arab world". That's just likely to create confusion. Unless there's unique template content there, it's probably better to template projects by their real name. (This is different from redirects to create convenience aliases, like {{tqb}} which redirects to {{talk quote box}}.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by FeRDNYC (talk • contribs) 19:34, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Well first I did actually use a lower-case ⟨w⟩ at Talk:Arabic typography, though more by good luck than positive choice, I suspect.
If a merge is on the cards, I'll stand back and let it happen when it does, as my interest is in typography and typefaces rather than Arabic. Thank you all. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 00:20, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
@JMF: If a merge is on the cards I mean, that's not how I'd phrase it. A merge was proposed something like three years ago, discussed very briefly between roughly two Wikipedians, and then never brought up again. "Stalled" seems like an inadequate term for the current state of said proposed merge. FeRDNYC (talk) 07:46, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
I oppose the redirect as long as the WikiProjects are not merged and Wikipedia:WikiProject Arabic is active (not closed). Template:WikiProject Arabic is a perfect name match to Wikipedia:WikiProject Arabic so users will expect the template to be for that WikiProject. PrimeHunter (talk) 08:19, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
@PrimeHunter pretty much sums up my view as well. If there's going to be a template at that name, it shouldn't be [a redirect to] some other template for something else. FeRDNYC (talk) 09:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Help Regarding Wikipedia Page Export

Hi. I am fine tuning an LLM and for that I need some wikipedia page texts. Basically, that is going to be an environmentalist type of LLM, having expert knowledge on environment and environment conservation. I exported pages from certain categories from Special:Export. But, it came as an XML file, and doesn't contain only the page title and the page text, which is as I want as the dataset for fine tuning. I would be highly elated if someone could help me out in this. Itcouldbepossible Talk 07:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Itcouldbepossible. Can you use https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Example_(album)?useskin=apioutput? PrimeHunter (talk) 10:21, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
@PrimeHunterThanks for your help sir. But how can I extract the page text, like automatically, and for a number of pages? Since the categories I have choosen has quite a large number of pages inside them. Should I use Wikipedia API for parsing the pages? But I don't find a way to get the page text and put it into a dataset for training. Itcouldbepossible Talk 09:39, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
@Itcouldbepossible: I was merely asking whether you had tools to use a link of that form. I guess the answer is no. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:12, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
@PrimeHunter Umm..actually the answer is no. I was thinking about how can I make a way through to get the text out of the API. Maybe, I need to go for asking ChatGPT Itcouldbepossible Talk 04:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Yes, you can, and should, use the API to retrieve page text from the site in a programmatic fashion. Quoting from mw:API:Get the contents of a page:

There are three main methods for retrieving page content via the API:

  1. Get the contents of a page using the Revisions API (as wikitext).
  2. Get the contents of a page using the Parse API (as HTML or wikitext).
  3. Get plain text or limited HTML extracts of a page using the API of the TextExtracts extension.
Additional detail is found on the rest of that page. The API allows you to specify the format of any results it returns to you, per-request. The default response format is json which tends to be appropriate for most purposes. FeRDNYC (talk) 09:25, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
API requests are very comprehensible, BTW, Itcouldbepossible. For example, the "Parse" API request URL for the content of Pet door (the standard example article used in the documentation, #ForSomeReason) is simply this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?action=parse&format=json&page=Pet%20door&formatversion=2
And a formatted dump of the JSON object returned by that query can be seen by loading it into the API Sandbox, like so. The value of parse.text is a string containing the article's parsed-and-rendered HTML. (Just the article, no site chrome.) FeRDNYC (talk) 09:46, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Also, be sure to read mw:API:Etiquette before undertaking any meaningful use of the API. (There isn't really much etiquette that applies when screwing around with one-off sandbox queries.) FeRDNYC (talk) 09:50, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

How to get my pages to be accepted on Wikipedia

Hi everyone,

I kindly request assistance with publishing the draft Wikipedia page for EBC Financial Group at Draft:EBC Financial Group. Currently, the page is in draft status, and my Wikipedia username is Mitsubishi2. I'm uncertain about which specific Wikipedia rules I may be violating with this draft. Your help in identifying and rectifying any issues would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you. Mitsubishi2 (talk) 09:42, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello. I would first ask you if you work for this company or are otherwise associated with it. 331dot (talk) 09:46, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
This is my first article. I am using a Forex trading platform and attempting to publish it. Mitsubishi2 (talk) 09:50, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi @Mitsubishi2, it might be worth taking a look at similar pages (other social trading platforms or investment companies) to make sure your tone is fine for Wikipedia, because right now it is written too promotionally. However, the feedback reviewer DoubleGrazing gave seems to be useful. It is also worth taking a look at the concerns addresses in the decline reason. TLAtlak 09:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Need help

I had created a draft article named Draft:Sandeep Anand and I need help with editing this draft article to make it into main article. Anybody can help me in editing this article. Please edit this article and make it into main article. KungfuPanda2008 (talk) 18:43, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

The Times of India is not considered to be a reliable independent source. See WP:TOI. Theroadislong (talk) 18:47, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
KungfuPanda2008, according to Reliable sources/Perennial sources, the Times of India is known to accept payments from persons and entities in exchange for positive coverage. This is especially true of their coverage of Bollywood and the entertainment industry in India more broadly. Cullen328 (talk) 18:57, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
In addition to not using Times of India, 7 of the 8 refs confirm he was in one TV show. What you need is references to published content about him. David notMD (talk) 02:25, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi @KungfuPanda2008, as noted Times of India is not a reliable source, and thus cannot establish notability. Maybe you can use it for basic, factual information but nothing contentious. I would suggest looking for some better sources, WP:RSP could help you out. David notMD also gave good advice. TLAtlak 09:59, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Tupac page edit request

Hi, I would like to edit Tupac's page because I have many professional sources, I won't vandalize it. David Tornheim send me Pier1999 (talk) 10:27, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Previous Response copied from: Wikipedia_talk:Teahouse#Tupac_page_edit_request (permalink) at 10:34, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
START
I did indeed. Pier1999 indeed has shown an interesting in improving Tupac Shakur by providing WP:RS ([10], [11], [12], [13]) that s/he thinks should be used to justify adding content. I agree that most, if not all, the WP:RS is relevant and that the content is appropriate--although I do not know yet about any specific proposed edit(s). I would like to give this editor an opportunity for a WP:BOLD edit following WP:BRD, which I explained on the talk page. Is there a way to enable editing privs for that page for this editor? --David Tornheim (talk) 09:25, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Pier1999 It looks like the page protection for editing for Tupak Shakur is "Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access (no expiry set)". If I read WP:AUTOCONFIRM all you need is 10 edits and 4 days of editing. So you may not need any special privs to make changes once you have reached those two requirements. But maybe an admin with authorize you before that.
To anyone responding: Is this the right place to request? --David Tornheim (talk) 10:12, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
END
--David Tornheim (talk) 10:34, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
All that is needed is patience. User:Pier1999's first edit was on 19 March, so meets the 4 days requirement to edit semi-protected articles late Saturday or Sunday. Pier1999 has already participated in a discussion of what is intended to edit at Talk:Tupac Shakur. The next step - BOLD - is to add text and reliable source references to the article and find out if other editors agree or disagree with the addition. David notMD (talk) 10:38, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Ought wholesale copy-paste from page to page be undone?

Eg Fakhr al-Din al-Razi#Hypothetical concept of multiple universes seems to have been almost wholesale duplicated onto Cosmology in medieval Islam#Possible worlds. What is to be done now? FatalSubjectivities (talk) 11:12, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

FatalSubjectivities, the standard advice is at WP:RIA. In this case, it does not matter because the text was added to both articles by the same editor. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 11:33, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I want to show my photographs around here

I want to show my photographies here 41.121.49.46 (talk) 11:20, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

That's great! If you'd like, you could upload some of your photos to Wikimedia Commons (see WP:COMMONS for more info) CanonNi (talk) 11:24, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
This depends on what you mean- if you have photographs pertinent to articles, yes, please upload them if you are willing to release them for use for any purpose with attribution. If you just want to display your photography somewhere, that's not what Wikipedia is for. 331dot (talk) 11:30, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
IP editor. Note that while the English Wikipedia allows editing without an account, you must create an account to upload to Commons. See c:Commons:First_steps/Uploading_files Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:46, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Can I use Apple Music as a source for discography?

Or is it essential to find a link for the original label? Rosuacamus (talk) 17:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

For entries in a discography, it's often sufficient to cite the works themselves as (primary) sources — meaning, the album/single/etc. releases. That they're obtained through Apple Music, or any other service, is as irrelevant as citing Virgin Records because you bought a CD there. But web links are not the only type of valid citation. (See {{Cite AV media}}, {{Cite AV media notes}}, and friends.)
OTOH, if you want to just copy an artist's entire discography wholesale from Apple Music, that probably isn't a reliable source, considering the selection of works they have available is completely arbitrary and sales-driven, rather than data-driven. FeRDNYC (talk) 19:17, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Is this okay?
Kim, Julian (2019). Italiana (Full Album). Julian Jootaek Kim, Youngmin Lee, Jongho Park. Korea: Decca Records, Universal Music Group. Registered No 776.
By 'full album', I meant a CD album with 15 songs. Rosuacamus (talk) 01:19, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
@Rosuacamus It's a good start. The documentation of all the Citation Style 1 templates (of which {{Cite AV media notes}} is one) is very comprehensive, if a bit overwhelming at times — it's worth referring to when filling out those templates. (That previous link in this comment leads to the template's docs page.) Heck, I'm doing it when writing this response — not like I can remember all of those details, myself.
So, as I said, it's a start, but could use some adjustments. Specifically:
  • The |others= value should only be wikilinked (surrounded by [[...]]) if there is or is soon likely to be a corresponding article with that title. We have an article for The Beatles, so they get entered as [[The Beatles]]. But there will never be an article titled "Julian Jootaek Kim, Youngmin Lee, Jongho Park" (maybe three separate articles, but not one with that entire title), so that shouldn't be in brackets. Just |others=Julian Jootaek Kim, Youngmin Lee, Jongho Park
  • Speaking of |others=, since Julian Jootaek Kim is being listed as the author (using |first= and |last=, there's no reason to duplicate his name in the |others= list.
  • |first= and |last= both support multiple words, BTW. If the artist's name is Julian Jootaek Kim, there's no reason to force it down to "Julian Kim" in the author fields. I'd go with |first=Julian Jootaek |last=Kim personally.
  • The page you linked to only seems to support |publisher=Decca Records. Universal may be involved (perhaps as a distributor?), but as that's not supported by the citation better to leave it out. Also, since we do have a Decca Records article, that publisher field can even be |publisher=[[Decca Records]] and it'll link to that article.
  • The |type= field is for the type of media being referenced — meaning, if you're using {{Cite AV media notes}}, the type of notes, not the type of recording/release. The examples in the documentation are all |type=booklet, but |type=none is documented as supported too. |type=Full Album wouldn't be appropriate because (a) the template docs say Format in sentence case, meaning it'd be |type=Full album, and (b) if you're citing the album itself (not its notes), then you'd want to be using {{Cite AV media}} instead.
    Point is, Defaults to Media notes., which sounds perfectly appropriate for your use. Personally I'd leave it blank (|type=) or else fill in |type=none explicitly.
  • That |id= field gives me pause, somewhat. Like |type= it's not really a free-form field, as it's intended to hold the publisher's catalog number for the work. It's entirely possible |id=Registered No 776 is 100% correct; that would hardly be the strangest catalog number I've ever seen. It's also possible it should be just |id=776.Guess I'm just suggesting a double-check on what's there, but it's not critical or even very important, really.
FeRDNYC (talk) 07:15, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Goodness, you are the GREATEST!
Kim, Julian Jootaek (2019). Italiana (CD) (in Korean and Italian). Korea: Decca Records.
Would this be good enough? Thanks a million! Rosuacamus (talk) 08:25, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Thumbs up icon Looks good to me, Rosuacamus! And if anything needs tweaking, other editors are likely to notice and pitch in. Getting the information into the article at all is far more important than getting the formatting precisely correct. The best thing about available data is, it's the only type that can be improved upon after-the-fact. FeRDNYC (talk) 09:11, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
I am awfully grateful! I think I know how things are going. After collecting all the references, I will post a draft. I see a lot of articles that do not seem to meet the Wikipedia standards. It's better to be thorough! Rosuacamus (talk) 09:19, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
I see a lot of articles that do not seem to meet the Wikipedia standards. In general, yes. There are two primary reasons for that:
  1. Just as a general concept, "Wikipedia standards" have been on a constant upward trajectory. Many, many of the older articles would be considered severely lacking, by today's standards.
  2. That's OK because, while there are some minimal standards of acceptance (like the General Notability Guideline for determining whether a subject is sufficient to merit an article at all), the majority of Wikipedia's standards are standards of excellence — lofty ideals to strive towards, not minimum criteria to meet
.
It's expected that the vast majority of articles will come up short of our highest standards, and much of the community's work is performed in the service of inching, article by article, ever so slightly nearer to meeting them. (The articles that get within spitting distance, we laud as Good Articles or even Featured Articles. Even those aren't perfect, they're just minimally im-perfect relative to everything else.)
The perfect article does not exist (contrary to that article's claims), but that's OK because perfection is not required. FeRDNYC (talk) 10:07, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
It's better than nothing, I suppose. I will strive to meet the current standards. As a scientist, references are crucial for people like myself. Thank you so much! Rosuacamus (talk) 12:34, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request service – no requests

Hello! I signed my name on a few sections of the Wikipedia:Feedback request service, maybe 6ish months ago, can't recall. I haven't gotten a single request yet, which seems very odd based on the talk pages of others on the lists, who all have a few recent ones. Am I missing something obvious? I just wanna give feedback! Thanks for any help. Wow Mollu (talk) 02:27, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

@Wow Mollu signed my name on a few sections Nope. Exactly two, "Language and linguistics" and "Media, the arts, and architecture".
Regardless, discussion at User talk:Naypta#Yapperbot_RfC_messages indicates that Yapperbot, the service responsible for making the Feedback Request System "go", is currently not functioning, and was delivering only a small fraction of "requested requests" throughout the parts of 2023 when it was functioning. Additional threads there and at Wikipedia talk:Feedback request service may provide additional info. But, long and short: "It's not just you". FeRDNYC (talk) 07:43, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for those leads! I asked Naypta, too, just to see. Yes, I did see the issues about Yapperbot being down for a while, but seems to be up and pretty active since Feb 20. Everybody else I’ve poked into on my two lists has gotten 2-3 talk page notifications from the bot since then, when I haven’t received any, even before it went down in Dec, or since. If it was on-and-off, I’d figure it’s that bot malfunction, but it’s always completely dead for me, which makes me think I have an additional issue (mistake or bug). Wow Mollu (talk) 14:04, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Replace picture

I was trying to edit a wiki page by removing a picture and replacing it with another one and all I seem to have done is remove the picture. I am having trouble replacing the picture with the new one. Can someone help me, possibly step by step to do this? Sandyiego23 (talk) 16:39, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

@Sandyiego23 Your edit history doesn't show any recent saved edits, so I assume you realised your mistake on preview. help is to be found at H:PICTURES but if that isn't enough, please come back with more details, including the name of the article you are trying to edit and the filename you want to swap to. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:44, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello, Sandyiego23, and welcome to the Teahouse. What I suspect you may be trying to do is to add a picture directly from outside Wikipedia.
You cannot do that: you must first upload the picture either to Wikipedia or (preferably) to Wikimedia commons, and then add it to any article. But note that you must make sure that you are not infringing copyright - which is more tricky than most people realise. ColinFine (talk) 16:54, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
It must have saved something since the incorrect picture is now missing. I would like to add the picture that I uploaded to Wikipedia commons. The website is Jose Aniceto Iznaga Borrell and the picture is of my great, great grandfather who died in 1860. The file name of the picture is Jose_Aniceto_Iznaga or Jose_Aniceto_Iznaga.jpeg
I am sorry for the multiple messages.
Thank you for your help. Sandyiego23 (talk) 17:09, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Ah. You edited Spanish Wikipedia: es:José Aniceto Iznaga Borrell. This is the Teahouse for the English Wikipedia, which is entirely separate. The picture you removed was File:José Aniceto Iznaga Borrell.jpg. I can't find a picture called 'Jose_Aniceto_Iznaga.jpeg' but there is File:Jose Aniceto Iznaga.jpg (note the different file extension) that you uploaded. I presume that was what you were trying to replace it with. ColinFine (talk) 17:39, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Yes, that is the file. I'm really making a muddle of this.  :>) Can you direct me to the right department to edit Spanish Wikipedia? Thank you Sandyiego23 (talk) 17:48, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
@Sandyiego23, the Spanish Wikipedia's help desk seems to be here, if that's what you're looking for. 57.140.16.57 (talk) 18:10, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for the help. Unfortunately it is in Spanish and I can't read it. Since I only want to replace, well now it's add, a picture, wouldn't it be the same as it would be in English? Can you give me a hint on what I am doing wrong? Sandyiego23 (talk) 18:26, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
@Sandyiego23 Go to the article in the Spanish Wikipedia and use the source editor. You'll see a line saying | imagen = Jose Aniceto Iznaga.jpeg. Edit out the current filename and put in the new name (i.e. Jose Aniceto Iznaga.jpg). The only difference is that your file is a .jpg, not a .jpeg. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:34, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
I just did it and it worked. Can't begin to tell you how grateful I am. Thank you. THANK YOU  !! Sandyiego23 (talk) 18:42, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
@Sandyiego23: You didn't do quite as suggested. I have done it now.[14] PrimeHunter (talk) 13:30, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for removing the link to the picture. Since it had previously been there with the incorrect picture, I thought it belonged there. It looks so much better. Again, thank you. Sandyiego23 (talk) 14:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Bio box

Hello. Yknow those boxes on the about section in your profile that says what you like and what you don't like? Yeah, how to I get that? Thanks regardless. Usernamejustbecause (talk) 15:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Usernamejustbecause, welcome to the Teahouse. See Wikipedia:Userboxes and Wikipedia:Userboxes/Galleries. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:14, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Redirect to Draft?

If an article has a link to a not yet an existing page but has a draft, should I redirect the link to the draft or wait until the draft is published as an article? CreatorOfMinecraftHerobrine (talk) 15:30, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi CreatorOfMinecraftHerobrine. Articles should never link to drafts and most drafts are never accepted. Valid options include to keep a link to a non-existing article, remove the link, change the link to point to an article mentioning the subject, or create a redirect to such an article and link the redirect. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:36, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Help with page

FYI
 – Heading added by Tenryuu.

Hi, how do I fix my page? I don’t know what I did wrong Springfaerie (talk) 16:21, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

@Springfaerie: Welcome to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1219. It seems you have already asked about Draft:Jackie Ho at the Articles for Creation help desk. Please wait for a response there. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:27, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Need some help to new articles

Hello I have just had two new articles about footballers refused - Marius Kryger Lindh and Bjarki Nielsen - and I can not understand why. The references should be valid. RonTho (talk) 18:09, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello @RonTho your message aren't very clear, but if you are having difficulties adding the reference on your project by the Auto citation, then i have addressed this issue @ line 47 of this page, but if this wasn't the problem you are talking about, then please try to elaborate more for readers better understanding.
Thisasia  (Talk) 18:26, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
I got this message, and can not understand what and where the problem is.
Declining submission: athlete - Submission is about an athlete not yet shown to meet notability guidelines (AFCH) RonTho (talk) 18:32, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
@KylieTastic, care to comment? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
@RonTho in general articles on Wikipedia have to show the subject is notable (See WP:N) which in most cases requires significant coverage (WP:SIGCOV) in multiple independent (WP:INDY) reliable sources (WP:RS). In both cases your sources merely show that the subjects exist and are footballers. Each has a worldfootball.net basic stats listing, and a faroesoccer.com also basic stats listing that is also blocked from the UK and the US. As a person they can be shown to be notable by passing WP:NBASIC also see Wikipedia:Notability (sports) as listed from the decline notice, however we no longer have special criteria for football players. If any reliable sources have significant coverage on them please add and re-submit. Note, the sources do not have to be in English - Faroese and Danish articles are just as valid. Thanks for the ping Gråbergs Gråa Sång. Regards KylieTastic (talk) 19:03, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

How

How do you add a note Blackmamba31248 (talk) 02:14, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

What eo you mean by a note? (and which article). The Talk page (see tab at upper left) is a place to start a discussion if you disagree with something in the article and want to leave a note. David notMD (talk) 02:21, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Yes, a footnote is What í meant Blackmamba31248 (talk) 13:16, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Á note like after a refrence Blackmamba31248 (talk) 14:42, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Á note like after a refrence Blackmamba31248 (talk) 19:05, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Or do you perhaps mean a reference (looking rather like a footnote)? Or an actual ("content") footnote (as opposed to a regular reference)? -- Hoary (talk) 07:42, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Broken references

I want to edit information in a paragraph of an article. That paragraph contains links to broken references. Should I do anything with those references? I am unable to even ascertain what they contain. Mensch57 (talk) 19:10, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Which article? Broken like this? 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 19:52, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Shelby Mustang
See paragraph starting with "Total production for 1966 was 1,373 fastbacks"
The end of that paragraph has references 10, 11 and 12. The links for 11 and 12 are broken. The magazines for 10 and 11 are available used and I have ordered them. But reference 12 is online only it appears. Mensch57 (talk) 19:58, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Ah, the links are broken. Here's the process:
  1. Go to the Wayback Machine and search for the URL. If the page hasn't been archived there, add {{dead link}} after the reference and mutter unhappily for a little while.
  2. If the URL is there, add it to the reference in the parameter "archive URL" (archive-url), and the date it was archived in "archive date" (archive-date)
🌺 Cremastra (talk) 20:18, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
I've fixed it, but it's useful to know the steps for future reference. Here are the changes I made. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 20:21, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Formatting error help

On the article for Libs of TikTok, I tried to reformat how a citation was bundled, akin to how citations have been bundled in § Notes, but it seems to not have worked. It says it's missing a closing "</ref>", but I can't see where it's missing. Could someone please show me where I've messed up? — Toast for Teddy (talk) 01:11, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Nevermind, fixed it. — Toast for Teddy (talk) 01:39, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

adding new section to page

Hi, I'm been trying to decide if it'll be suitable to add a 'Looted Art' to the Yale University Art Gallery's to document when some of their South Asian objects were confiscated by Homeland Security in 2022, as well as its history of the having coins stolen from it in 1964. This idea is inspired by the Looted Art section in the page about the Met. Nefariousflyfly (talk) 23:59, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

That seems suitable enough. Both the sources you linked to seem to be WP:RELIABLE, WP:SECONDARY, and WP:INDEPENDENT. Though I'd recommend finding at least a few more sources before adding anything substantial. (Also maybe add this archive link to the NYT article citation so people who don't have an account can read it.) — Toast for Teddy (talk) 01:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

BLP Charles Haywood – citing the subjects own writing just to mention he wrote for them?

Regarding Charles Haywood, a user has continued to insert a paragraph of the subject's own writing for a few outlets, which reads: "Haywood has also published articles in a variety of conservative publications, including American Affairs, Chronicles Magazine,and The American Conservative" – and used these outlets as the citation. The sources are not being used to explain any of his views. It feels a bit WP:SOAPBOX-y to me... isn't it best to only mention he has written for outlets when a secondary source mentions it? E.g. in this Guardian piece it mentions he has written for the Claremont Institute, thus it seems more worthy of mention. I could be wrong, but what is best practice? Zenomonoz (talk) 23:49, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

isn't it best to only mention...when a secondary source mentions it? Yes, to avoid original research. WP:ABOUTSELF covers when a subject's own statements can be cited, but I doubt this situation is one of them. As for best practice, avoiding edit warring and opening a discussion on the article talk is probably wise. If that fails to produce an agreement, the steps at WP:DR are probably next. @Zenomonoz Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 02:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Paragraph Formatting

Hello, all. I just wanted to ask a question about paragraph formatting. How do you exactly format a paragraph, and are there any exceptions? If these questions could be answered, that would be great. Wiki-wiki-waka-waka-1249 (talk) 03:07, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Wiki-wiki-waka-waka-1249, you can see MOS:PARA for details on how paragraphs are formatted on the English Wikipedia. CanonNi (talk) 03:13, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Sock puppet

Hello. I’m sorry if this is the wrong place to signal this, I’m not that familiar with en.wiki yet, sadly. I just want to signal that user:Magonz and user:DTMGO, mainly active on controversial subjects like genocide of indigenous peoples, in a trolling manner, are the same user (positive check user), did some horrible translations from en.wiki to fr.wiki (they probably do not speak French), and edited the same pages. Cheers.

PS: oh I’m an idiot. Just should have looked at the inter wikis, but I guess I’m too lazy… Sorry. Here you have it. Encyclopédisme (talk) 22:52, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Bonjour Encyclopédisme, et bienvenue à en-wiki. Normally the place to report suspected sockpuppets would be W:SPI; but if a Checkuser has already confirmed on another version, I would think you should go straight to WP:ANI. ColinFine (talk) 10:41, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Need help with my signature

For some reason my signature has defaulted to normal. This is the code: TLAtlak

But in the signature change section of the preferences, I'm getting a message saying:

Your signature contains invalid or deprecated HTML syntax: ⧼linterror-night-mode-unaware-background-color⧽:

I am no expert in HTML so I'm not sure what's wrong, could anyone help? Thanks. I'm tla (talk) 15:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello @I'm tla, make sure that every opening tags has a closing tag for example
(<span> must end with </span>) even the self closing tag (<br>) shouldn't be written that way but this way instead (<br/>) ensure to follow this rule else you will keep getting the same error message by the preference, html may be sometime dynamic and may allows some mistakes which will be fixed by the browser, but your wiki-preference allows no mistake, hence every syntax must be accurate.
I hope this helps you, and if you got more question then I'm here to assist you.
Thisasia  (Talk)
17:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi, thank you. For some reason it just fixed itself, but I'm going to save this down in case I need it in the future. TLAtlak 12:19, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
@I'm tla: You also need to make sure your signature complies with WP:CUSTOMSIG/P. Your username is I'm TLA, but your signature suggests it's simply TLA, which is incorrect. Bazza 7 (talk) 17:34, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
An RFC [15] was closed in 2021 with consensus that signatures don't have to match usernames in their entirety. WP:CUSTOMSIG/P only states that "It is common practice for a signature to resemble to some degree the username it represents." Unless consensus has changed since then, and there's another RfC that I'm unaware of, their current signature is fine. miranda :3 18:33, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the concern Bazza, but I'm pretty sure there are some admins who don't have their signature reflect their exact username so I'm assuming it's fine, also according to what miranda noted. TLAtlak 12:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
@I'm tla: Your case may be a little different but see Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Signature error. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
It seems to have fixed itself, but noted, thanks. TLAtlak 12:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Deciding whether to nominate articles for deletion

I'm debating whether I should nominate these two articles for deletion: U.S. economic performance by presidential party and Jobs created during U.S. presidential terms. I have read WP:BEFORE and found the summary to be too succinct with a bunch of links to look at. If it had everything I need to know on one page, I feel I would be better informed on what to do about articles. I looked at the sources for each article and while I'm leaning towards not nominating these articles for deletion because a lot of reliable sources cover the economic performance of Democratic and Republican presidents and the jobs created by US presidents, but I am not sure that having an article comparing the economic performance of all Democratic and all Republican presidents is necessary. I am asking this because I am looking for a second opinion on what I should do. Interstellarity (talk) 19:13, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Interstellarity, I have not looked at either of these articles. However, some comments: (i) If a Wikipedia "project page" about something as complex as nomination for deletion had everything anybody would need to know, people would either complain about its length or just ignore it. (ii) I am not sure that having articles about, say, Star Wars trivia is necessary. No, that's too polite: I'm sure that it's not necessary. Ditto for articles about individual, forgettable albums about forgettable bands, as well as oodles more Wikipedia articles. (iii) Although you are of course under no obligation to specify your deletion rationale here, I note that you don't specify it. (I don't believe that "not necessary" is a reason for deletion.) -- Hoary (talk) 22:15, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
While article longevity is not a measure of merit, the fact that the first dates to 2020 and the second to 2004, each with many editors contributing, suggests that other editors believe there is value in these articles existing. Both also get more than 100 views per day. David notMD (talk) 12:31, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Approved new page marked as needs additional citations

I created a page which was then approved by someone else, only after they felt there were enough sources for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shockwave_cosmology How do I challenge this, especially as they have not given any specific element needing more sources? Hewer7 (talk) 13:35, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Hewer7, what exactly are you trying to 'challenge'? CanonNi (talk) 13:37, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
That an article, already considered to have sufficient sources, has been marked as needing more or other sources for unspecified reason(s). Hewer7 (talk) 13:41, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
There are a number of unsourced statements in Shockwave cosmology which certainly need to be sourced, there is nothing to challenge here? Article was accepted because the the topic is notable.Theroadislong (talk) 13:43, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Which elements do you consider to be unsourced? Hewer7 (talk) 13:47, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
There are many unsourced sentences, it is easy to spot them. Theroadislong (talk) 13:51, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
I see in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources that "Per WP:PAIC, citations should be placed at the end of the passage that they support. If one source alone supports consecutive sentences in the same paragraph, one citation of it at the end of the final sentence is sufficient. It is not necessary to include a citation for each individual consecutive sentence, as this is overkill." So presumably the issue may be more that I have included sources in one sentence which covers the whole paragraph, but I should instead move such references to the end of the paragraph? Hewer7 (talk) 14:02, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Correct. Theroadislong (talk) 14:06, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Changing donation account?

How do I change the donation account for my Wiki monthly donation? Wmcpa7905 (talk) 14:19, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

@Wmcpa7905 Thank you for supporting all the work that the Wikimedia Foundation does (though note that none of it goes to the editors who create content here). As a result, we do not deal with financial matters such as donations. But you ought to be able to find the help you seek at this page: https://donate.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ways_to_Give Hoping this helps. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:40, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Rio Grande 223 Editing Advice

Hi, another editor and I have had a disagreement over the editing direction for the Rio Grande 223 article; and a recent user on the talk page suggested we come to the Teahouse to request guidance in the matter. We have had a pretty lengthy debate on the talk page, but to summarize it we have very different ideas on what belongs in the article and have so far failed to reach consensus. Any guidance would be appreciate. Xboxtravis7992 (talk) 23:12, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I will start off by summarizing a question that I usually ask when two or more editors at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard have an article content dispute. The purpose of any discussion of article content is to improve the encyclopedia. So I will usually ask each editor what specifically they want to change in the article, or what they want to leave the same that another editor wants to change. Identifying exactly what you want to change can be constructive.
Second, having taken one look at the article, which was not a detailed review, it is my initial opinion that some of the material, about the importance of railroads in the economic development of the Western United States, should be in the encyclopedia, but should not be in the article on the Rio Grande 223. I didn't review it in sufficient depth to have a recommendation as to where it should be discussed, or whether it is discussed. So there is an issue of off-topic content.
Third, you might try asking for an additional view at the talk page of an appropriate WikiProject. I haven't yet looked to see which one would be most likely to help. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:31, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
That concern over the economic history of the railroad being off topic is my primary concern with the article, particularly since I also have doubts about the historical accuracy of many of the sources used. I also feel like the photographs of similar (but not the same) locomotives is similarly off topic. I would point to my last revision as to how I expressed my ideas on the article more fully. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rio_Grande_223&oldid=1213584305 Xboxtravis7992 (talk) 02:39, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
@Xboxtravis7992 There have already been two dispute resolution attempts. I doubt a third will achieve anything. Neither of you appear right or wrong from my perspective. Frankly, I feel whichever of you decides to let this go first is the real winner here. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:18, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Xboxtravis7992, I disagree with MaxnaCarta's "both sides" assessment and agree with much of what Robert McClenon has to say. As the main author of a comparable article about an individual locomotive, Sierra No. 3, I have opinions on the dispute that are rooted in Wikipedia's Policies and guidelines, and have offered my assessment at Talk: Rio Grande 223. I agree with several other editors who have offered similar assessments there. Cullen328 (talk) 03:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
I will certainly be delighted to have this matter resolved. Xboxtravis7992 and I have a fundamental disagreement, that we have debated at length on the talk page. We have reached an impasse.
He has erased the ENTIRE section on the engine's historical significance 5 times now (February 16, February 28, March 9, March 13, and now again on March 20), using one spurious pretext or another.
For example, he questions the accuracy of a couple sources, such as Lucius Beebe, then erases the whole section. This, despite the fact that the section has multiple sources, and most of the text is widely accepted historical fact that shouldn't need citations to begin with. The historical significance section is only six short paragraphs long, but has 48 citations!
I would like to think that is adequate.
Xboxtravis7992 doesn't even challenge the accuracy of the text. He just attacks a couple sources, then erases the whole section.
This is not good-faith editing.
Xboxtravis7992 says that the section describing the engine's historical significance is "fluff," "extraneous," "bloat" and "trivial." I disagree.
The engine IS historically significant. That’s why it deserves an article in Wikipedia.
D&RG 223 was built in 1881, and represents the most important period in D&RG history. This was the time of the D&RG’s explosive growth, and this dramatically transformed the region’s economy and dramatically increased its population. The railroad placed its largest order for locomotives ever (Class 60, C-16), and this was also the largest order for three-foot-gauge engines that Baldwin Locomotive Works had ever received. D&RG 223 was one of this huge class of engines (Class 60, C-16), and is one of only three of them still surviving. D&RG 223 is the embodiment of what author Robert Le Massena called the D&RG’s time of “glory.”
Is that not significant? Is that not relevant to the article?
The bottom line is this: Xboxtravis7992 doesn't want the "Rio Grande 223" article to contain a section on the historical significance of the engine. I do.
By his reasoning, the Wikipedia article on the "Titanic" should only contain information on its mechanical features and the route it took, and nothing about its historical significance.
That is the issue - should this article contain a section on the historical significance of the engine, or not? I hope that neutral editors/administrators will review the article and read the comments about it on the Talk page. DTParker1000 (talk) 03:14, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
@DTParker1000, I will note that five other editors have commented on the article talk page, besides you and Xboxtravis7992. The fact that you are still framing this as a disagreement between the two of you and asking for "neutral editors" to review suggests that you have not read or understood the comments of the other editors. As I read it, five neutral editors have already commented, and none agree with what you want to add to the article. I suggest that you review the other editors' comments and continue the discussion on the talk page. CodeTalker (talk) 05:08, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
That is incorrect. I have made several modifications to the text, and shortened the length of the section, in response to the comments from the other editors.
I have also made changes in response to Xboxtravis7992's comments.
The other editors seem satisfied. Only Xboxtravis7992 is not.
Xboxtravis7992 wishes to eliminate the section on the engine's historic significance. I do not.
DTParker1000 (talk) 15:32, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
User:DTParker1000 - One of the rules for content mediation is "Comment on content, not contributors". It is also restated as "Discuss edits, not editors". Sometimes I state it in both forms because it often needs repeating. You are mostly talking about another editor. It shouldn't be necessary to identify the editor with whom you disagree if your disagreement is about content, and it appears that it is about content, but that you are personalizing it unnecessarily. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:23, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
The key issues I have with the continued edits is primarily an issue of WP:Scope. I am insistent on removing the segment on "The Period of the D&RGW 223's Greatest Significance" for it broadening the scope of the article beyond 223. In my opinion it adds nothing to the history of the engine, and distracts from the subject at hand and fails to meet the WP:Concise guidelines.
As I and User:Cullen328 both pointed out on the talk page, the citations in "The Period of the D&RGW 223's Greatest Significance" fail to pass criteria for WP:Reliable Sources. The title of the segment itself is a violation of WP:PG "Content" for it's use of opinion and platitudes. The title of the section is also a logical fallacy as the Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad would exist until the 1920's meaning that during the period described in the section 223 would not have been "D&RGW" 223.
The additions to the page also violate the rule for WP:No Original Research particular with the claims of how 223 should be restored visually to represent it's as built appearance. The revised edit made by DTParker1000 replaced this with WP:CREEP, instructing the reader on how Ogden needs to "chose a proper appearance for 223 when restored." This ties into the author's comments elsewhere on social media such as on the Facebook group "Save Ogden Union Station!" and "Railroads of the San Juan Mountains" where he further espouses the opinion of restoring 223 to it's as built appearance to be the best choice for restoration of the locomotive. Ultimately I believe the author is repeatedly editing Wikipedia articles to support his claims on railroad history on other social media sites, a clear violation of WP:NPOV rules.
I am passionate about this page, and it is why I have been so bold to remove "The Period of D&RGW 223's Greatest Significance" again and again. I think of this quote from WP:CIR requirements, "a mess created in a sincere effort to help is still a mess that needs to be cleaned up" I feel sums up this whole matter and even if intended to be in good faith, the repeated edits to the 223 page a mess they have made. Xboxtravis7992 (talk) 23:31, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Youtube as a Music Source

I know that Youtube links are generally not accepted as sources for articles, but I was wondering if it would be appropriate to link to a music video posted by an artist's official account when discussing a specific notable song? I could imagine this applying to self-publishing rules, but I wanted to double-check.Rylee Amelia (talk) 21:43, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Rylee Amelia! It depends on the situation. Can you be more specific, please? —asparagusus (interaction) sprouts! 21:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
I see you've created two drafts, one on a musician and another on a song. The official music video will not prove the subject meets criteria for a standalone article because it is not independent of the subject. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 22:23, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Yes, you can cite the subject's (or associate's) official channel on YouTube, social media etc, but only as a self-published source. Having said that, I'm wondering what kind of information citing a song could confirm. ColinFine (talk) 23:13, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
@Rylee Amelia: You could add a link to the official music video to {{Infobox song}} inside {{External music video}} with {{YouTube}}. See Be the One (Dua Lipa song) as an example. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 03:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Some Wikipedia articles, such as the Writers Guild of America Awards articles, may include links placed in the boldface reiteration of the title in the first sentence of a lead that violate MOS:BOLDLINK. Is it right to remove each link from each boldface reiteration, or is it right to keep it as is? Abigbagel (talk) 23:14, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

@Abigbagel: The bold part of the lede in that article is not a link, so it is following the MOS MOS:BOLDTITLE RudolfRed (talk) 23:42, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
I meant the 1st Writers Guild of America Awards article and the 2nd Writers Guild of America Awards and so on. These articles and the following articles each violate MOS:BOLDLINK. Abigbagel (talk) 00:17, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
@Abigbagel: I've removed the links on those two articles, with [[MOS:BOLDLINK]] in the edit summaries. Feel free to do so yourself for any other instances. Bazza 7 (talk) 09:23, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
That is a good style-guide detail. But simply removing the link means readers lose the ability to find the parent-topic article. The "1st" and "2nd" editions of the awards should absolutely link to the awards article itself. The same guideline specifically tells us that. DMacks (talk) 10:08, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
@DMacks, @Abigbagel: I've continued this discussion at Talk:1st Writers Guild of America Awards § Links in lead because it involved a specific article's content. Bazza 7 (talk) 12:39, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Some instances, such as this one, violate MOS:BOLDLINK in each succeeding article (1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th...), so would it be better to edit all succeeding articles to fit with MOS:BOLDLINK? Abigbagel (talk) 22:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Consistency among the series of articles is a good goal. Please join us at the talkpage Bazza_7 mentioned, where we are hashing out the wording. DMacks (talk) 03:45, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Merge List article into its Comparison article

Hi, I would like to merge 2 articles, by copying the differences of List_of_desktop_publishing_software into Comparison_of_desktop_publishing_software and then delete List_of_desktop_publishing_software. Am I allowed to do this? Or what is the best way I go about it?

Why? ...For the following reasons:

  • All of the details are already in the comparison article, apart from the list of discontinued products that can be easily moved.
  • The grouping of products by free/proprietary, then by OS support is messy, these details are easier to view/sort in the comparison article.
  • The grouping of products by OS support is inconsistent as there are more operating systems, but it only lists a couple of them, to add the others would be messy, and these details are already easier to view/sort in the comparison article.
  • So there is no useful purpose of the list article, I imagine that it was created before the comparison article, when it would have made sense.

Planned steps, if it is agreed to proceed:

Merge differences into the comparison article. Update all articles that cite it by adding a cite to the comparison article. Update all articles that cite to it by removing the cite to the list (or would a bot do this?). Mark the article for deletion. Would any effort on my part need to be put into the translations of the articles effected? When this is sorted correctly to do the same for several other Lists of various software articles.12think (talk) 05:30, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @12think and welcome to the Teahouse. See WP:MERGE for details on the process of merging articles. CanonNi (talk) 05:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi @CanonNi, thank you I'll follow the steps, I should have known that there would be a documented procedure for this :-) 12think (talk) 06:22, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
That's great! If you'd like, you can check out WP:INFOPAGES for a complete list of all procedure pages, like this one. CanonNi (talk) 07:14, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Regarding some orders

Hello everyone, this article List of X-Men members is based on chronological order which is one of the format listed in Manual of Style/Comics. My question is what about those characters who joined in same issue but chronological order is not clear. For example X-Force and Phalanx invasion team members in Substitute teams section are in alphabetical order (another format listed in Manual of Style/Comics). Should I arrange those members who joined in same issue in alphabetical order for the sake of organisation as per above points? Sewnbegun (talk) 06:30, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Sewnbegin. If list entries do not fall into chronological order, as seems to be the case here, then I think that alphabetical order is the logical fallback method of structuring such a list. Cullen328 (talk) 08:32, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Why is this article having an infobox debate?

Hi folks, I am pretty startled and would love some clarity:

I've been editing Wikipedia for over a decade now, and I have come across what (to me) feels like a situation I don't logically understand.

In the George Formby article, there is no infobox.

1) Why is it valid that there is no infobox on this page, if it will benefit the article? Doesn't the WP:MOS ask for articles to all be standardized? I believe infoboxes are a great way to see info at-a-glance, especially for 94% of readers who are presumably casual, and it doesn't seem logical to eschew an infobox if it is a facet of almost all famous persons. The one person last time who disagreed in 2022 wrote, "There is a summary already present (the first paragraph) that does a better job." To me this is the false dilemma fallacy (either the infobox is useful, or the first paragraph is useful). But can't we have both? ¿Por qué no los dos?

2) If not with a clear majority, how is consensus reached? Two years ago, there was a discussion wherein 7 of 8 editors agreed that the infobox should be added. When I tallied these 2022 votes and justified my bold infobox addition in Talk:George Formby, another user reverted my edits, writing, "Removed. Consensus is not gained by vote counting." Then how is consensus gained - when literally every single user agrees? This doesn't seem feasible, especially when circular reasoning and logical fallacies are used.

Sorry I am just so frustrated. I can't make sense of things, LOL! *furiously sips tea*

Thank you for reading. ~~~~ The Fonz (talk) 15:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

The previous 2022 Talk page discussion is at Talk:George_Formby/Archive_1#Infobox. Only Nikkimaria argued against the Infobox; everybody else who commented was definitely in favour.
There was a previous, longer discussion back in 2014, at Talk:George_Formby/Archive_1#IB. That went back and forth without reaching a conclusion.
Then there was a further conclusion in 2014 at Talk:George_Formby/Archive_1#The_IB_trial,_continued, involving just four editors, which was closed saying "I think we have a consensus on this not to include an infobox on this page."
The 2022 conversation did not refer back to that decision, and I have to wonder whether ten years later it might not be reasonable to review it to see if that decision is still the consensus. --Gronk Oz (talk) 15:59, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Evedawn99, there's no rule either way about including or excluding infoboxes. Casual readers may get the impression it's standard on Wikipedia however, just because so many articles have them. What makes consensus? I would suggest an WP:RFC on the topic. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:48, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
What is this article having an infobox debate 90.214.152.236 (talk) 19:13, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
There is a discussion on Talk page of George Formby about merits of it having an Infobox. David notMD (talk) 20:55, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Well, since I am back here, George Formby is a featured article (FA). What may seem obvious or standard for much of the encyclopedia may become controversial when articles are taken through the rigorous process of making them into FAs. Editors weigh every aspect of an article during that process, taking nothing for granted. Now that it is an FA without an infobox, the editors who put in the hard work to get it that status get a little bit more leeway in trying to maintain the quality of the article. That usually means they get to ask for stronger or formal consensus for changes they disagree with, unlike what would be usual for most other articles. It's necessary because otherwise articles start to degrade really quickly and those editors would be helpless to stop it, in which case, editors would not want to do the hard work of making an FA in the first place. FA is an article made perfect as we can in a wiki; the tension comes from the antithetical nature of the two. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:24, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

This has descended into edit warring at the article, and clearly not moving toward consensus on the Talk page of the article. David notMD (talk) 08:50, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

The edit-warring is in the past, as the editor has been indefinitely blocked for some egregious personal attacks. Consensus building on the talk page can continue, as long as it takes. I would caution to anyone diving in that some of the most passionate wars on Wikipedia have been fought over infoboxes, and it remains designated a contentious topic by the arbitration committee. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:29, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Infobox usage: Civilian attack vs civil conflict for a massacre

Should the page Daxing Massacre use the civilian attack infobox as it stands right now or the civil conflict infobox, used in instances of other massacres? Where could I find usage tips/help on this? Artwhitemaster (talk) 09:23, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't think there is any guidance in choosing between these (note that the title "civilian attack" or "civil conflict" don't appear in the displayed text, so a reader doesn't know which you have chosen. Choose the one whose arguments better fit what you want to display. ColinFine (talk) 10:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Working on a new concept - a new term

Hello Wikipedians!

I am working on a new concept, a new term: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Syndicated_Development - as this is living and breathing new concept & old concept, I would welcome all of you to think how such a thinking would succeed in the future. So please let's revise this concept as we all see fit. This is just a seed. Anyone interested to get involved in evolving such concept? At some stage for sure I would like to arrive at a book, a crowsourced thinking, a crowdplan, but I am not a writer or have a huge following base :). I have researched this topic also with Claude 3 Opus, but he didn't find anything close to what I am thinking... Have a great day! Liviuolos (talk) 04:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

@Liviuolos: I know this is certainly not what you are hoping to hear, but that draft has no chance of being published on Wikipedia. Wikipedia's goal is simply to summarize what other sources have already said – it is not a platform which hosts new ideas. For an article about your concept to be published, other people would need to write about your concept themselves (without input from you), then the article would need to contain only material that could be found in those works, in summary style (not in essay form as the article currently is). I would suggest that spending any more effort on this draft will be a waste of your time, unfortunately. Tollens (talk) 05:01, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Thank you Tollens, what would you suggest to create such a collaborative effort? Which would be the right collaborative ideation platform? I have to start from somewhere :). Suggestions? Thanks! Liviuolos (talk) 05:04, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
I'm not aware of any collaborative non-fiction book-writing platforms. You might want to see if you can contact people who have written similar things (though I have no idea who those people might be). Tollens (talk) 05:15, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
You might try contacting publishing companies that have published books on similar/related subjects to see if they might be interested in publishing a book by you on this concept. Your draft might, suitably restructured, form the basis of an outline for the book. Writing such a book would, of course, be a major undertaking for you. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.241.39.117 (talk) 09:41, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Your draft is original research and totally inappropriate for an encyclopaedia. Theroadislong (talk) 10:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
I don't want to be original research, only now it is original, but I want it to be collaborative research. :). A crowdsourced plan. Liviuolos (talk) 02:54, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
@Liviuolos Judging by your username and the name of the author of the "forthcoming book" mentioned in your draft, you are trying to use Wikipedia for promotion, which is forbidden by policy. After a time, when the book has been published and reviewed it may become wikinotable and someone may choose to write an article here about it: that should preferably not be you, the author. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:37, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
And I suspect that content in your draft is taken directly from your (copyright protected) book. Putting content in a Wikipedia article would mean that you surrender the use of your written work to everyone, for any use. I advise asking for deletion of the draft by putting Db-author inside double curly brackets {{ }} at the top. David notMD (talk) 12:43, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Nothing copyrighted as this is something I am working on, I am trying to promote a concept that is dynamic, to be changed by many people, so exactly, it doesn't have to be by myself, or my own opinion at the end. A concept that is developed by many is more valuable than something developed by someone. I would rather give this to the world and evolve it into something good :). It's not for me to make money, it's not for me to make myself known. My name can be removed after all. I want just to start an idea. Anyone interested can join in and change it. That is the beauty of an evolving concept.
I actually thought that Wikipedia is the place to do it because of this debating and liberty to change things by the others. Maybe I am wrong... Liviuolos (talk) 19:40, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello, Liviuolos: I'm afraid that you are wrong in that respect, as others have said above. Wikipedia is neither for debating nor for publishing new ideas (Please see WP:NOT).
As for copyright: whenever you publish material in Wikipedia, you are explicitly agreeing to license it under a licence that will allow anybody to freely reproduce, reuse, or alter it, as long as they attribute it and (if they change it) release it under a compatible licence. You are of course free to publish it subsequently in a book; but you will not then be able to revoke the licence you have already granted on the material.
That might be what you intend; but if for example you are intending to get your work published by a commercial publisher, they may not be happy that you and they will have no control over the copyright. ColinFine (talk) 20:41, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
I am not interested in copyright, I am more thinking in a open source way. It's not about me. I am not interested so much in publishing, more in seeding a new idea, and like a tree it could grow into something really interesting, like a CrowdPlan, Crowd ideation platform, I have no clue.. Regarding a commercial publisher, maybe that's not the right approach. I would rather be a seeder than an author. So like in opensource, some projects start with an initial author, but end up in huge projects, some still stay with the original author forever. Liviuolos (talk) 03:08, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Liviuolos, I would think a blog would be an excellent way to expose your ideas and get collaborative comments from the public. Try Wordpress, Blogger, Medium, Tumblr, Drupal, or Joomla. More, at Category:Blog hosting services. Mathglot (talk) 02:29, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Thank you Mathglot (nice name BTW). Unfortunately it would take years to have reach. I don't have followers. Also, this would mean for me to adjust my thinking according to others. Instead I would like them to debate and establish the future thinking in a collaborative way. But you actually point out an important problem. We need something like Wikipedia, but for a new thinking, establishing the way of the future. So WikiFuture, WikiPlan or something similar, an ideation platform. Anyone knows an ideation global platform? Where things are done collaboratively? CrowdFuture / CrowdThinking ... thinking out loud...what about CrowdPlan? Liviuolos (talk) 02:34, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
@Liviuolos I don't think there are many "ideation global platforms," but I know a few like InnoCentive and OpenIDEO. You might want to check them out. Also, Wikipedia might not be the best place for this kind of information. Leoneix (talk) 04:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Experienced Teahouse hosts have made clear that your draft has no potential to become a Wikipedia article. I again recommend you delete the draft and look toward social media and the publication (self publication?) of your book to promote your concept. I see you have posted the same content on your LinkedIn account. David notMD (talk) 10:47, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Use of Infobox anthem on non-anthems?

Where can I find more info about the usage of Template:Infobox anthem on non-anthems like America the Beautiful? Is it allowed? Where would I find guidance on infobox usage when there isn't a talk page on the templates? Artwhitemaster (talk) 09:39, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I would say that is an anthem. The term can be used quite broadly. Shantavira|feed me 09:45, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello again, Artwhitemaster. As it happens, I think my answer to you in the previous section applies here too! --ColinFine (talk) 10:44, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
I definitely don't see an issue with use of the infobox itself. My only quibble would be with |prefix=Patriotic in the template arguments. (What does that even mean?) |prefix=Unofficial or something similar would seem to be more accurate, since the |prefix= field is documented as being an "Additional description of the anthem", and defaults to "National". Still, given that the song is not claimed to be a National or any other type of official anthem, it seems fine to use the infobox.
(Dixie (song) also uses {{Infobox anthem}}, and there again I would probably quibble only with |prefix=Unofficial national. As a New Yorker I don't see how "Dixie" is even an unofficial US anthem, so |prefix=Unofficial regional might better express the reality of the situation.) FeRDNYC (talk) 10:53, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Oh, also: Templates do of course have their own talk pages, the one for the infobox is Template talk:Infobox anthem. However, it's rarely useful to discuss anything other than technical issues in the Template talk space, and this is definitely not a technical issue. FeRDNYC (talk) 10:56, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

When ref is a source quoting Wikipedia among other "sources"

What is the established procedure in such cases? Im specifically talking about this page in Mendelian inheritance. InternetowyGołąb (talk) 20:02, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

@InternetowyGołąb These are generally disallowed per WP:CIRC Mach61 20:09, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, yes, I'm well aware of it, I specifically meant, what should we do next once we find such a reference? Is there an appropriate template or something? Assuming I cannot substitute it for verifiable source in resonable time. InternetowyGołąb (talk) 20:24, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello,
InternetowyGołąb. It seems to me that we need to look at each case carefully. An article that cites Wikipedia among other sources may be fine, as long as the information for which it is cited is derived from a source other than Wikipedia. (I haven't looked at this case carefully to see which).
Sometimes the tag {{circular reporting}} will be appropriate. ColinFine (talk) 20:29, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
No, that’s completely wrong. ‘circular reporting’ is to flag up a problem source that has used WP’s content but is being used as a reliable source. The only way to solve CIRC is to look at the original source, verify the second articles reflects is adequately and use it as the source in the second article.
InternetowyGołąb, the best course is to follow my first paragraph. If there is no source there, delete the CIRC reference and add a citation needed tag. Alternatively, see Template:Better source needed for a useful template - and leave an appropriate note to explain. - SchroCat (talk) 08:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
I don't know about "completely" wrong, though ColinFine did mistakenly name the wrong template. As the {{Circular reporting}} docs note:

If the source is clearly quoting or referencing Wikipedia, use {{Circular reference}} instead.

FeRDNYC (talk) 11:31, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

MEDIUM.com

Is Medium not a reliable source? LarryKaz (talk) 19:39, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

No. It's a blogging platform, and user-generated platforms are not considered reliable. 81.187.192.168 (talk) 19:42, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Please see WP:MEDIUM. CommissarDoggoTalk? 19:42, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for the information. LarryKaz (talk) 16:51, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Generally, no. However, I believe official medium sites of reliable publications can be considered reliable in some cases. For example, The Economist's medium platform. TLAtlak 14:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Policy on sources in linked article

Someone deleted text due to no source. However sources were in a linked article. Does wikipedia have a policy for this please? Hewer7 (talk) 10:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

@Hewer7 Hi and welcome to the Teahouse. Could you specify which page the deletion happened on? For general Wikipedia policy on sources, see WP:SOURCE. CanonNi (talk) 10:24, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
The deletion was in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-standard_cosmology on the section on Shockwave Cosmology. It was suggested that I should link the shockwave cosmology article to that page. I believe that page should mainly summarise a variety of non-standard cosmologies and that, where there is a linked page with sources, sources should not be needed on the non-standard cosmology page. I couldn't readily find a mention of such circumstances in WP:SOURCE. Hewer7 (talk) 10:36, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
A source needs to be present on all pages. If you wish to include a summary of Shockwave cosmology on Non-standard_cosmology, you can use {{main}}. CanonNi (talk) 11:14, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
where do you see the policy stating that sources are needed on every page. From the policy I see :"All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists, and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material." So this only states that material (not pages) must have sources - it does not state where the inline citations need to be placed. I believe that requiring sources on every page brings a number of problems: 1) it is onerous and inefficient and discourages linking relevant articles to pages: 2) the relevant article may include more sources, mentions of the article might only include one; 3) in a rapidly moving field such as cosmology sources may be updated in an article but be missed on linked pages. In any case it is easy for anyone to click on the link to see the article with all relevant sources. Hewer7 (talk) 11:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
"Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." in the section Responsibility for providing citations has made the issue very clear. CanonNi (talk) 11:50, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

How to try to change wikipedia policy

I wish to seek to change the wikipedia policy WP:SOURCE. Currently this states "Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." in the section Responsibility for providing citations. I propose amending this with the additional sentence "Sources may be contained in a linked article." 

  RATIONAL FOR THE PROPOSED CHANGE

I believe that requiring sources on every page brings a number of problems: 1) it is onerous and inefficient and discourages linking relevant articles to pages: 2) the relevant article may include more sources, mentions of the article might only include one, so anyone looking for useful information might not see it; 3) in a rapidly moving field sources may be updated in an article but that might be missed on linked pages. In any case it is easy for anyone to click on the link to see the article with all relevant sources. Hewer7 (talk) 13:12, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi, you could take a look at WP:VPP. TLAtlak 13:14, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
thanks Hewer7 (talk) 13:23, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
@Hewer7 I don't think your proposal will fly, because all articles are dynamic. You may feel that linked article A supports unsourced article B because you noticed today that it did so. However, someone may remove that source from article A tomorrow for whatever reason and now it doesn't. Readers can't be expected to click through to article A and notice the omission: they need to be able to verify article B content directly. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:05, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
OK. I understand. Thanks to all who have explained. Hewer7 (talk) 15:16, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Maps and places

If I were to make good 'building' article on wikipedia, what qualifies it? Another question is how do you add the the google maps thing when pinpointing the location? Thanks very much :) PeepeeDino (talk) 01:29, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @PeepeeDino, could you specify what you mean by a 'building article'? For your second question, you are probably referring to the OpenStreetMaps you see in articles, which can be made using templates in Wikipedia:Maplink. CanonNi (talk) 01:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
If you're wondering what would make a specific building worthy of an article, see Wikipedia:Notability. If you're looking specifically for advice on (or examples of) how to write a good-quality article about a notable building, I'd recommend consulting WikiProject Architecture. — Toast for Teddy (talk) 02:00, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
@PeepeeDino: For the location, use {{Coord}}, inside {{Infobox Building}} if used. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:30, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Suggested edits

Hi everyone,
My "suggested edits" tab is no longer working after logging in on another browser, even if I have everything selected and logged into the first browser. I cleared my cache as well.

"No suggested edits are available at this time. Please try again later."

Does anyone have a fix for this? AngelicGaze (talk) 15:09, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi AngelicGaze, welcome to the Teahouse. I also get that message in three different browsers at Special:Homepage. It's made by MediaWiki:Growthexperiments-homepage-suggestededits-error-title. The documentation at translatewiki:MediaWiki:Growthexperiments-homepage-suggestededits-error-title/qqq says: "Text to use in the title of a card shown to the user when an error occurs in loading data for the suggested edits module." I guess it's a recent error and there is nothing you can do until it's fixed. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:59, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for answering! AngelicGaze (talk) 16:07, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
@AngelicGaze: It sometimes works when I reload the page (F5 in Windows browsers) but it's very unstable. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:12, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Important notice

I signal this urgent question. Kind regards 14 novembre (talk) 15:21, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

You have already received an answer on that page. Please keep the conversation in one place to avoid duplication of effort. It is not urgent. Shantavira|feed me 15:41, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
@14 novembre and @Shantavira: Inviting people to respond to that discussion is fine. A duplication would be asking the same question here without providing a link to the original discussion. However, I agree that it is not "urgent". GoingBatty (talk) 16:23, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Recognized content template not working

I want to generate a recognized content list for WikiProject Apps, but the bot isn't working for some reason. TWOrantulaTM (enter the web) 15:39, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

@TrademarkedTWOrantula: Which bot isn't working? Have you posted on the bot's talk page or the bot owner's talk page? GoingBatty (talk) 16:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

When a page has already been viewed, any and all links to it go from blue to purple. I know it's not much to many, but it sometimes just annoys the hell out of me.

How can I make all the links blue again? Usersnipedname (talk) 16:15, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

@Usersnipedname That's your browser setting the colour, not Wikipedia. Try deleting your browser's history so it will "forget" which links you have already clicked through to. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
I'll try deleting my cookies first – I think that may be the problem. Usersnipedname (talk) 16:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
@Usersnipedname: Help:Link color might also have some suggestions for you. GoingBatty (talk) 16:39, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
@Usersnipedname: Try saving this in your CSS:
.mw-body-content a:link:visited {color: #3366CC;} /* internal wikilinks */
.mw-body-content a:link.extiw:visited { color: #3366CC; } /* interwiki links */
.mw-body-content a:link.external { color: #3366CC; } /* external links */
.mw-body-content a:visited {color: #3366CC;}
PrimeHunter (talk) 16:41, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Help Me!

How To Travel From Italy To France With A Fiat 8 HP Yahoofanon1867 (talk) 16:07, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

@Yahoofanon1867: The Teahouse is "Your go-to place for friendly help with using and editing Wikipedia". You could try the Wikipedia:Reference desk for questions that are not related to Wikipedia. Happy travelling! GoingBatty (talk) 16:32, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Or you could try Wikivoyage:Tourist office. --ColinFine (talk) 16:50, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

how do i make an article

how do i make an article Lemonkeishere (talk) 16:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello! I recommend checking out Help:Your first article. Remsense诉 16:51, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'll give you my standard response: If you were starting to learn engineering, would you make your first project to build a car from scratch? If you took up a musical instrument, would you arrange a public recital as the first thing you did? No, you would practise on less demanding projects while you learnt the craft.
I would very strongly advise you that you will save yourself a great deal of frustration and disappointment if you forget about creating a new article for several months, while you gradually learn about how Wikipedia works (and most particularly about Verifiability, reliable sources, and Neutral point of view) by making improvements to some of our six million existing articles..
Then, when you think you are ready, read your first article and go from there. ColinFine (talk) 16:52, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
To just make one right away, use the Article Wizard. However, I recommend teaching yourself some things about Wikipedia before you begin.
View ColinFine's reply for a more thorough explanation on this topic.
109.166.136.238 (talk) 17:29, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Article Reviewed

Hi where/how can one read the review of an article? Palisades1 (talk) 14:56, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

You have been an active editor for 10 years. Could you please be clearer in your question? At the simple level, when an AfC is Declined, the Reviewer states reason(s).David notMD (talk) 15:07, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Today I received the following notice: The page The Troubles (1920-1922) has been reviewed. Im not sure if I can access the review. Palisades1 (talk) 17:09, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
@Palisades1 The Troubles (1920–1922) is a redirect to The Troubles in Ulster (1920–1922). All that has happened is that, somewhat belatedly, the new pages patrol has got round to checking that the redirect is valid. There is no peer review involved, so nothing to see. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Got it thanks. Palisades1 (talk) 17:30, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

RouteMap template problems

I am having issues with the text formatting in my route map for this draft and on top of that, I am having trouble embedding it into my rail line info box template. I haven't got a clue what I am doing wrong. All help will be very much appreciated. :) matt. (talk) 15:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

@Magmamatt: Hi there! If you don't receive an answer here, you can view the documentation on Template:Routemap and ask at Template talk:Routemap if needed. Good luck with your draft? GoingBatty (talk) 16:30, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
I appreciate you quick response- it means a lot. I’ve referenced the document and i’ve also cross referenced with other RouteMap templates- to elaborate on the issue, my route map is all out of line, literally. again i appreciate the response! :-) matt. (talk) 18:28, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Peter the Great and the Gregorian/Julian calendar

I noticed that in Peter the Great's Wikipedia page is incorrectly stated that he introduced the Gregorian calendar in Russia. According to my history of Russia book (written in Dutch) by J.W. Bezemer, he did introduce the Julian calendar. I also asked ChatGPT about the matter, which told me the Gregorian calendar was only introduced in Russia in 1918. Mioche28 (talk) 18:22, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Mioche28. The best place to discuss this is Talk:Peter the Great, and there are some fairly recent comments about this issue on that page. Cullen328 (talk) 18:33, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
ChatGPT is unreliable. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 18:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello, Mioche28. However, in this case ChatGPT is right. See Old Style and New Style dates. Be bold and fix the error, IMO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cclowe (talk • contribs) 20:56, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Adding content to a reference template

Q: How do I add a citation to a reference list that has been created using the reflist template? Chris Lowe (talk) 21:03, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Chris Lowe, and welcome to the Teahouse. You should find the answer in Referencing for Beginners. You add the citation where it applies in the text, and as long as you've put it inside <ref> ... </ref> , the software will automatically put it in the reflist. (I'm not familiar with editing with the Visual Editor, but I believe it wraps the citation appropriately). ColinFine (talk) 21:32, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

How do you make an edit request?

I wanted tó Make an edit request on a extra protected page. Blackmamba31248 (talk) 15:41, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Use the article's talk page. Identify the sentence that you want changed. Specify what you want it changed to. DS (talk) 15:51, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
I did dó that, but then it was removed almost immedanyly, and í got a warning from an andiminastrptar on my talk page that sáid “ The exception to this rule is that you may request a specific change to an article on the talk page of that article or at this page. Please ensure that your requested edit complies with our neutral point of view and reliable sourcing policies, and if the edit is about a living person our policies on biographies of living people as well.
Any edits you make contrary to these rules are likely to be reverted, and repeated violations can lead to your being blocked from editing.” Blackmamba31248 (talk) 16:15, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
@Blackmamba31248 That was a general warning because you had contributed to a contentious topic, specifically the one discussed at WP:PIA. It didn't imply you had done anything wrong and the editor who added is experienced but not an administrator. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello, Blackmamba31248, and welcome to the Teahouse. As Mike Turnbull says, Selfstudier (who is a very experienced editor, but not an admin, by the way) put that message on your talk page, but it was not a warning directed at you.
Your edit at Talk:Mandatory Palestine was not very useful, because you neither specified precisely what change you were recommending to the article, nor gave a source for your claim; but I don't understand why Selfstudier removed your post there. ColinFine (talk) 16:47, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Because it was not an edit request and non EC editors are not permitted to do anything other than file edit requests, per WP:ARBECR. Selfstudier (talk) 16:56, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
See WP:EDITREQ for more details. CodeTalker (talk) 16:13, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
It is not necessary to use the formal template but it should be clear that it is an edit request (change X to Y) and sourced as necessary. Selfstudier (talk) 16:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
I mistundertood Blackmamba31248 (talk) 23:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Updating a Disambiguation page

Springfield Park (Jacksonville) was previously named Confederate Park and is still listed as such on the disambiguation page for Confederate Park. I am unsure what the best way is to update the disambiguation page to reflect the park and page's new name. I've looked at MOS:DAB, but I'm still unsure of the best practice in this particular scenario. – OdinintheNorth (talk) 00:06, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

As many people will still know it by its old name, it is probably prudent to simply leave the leave the entry on the disambig page intact . I have changed the link to point at the new title.  Velella  Velella Talk   00:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
@OdinintheNorth: You could update the dab page so the Jacksonville park entry is similar to the first line on the dab page, such as:
  • Confederate Park, a public park in Jacksonville, Florida, now known as Springfield Park
GoingBatty (talk) 03:37, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

First Article

Hi, Im contributing my first article, i used the sandbox to practice and found a very useful template to add to my artcle when i searched for "football Profile"

Im wrtiing an article about a sports person and when i looked in templates there was a template i added that had fields in it such as Name, Age, Weight, Height, Position, Current Club, Clubs, Appearances, Goals and Assists. But now ive come to write my article i cant find that same template when i search for it...any suggestions? ScouseMouse213 (talk) 03:41, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Are you looking for Template:Infobox football biography? Shashwat986 → talk 03:47, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Yes i was!!!!!! Thank you so much ScouseMouse213 (talk) 04:13, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Policy on article titles like "X and Y"

I remember reading a Wikipedia policy or perhaps an essay (it was definitely in WP: space) that contained the suggestion to limit article titles like "X and Y", as they often are signs of WP:NPOV issues or a WP:POVFORK. I am having trouble finding the policy/essay I am thinking of—can anyone point me in the right direction? I think one of the examples it gave was Islam and terrorism vs Islamic terrorism (with the latter being the preferred title for the article and the former as a redirect). Brusquedandelion (talk) 05:22, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Brusquedandelion. I believe you're looking for WP:AND. CanonNi (talk) 05:27, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Changing a bunch of links at once following a page move

The page TACL was recently moved to TACL (programming language) pursuant to a move discussion, with TACL itself being converted into a dab. Pretty much all of the links in mainspace that point to TACL should now be changed to look like [[TACL (programming language)|<previous display text>]]. There aren't that many pages which contain such a link, so it could feasibly be done manually, but would be quite tedious; is there some sort of tool I can use to quickly make all the changes at once? Ideally such a tool would allow me to...

  1. change the link such that the display text remains the same (rather than changing it to "TACL (programming language)"), even if the link previously had no explicit display text—so if it looks like [[TACL]]) currently, it should be changed to [[TACL (programming language)|TACL]].
  2. scope the changes to mainspace only (or at least let me manually select/deselect specific pages for inclusion).

Brusquedandelion (talk) 05:16, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Ah, it appears the page mover already did this, and their edit notice indicates they did so using DisamAssist. Leaving this here for posterity; don't require further replies (unless someone believes they have an alternate suggestion that's better than the aforementioned utility). Brusquedandelion (talk) 05:31, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Musical artist notability

Hi everyone. I discovered that an artist I listen to had a single chart for a week on Billboard under Independent Albums. Would this technically satisfy Note #2 of music-related notability listed here? Before I dig for any additional good sources, I want to make sure I'm not wasting my time. Thanks! 30Four (talk) 06:23, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

@30Four: I'd say go for it, but start in draft space. Charting on Billboard crosses a threshold of notability. Such an artist should also have some independent reliable source coverage as well. An unknown artist with no coverage typically wouldn't get on the chart. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Why was 2A02:C7C:9AFE:FE00:8883:EAE6:A711:9253 banned ??

can you please let me know what he did so I can avoid doing the same. 90.214.152.236 (talk) 13:28, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi, you can check his contributions. Most, if not all, of his edits were nonsense and he was blocked from editing certain pages which he vandalized. CanonNi (talk) 13:34, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
I see good that he was banned 90.214.152.236 (talk) 13:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Because article talk pages are only to be used for discussion of how to improve an article. See WP:TALK.Shantavira|feed me 13:41, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Also why does the my singing monsters page not have an islands tab?? 90.214.152.236 (talk) 13:40, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
What exactly do you mean by your "singing monsters page"? CanonNi (talk) 13:43, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
It's the name of the game "my singing monsters" which I really enjoy 🤗🤗 90.214.152.236 (talk) 13:45, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Most likely because the topic doesn't meet WP:NOTABILITY. CanonNi (talk) 13:50, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
My Singing Monsters does meet notability and has a page. If it doesn't have a table of islands, that may just be because no one has added one (which the user could address) or because it is deemed trivial information. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 16:04, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Ok I will make sure I can help wherever possible 90.214.152.236 (talk) 13:44, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Technically, the range User:2A02:C7C:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • robtex.com • Google) (which 2A02:C7C:9AFE:FE00:8883:EAE6:A711:9253 belongs to) is (partially) blocked, not banned. Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:08, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
personally I think he should be judging by his contributions page 90.214.152.236 (talk) 15:31, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Wait is he unmanned today?? 2A02:C7C:9AFE:FE00:482C:9ADF:B556:CFC2 (talk) 09:48, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
No, he's still partially blocked from editing certain pages. CanonNi (talk) 11:02, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
which ones ?? 90.214.152.236 (talk) 18:25, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Please see the top of the contributions page, it shows which pages they've been blocked from editing. Bongi Mbonambi, Deglet Nour, Denise Welch, Forest Gate Community School, Jefté, John F. Kennedy Jr., List of Super Smash Bros. series characters, Talk:World Book Day and Talk:British Post Office scandal CommissarDoggoTalk? 18:33, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Umm my ip adress changed to his 😫😫😫😫😫😫😫 2A02:C7C:9AFE:FE00:ADCB:676A:60A8:6A8C (talk) 09:21, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
IPv6 addresses can change. To solve this, you can create an account. CanonNi (talk) 09:24, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

How should Wikipedia treat factoids?

There is a discussion at Talk:1913 European Bandy Championships about a merge and the question has come up about wether the said bandy tournament ever happened. It is mentioned in some sources on sports history and there was actually a centennary celebration arranged in 2014 by the Federation of International Bandy, but apparently no mention of the tournament has been found in any sources from the time when it is supposed to have taken place. How should information like this be treated in Wikipedia? Should it just be erased or should the factoid be described as being a factoid with mentioning of what we actually may know about the historicity of the event?  ; As we see the human society is liquid, we are all just running with the flow (talk) 08:16, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello, As we see etc, and welcome to the Teahouse. As always, it is a matter of following the reliable sources. If several reliable sources talk about it, then it probably meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability even if some of those sources say it never happened!
We do have articles on hoaxes that meet the criteria: I see no prima facie reason why we should have an article on something that may or may not have happened. It should summarise what the sources say, both those that say it did and those that say it didn't.
What would not be acceptable is to say "I've looked for contemporary sources, and there don't seem to be any": that would be original research. But a reliable published source saying that would be acceptable. ColinFine (talk) 10:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Kingdom of Aksum oage

The fabrications on this page are appalling. The info is wrong such as an annexation and that Ge’ez was promoted in the 4th century which is also false. It also states that Greek was the official language prior which is false. The sources are poor and therefore the page is cobbled. An agenda driven page should not be allowed. A deliberate attempt to skew someone’s history should not be allowed Habesha212 (talk) 08:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Issues with a particular article should be discussed on its associated talk page, in this case, Talk:Kingdom of Aksum. Articles should be summarizing what independent reliable sources say about the topic. If those sources are in error, you should detail the specific errors on the talk page. 331dot (talk) 08:56, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Already discussed it on the talk page and the person is belligerent using he US printing office is not a source! Therefore what is the next step. Surely wikipedia should not be enabling distortions of history. Habesha212 (talk) 09:38, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the article talk page is much more likely to have subject experts than the Teahouse—I recommend continuing to attempt to establish consensus there, keeping in mind Wikipedia's content policies. Remsense诉 09:45, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
If sources are distorting history, you need to speak to them, not us. If you have sources to support your claims, please offer them on the talk page, so a consensus can be arrived as to if and how to incorporate them into the article. We can't just take your word here, nor can we just accept your claims. 331dot (talk) 09:51, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
I have already done so hence my response above. Clearly consensus can not arrive with a belligerent individual who's intent is to dislocate the history. Habesha212 (talk) 10:36, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello, Habesha212. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and disagreements (which very often occur) should be resolved cooperatively as far as possible: beware of making it a BATTLEGROUND.
If you are unable to reach consensus on the talk page, then dispute resolution will tell you further steps to take. But remember that assume good faith is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia editing, even if you believe another person is completely wrong. ColinFine (talk) 10:47, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
a number of people have called them up and they are aggressive Habesha212 (talk) 10:49, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Unsure if I have a COI

Hello! I am currently studying librarianship at uni and am volunteering at my local public library system to get experience. I am not employed by the library, it is just volunteering. I noticed that the library does not have a Wikipedia article despite us being on of the biggest in the state, and I am fairly certain there is enough info to write one. However, I am not sure if my volunteering (especially as it's for experience in an area I hope to eventually work in?) creates a conflict of interest. -- NotCharizard 🗨 08:10, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Yes, volunteer work is considered paid editing, especially if you intend to use that experience to obtain a paying job later by putting it on your resume. Compensation does not need to be money or anything tangible. 331dot (talk) 08:31, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
@Notcharizard You have, by my count, created 12 mainspace articles, so you are quite experienced. There is no shame to being a paid editor: the T&C just insist that you declare this and use the WP:AfC process for writing drafts related to your employer. Good luck. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:10, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Check Readiness of Draft

Hi, Can an editor review this draft and let me know what more would be needed to be eligible for publishing the page? Link: Draft:Mae Riley Lnvraman (talk) 09:23, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Lnvraman Hello. To get a review, click the "Submit your draft for review!" button in the box at the top of your draft. 331dot (talk) 09:48, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
@Lnvraman there are so many things wrong with your draft that it is difficult to know where to start! By policy, all biographies of living people must use inline citations for all facts likely to be challenged. Your draft is missing many such citations and the ones it does have are based on unreliable sources like IMDb and interviews. You need to use sources that meet these criteria to demonstrate she is wikinotable, which interviews don't do. And cut the ridiculous number of external links to a minimum. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:56, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for kind reply. This helps. Lnvraman (talk) 15:36, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

How to revive a Wikiproject?

I want to revive a Wikiproject, Wikiproject Assyria, but I don't know how. Any help and thoughts would be greatly appreciated! Surayeproject3 (talk) 15:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Surayeproject3, welcome to the Teahouse. There is guidance here. 57.140.16.57 (talk) 15:51, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Email as source

Hello, I am just wondering, if I emailed a person about personal info like their birthday, where they went to school, etc. and they responded could I use that as a source? Antny08 (talk) 15:57, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

No. Sources must be published and available to anyone to check. See WP:RS. Shantavira|feed me 16:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Please help me with Moneyview NPOV

The Moneyview article has been flagged as WP:SOAP and WP:NPOV, even though I have tried to use as many independent sources, and put the content in as unbiased a manner as possible. Could someone else also help edit the article to be more in line with Wikipedia's content policies? Additionally, if someone could point out what I'm doing wrong, that'll help me with other articles in the future as well. Shashwat986 → talk 03:38, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Shashwal986. The article tells us basically what Moneyview wants the world to know. Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 09:21, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello, Shashwat986. Fintech is bullshit business jargon. I know that it isn't technology for cutting the fins off of sharks and has something to do with shuffling money around to make money but it is bad writing in an encyclopedia. Explain to readers what the heck it actually is. currently operates in the space of is more bullshit business jargon for "does business as" or something like that. Moneyview onboarded is another example of bullshit business jargon. What normal human being would actually use "onboarded" in a normal sentence? I hope that it does not resemble waterboarding. The final sentence The objective of this round of funding is to scale the core credit business, and also expand Moneyview's product portfolio with additional services such as digital bank accounts, insurance, and wealth management solutions sounds like something that belongs on the company's website or social media pages, not in a neutrally written encyclopedia article about the company. As for these five words scale the core credit business, that's just more bullshit business jargon. Try writing and editing like a real human being instead of a paid drone. Cullen328 (talk) 10:36, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Shashwat986 You have had an account for more than 10 years, but it appears that this is your first effort at creating an article. If not PAID or COI, then state that on your Talk page, with an explanation as to how you became aware of Moneyview and decided to create this article, and an editor can remove that tag. As to the other tags, the majority of the article as it now exists describes routine financial history and a table of rounds of funding. None of that makes the company notable. I recommend deleting all that, and see what you have left. I agree with Cullen328 about the jargon-y phrasing. Last but very important, it appears that you copied content from Draft:Moneyview, which was created in November 2023, without acknowledgement!!! Explain. David notMD (talk) 11:22, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, you guys. I think that gives me a lot more perspective. I'll definitely address the points raised above in the article and/or the talk page, but I'll give a brief below:
  • I'm not paid to write this article. I was going through other fintech orgs in India, and noticed a distinct lack of articles on digital lending apps. Since I'm a little more familiar with Moneyview, I planned to start here, and go into other popular digital lending apps like KreditBee, EarlySalary, CapitalFloat and others after finishing this article.
  • I've been trying to follow the language of other Indian companies like Cred (company) to give me a sense of how to write, but I see that the language is incorrect for an encyclopedia, and I'll take that into account. I also completely missed "scale the core credit business" and other bullshit business jargon, and I'll remove all such stuff.
  • I did take content from Draft:Moneyview, but I assumed that would be okay, since it's the same article. The references on that page were a lot less neutral, so I didn't take all the unsourced/biased content available in that draft. I should definitely have mentioned that I'm using the Draft's content, on their talk page, and my not doing that is definitely not okay.
I've really not created an article on WP since 2015, so there's definitely quite a lot for me to improve on. Shashwat986 → talk 17:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Editor reverting and making threats

How do I avoid having an editor continuing to revert my updates on a page, then threaten to have my account blocked simply because he does not agree with the information being presented? The information he continues to delete has been on this page for at least a decade. The theme song has it's own Wikipedia page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Fall_Guy&action=history Snap-OnToolGuy (talk) 02:25, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Snap-OnToolGuy. It seems that you have been adding original research to the article, and when Smuckola warned you on your user page, you deleted the warning. Could you clarify what's going on? CanonNi (talk) 02:33, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
I added information that was previously in the article. He keeps reverting it and threatened to have me blocked. He refused to be civil about it, and appears to be nothing more than a bully and refuses to help a newcomer understand the policies. Look through his contributions, he has a serious attitude and apparently doesn't know how to properly communicate with people. Snap-OnToolGuy (talk) 02:37, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
"The information you added wasn't previously in the article and is unsourced. Could you provide a revision ID to prove that the information was previously in the article? Further more, he did warn you properly on your user page by saying "I specifically refrained from adding this warning to your talk page on your first violation because I saw your edit history with many WP:RSes, which indicates that you absolutely know better. This edit of yours is WP:OR which is a cardinal violation of what an encyclopedia is, so users can be blocked for that. Your blatant disregard of my link to the WP:OR policy in both of my edit summaries (today and long ago with the original removal), and your obvious misuse of WP:OWN, are triply wrong." CanonNi (talk) 02:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
From November, 2023.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Fall_Guy&diff=prev&oldid=1185586572 Snap-OnToolGuy (talk) 02:47, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
The revision you provided was also unsourced and its information was later removed. CanonNi (talk) 02:51, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Says it right here, https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2023/11/the-fall-guy-first-look-ryan-gosling-emily-blunt; "The Fall Guy TV series was the brainchild of Battlestar Galactica and Magnum, P.I. creator Glen Larson, and ran for five seasons on CBS from 1981-86. Majors starred as Colt Seavers and Heather Thomas was Jody Banks, a stuntwoman who joins him in tracking down escaped criminals. The pair frequently use their stunt skills to secure their targets. It had one of the more memorable theme songs in TV history, sung by Majors himself, in which he crooned about being “the unknown stuntman, who made Eastwood look so fine.” (Blake Shelton performs a modernized cover version for the film." Snap-OnToolGuy (talk) 02:59, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Why haven't you included the source then? CanonNi (talk) 03:00, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
It's included right here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unknown_Stuntman Snap-OnToolGuy (talk) 03:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
That's a different article. Could you include the source on the article you're trying to add information to? WP:PROVEIT has made it very clear. CanonNi (talk) 03:10, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
I did, and what if it gets reverted again?
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Fall_Guy&diff=prev&oldid=1215435547 Snap-OnToolGuy (talk) 03:18, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
It most likely won't. If it does, you can see WP:DISPUTE and try to resolve the issue. CanonNi (talk) 03:20, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. So another question, why is this allowed but my mine additions wasn't? There are no references to any of this info.
"Home media[edit source]
On June 5, 2007, 20th Century Fox released the first season of The Fall Guy on DVD in Region 1. As with a number of other TV shows of the era released on DVD, the six-disc set contains extensive music substitutions due to copyright reasons (as well as completely editing out the sequences with actor/singer Paul Williams, in the pilot). Due to poor sales, whether the remaining seasons will be released is unknown.[citation needed]
Season one was released on DVD in Region 2 in Germany and the UK. Season two has also been released in Region 2, in Germany on November 28, 2008, and in the UK on February 16, 2009." Snap-OnToolGuy (talk) 03:22, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
It has a {{citation needed}} tag, and you can help by adding a reliable source. CanonNi (talk) 03:33, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
So could I have used the "citation needed" tag on the other paragraph that stated, "In season one, the montage of scenes was borrowed from the films Dirty Mary, Crazy Larry, The Stunt Man, Silver Streak, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, The Hot Rock, Our Man Flint, The Poseidon Adventure, Speedway, and Sky Riders. Exclusively for the season-one opening narration, Singin' in the Rain, The Blue Max, Race with the Devil, and Moving Violation were used. Also included is archival footage from stunt shows made in the 1930s." Snap-OnToolGuy (talk) 03:42, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello, Snap-OnToolGuy. WP:Verifiability clearly says that Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source, so anybody is entitled to remove unsourced material, and it should not be readded without a source (The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material).
However, there is a lot of unsourced material in Wikipedia, especially in older articles, and a lot of editors are loth to go removing it in quantity. Ideally, when we find unsourced material, we would look for sources and cite them if we can find them, and otherwise remove the material; but we are all volunteers who spend our time how we wish, and most of us do not do that often. However, we are always entitled to remove it.
A half-way house, which is not ideal, but is better than nothing, is to tag it with {{citation needed}}: again, ideally that would not stay there for long before somebody attended to it, but in practice it often does stay there for a very long time. ColinFine (talk) 09:15, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for the info, and providing it in a professional and civil manner. This same editor has now deleted a whole article and changed the main article five times since I asked that question. The "citation needed" tag was erased, and there are still no references on that particular paragraph. Definitely has a "do as I say do, and not as I do" attitude. Snap-OnToolGuy (talk) 17:45, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Relying too much on one source?

Hi, I'm currently trying to update the subsection for Data structure on SEG-Y, and since its a standard, my main source is the document for the standard. Is it ok if that is my only citation for the section? Also, the diagram in that subsection needs to be updated, there's a similar (updated) diagram in the source, can I use that, or should I make my own? Thanks! Variouspotatoes (talk) 16:41, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Variouspotatoes, and welcome to the Teahouse. I think that for internal details like that the primary source would be acceptable. However, I think there is a question of proportion: how much detail should an encyclopaedia article go into about this? I think it should give only an overview of the structure, and refer the reader to the source for more detail. ColinFine (talk) 17:18, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Got it, thanks! In my eyes, the current "Data Structure" section reads more like history, so I was planning to move most of it to the History section. Then I was going to add an overview of the standard in the "Data Structure" section. Does that plan make sense? Thanks! Variouspotatoes (talk) 17:48, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

hello there

I'm new to wikipedia and I need some help I'm looking to add my name and my picture to wikipedia I really need your help I Alsop have articles that have been published that I will like t add Geraldoquinones (talk) 18:30, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello Geraldoquinones, and welcome to Wikipedia. It sounds like you might be trying to write an article about yourself. Creating an autobiography is strongly discouraged – please see our guideline on writing autobiographies. If you create such an article, it may be deleted. Please understand that this is an encyclopedia and not a personal web space or social networking site. If you'd like to start working on content that isn't about yourself, then check out Help:Getting Started ---- D'n'B-t -- 19:21, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Help

I installed this: {{subst:iusc|User:MPGuy2824/MoveToDraft.js}} on my common.js but it apparently doesn't work. Can anyone help? Thank you very much 14 novembre (talk) 19:16, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

@14 novembre: You're supposed to be pasting the code into your common.js as it appears when viewing User:MPGuy2824/MoveToDraft, as it deliberately contains markup to prevent substitution from working on the documentation page. Victor Schmidt (talk) 19:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
@Victor Schmidt thanks for your answer, but isn't that what I did? Did I make a mistake? Thank you so much 14 novembre (talk) 19:45, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Suggestion: You could try using Enterprisey's script installer. Once you have it enabled, you can go back to the script's page and click Install. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:51, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
@Tenryuu Thanks for your answer. I did so, but it still doesn't work. Could you kindly check User:14 novembre/common.js to see what's wrong? Kind regards. 14 novembre (talk) 22:02, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
@14 novembre Maybe try deleting lines 2 and 3 of your common.js NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 23:05, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
+1 I just installed it and I can see the new link right underneath "Move". @14 novembre: What skin are you using? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:07, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Problem with a script

I have most certainly installed it, but it doesn't work. Any suggestions? Kind regards 14 novembre (talk) 22:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

On Creating a draft

I've been working today on a draft for a youtuber known as blackpenredpen link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Blackpenredpen and I'm looking for reliable sources. Also if an experienced editor were able to take a look at the article and give me feedback I'd very much appreciated it.

Thanks Geordie.Obrien (talk) 02:38, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Geordie.Obrien. You can see Help:Introduction to referencing with VisualEditor/1 for a beginner's guide on referencing with the visual editor. CanonNi (talk) 02:49, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello, Geordie.Obrien, and welcome to the Teahouse. I don't want to sound unwelcoming, but to be honest - you're the one who wants to write this article, so it is your job to find the sources, and if you can't, to give up on the article. (That's why finding the sources should be absolutely the first task in creating a new article). You query might stimulate somebody here to help you, but unless it is an interest of theirs, why should they, if you can't find them? That's not a service that Teahouse hosts normally provide. --ColinFine (talk) 09:20, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Don't worry I fully understand, I'm quite new here so I'm still learning how everything works, thanks for the patience. Geordie.Obrien (talk) 23:26, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Slow Visual Editor

Is it just me or is the Visual Editor extremely slow when handling large pages? I was trying to add a link to Geneva in the Switzerland article, and the page was unresponsive for 10 seconds after I clicked edit, and when I clicked link on Geneva the page just stopped responding once and for all. Not the only time this happened Pksois23 (talk) 09:49, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Ok I managed to figure out the Switzerland article but it was still very slow Pksois23 (talk) 09:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello @Pksois23 This usually happen only if your network
suddenly becomes slower during when you opened the editor. So the only solution for such problem, is to exit the editor or refresh the page, then check your network before you proceed again else you will keep getting forever load.
Hope this helps? Feel free to ask if you got more concern.
Thisasia  (Talk) 11:19, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
I tried again going into Soviet Union and adding a link (not saving the edit) and it still just loaded forever. I checked my network on speedtest and its at 270 Mbps download/61 Mbps upload which I think is fast enough to avoid any issue? Pksois23 (talk) 12:29, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
@Pksois23 Neither of those articles is slower than usual for me and I've got a much slower speedtest. It is a disadvantage of the VE that it seems to be slow even if you click to edit just a section of the article. In the source editor, things always seem much faster and by using Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets and checking the "Add an edit link for the lead section of a page" box you can even edit just the lead. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:47, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Got it thank you I guess I will stick with the source editor when I can Pksois23 (talk) 23:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello @Pksois23 sorry for the late reply, since your network isn't the problem then I suggest maybe you should use a different browser, or perhaps clearing your browser data and log in again. Because pretty sure that this is definitely not a Wikipedia site issue.
Thisasia  (Talk) 18:07, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Public Parbatia Thakurbari post

Dear Editorial Team,

I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to submit an application for the creation of a Wikipedia page dedicated to "Parbatia Thakurbari," an important cultural and historical site.

"Parbatia Thakurbari" holds significant cultural and historical value in our region, and its documentation on Wikipedia would serve as a valuable resource for individuals interested in learning about its heritage, architecture, and contributions to the community.

Here are some key points that I believe should be included in the Wikipedia page:

1. Introduction: A brief overview of Parbatia Thakurbari, highlighting its historical significance and cultural relevance.

2. History: Detailed information about the history of Parbatia Thakurbari, including its founding, notable events, and any significant figures associated with it.

3. Architecture: Description of the architectural features of Parbatia Thakurbari, including its design elements, construction materials, and any unique characteristics.

4. Cultural Significance: Exploration of the cultural significance of Parbatia Thakurbari within the local community and its broader impact on the region's cultural landscape.

5. Current Status: Updates on the current status of Parbatia Thakurbari, including any restoration efforts, ongoing activities, or cultural events hosted at the site.

6. References: Citations to reliable sources, including books, articles, and official websites, to ensure the accuracy and verifiability of the information presented on the Wikipedia page.

I am willing to collaborate with other editors and contribute to the development of this page, providing additional information and supporting evidence as needed.

Thank you for considering my application. I believe that creating a Wikipedia page for Parbatia Thakurbari will not only enrich the platform's content but also contribute to the preservation and promotion of our cultural heritage.

Best regards, Uttam Kr. Mahato (Uttam Kumar) Uttam Kr. Mahato (Uttam Kumar) (talk) 16:35, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Please see WP:REQUEST. CommissarDoggoTalk? 16:37, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello, Uttam Kumar, and welcome to the Teahouse. Is this different from Jorasanko Thakur Bari? Perhaps you could add to that article. ColinFine (talk) 17:24, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
@Uttam Kr. Mahato (Uttam Kumar): You have already written Draft:Parbatia Thakurbari and submitted it for review by the Articles for Creation team. The review is pending; please be patient and wait for the comments of a reviewer. Deor (talk) 00:01, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Tracking visits to articles?

Hi, is there any way to track visits to a particular article--including those I have edited (like The NEXT Museum - Wikipedia) and those I have not edited? Thank you LoveElectronicLiterature (talk) 23:17, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

@LoveElectronicLiterature: I'm not sure what you mean by "track", but if you want to see the number of times a page has been visited over a period of time, go to its history page and click the link "Pageviews" near the top of the page. Deor (talk) 23:47, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
You can also use things such as XTools and the Traffic Report. I don't know whether most people have access to it or whether it's something I enabled in the preferences, but if you go onto a page and click the "Page" dropdown at the top right of the page then you can go to "Analysis" to see the various tools, including the two I suggested. CommissarDoggoTalk? 00:14, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Yes, thank you!!! @CommissarDoggo@Deor LoveElectronicLiterature (talk) 01:01, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

ReCaptcha keeps refreshing

I’m not sure if its a mistake on my part, im trying to publish my changes to Plymouth, Wisconsin but after i filled in the recaptcha and press publish, the recaptcha refreshes so i have to fill in the box again this keeps on repeating for me so I cant actually publish it DouglasGraham01010 (talk) 17:36, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello @DouglasGraham01010 you may have to check if you are filling the recaptcha properly as the recaptcha characters sometimes won't be clear enough to understand immediately. Note that in as much as you fill in an inaccurate recaptcha codd, the page will surely refresh and your changes won't publish. But i suppose the recaptcha will give you an error message?
Thisasia  (Talk) 17:56, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks so much for your help, turns out the autocapitalisation of my first letter prevented me from publishing. Quite a wee bit of a rookie error, DouglasGraham01010 (talk) 01:09, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

how many Mexicans are sent back to Mexico when they arrive illegally in the USA?

Please answer this question! 158.222.91.254 (talk) 00:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to a page that offers "help with using and editing Wikipedia". Do you have a question about editing or otherwise using Wikipedia? -- Hoary (talk) 01:22, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
@Hoary: For questions that aren't related to Wikipedia, you could try asking at the Wikipedia:Reference desk. GoingBatty (talk) 04:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Correct redirect category template to use for a slight rewording of a disambiguated title

Suppose there is a page with the title X (Y) because X is an ambiguous term and (Y) is a disambiguating noun. Suppose I create redirects from Y-adj X (where Y-adj is the adjectival form of Y, if needed), X Y, or X (function word) Y to X (Y). What redirect category template should I use for this in conjunction with {{Redirect category shell}}? The closest I can think of that definitely seems appropriate is {{R from modification}}, but I'm not sure if perhaps another category is more appropriate. {{R from alternative punctuation}} seems like it might also be appropriate but I'm not sure if the parentheses used for disambiguated titles are consider punctuation for the purposes of this category? Any advice would be appreciated.

More concrete examples:

  1. Bob painter → Bob (painter)
  2. Painter Bob → Bob (painter)
  3. Bob the painter → Bob (painter)

What might be the correct category in each of these cases? Brusquedandelion (talk) 17:18, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

You might need Template:R from ambiguous sort name for some of these, or Template:R from name with title. In general I think you're stuck with Template:R from modification, since everything else is more specific. -- asilvering (talk) 06:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Adding myself to a wiki edu class

I was in a wiki edu class last fall. I am in another this semester, so I cannot figure out how to add myself to the new class using my already established wiki ID WikiTikiTavi63 (talk) 23:02, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

@WikiTikiTavi63 If you are currently enrolled in a WikiEdu class and require assistance, it's advisable to reach out to your instructor for guidance. If you're unable to contact them or need further assistance with WikiEdu you can try reaching out to the people involved in Wiki Education Foundation for assistance by clicking on the provided link. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_Education_Foundation#People_involved Leoneix (talk) 07:13, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

DOB issue - Don Spencer OAM

Hello - there is an ongoing issue with accuracy on my listing and I have been told to write here in the hope you can solve it. My dob has been wrong for a long time and I now, someone on the Wiki team has changed it so it shows I am born between 1936-1937 and my age is between 86-88. My dob is 22 March 1937. I am 87. I have offered to send in a photo of my passport with me holding it to prove it is correct. The last person trying to help didn't know if this would be allowed. Can someone please resolve this as I get interviewed regularly on radio and they also state the wrong information as they take it from Wikipedia. Can you please let me know the simplest method. Thank you ... Don DONALDRSPENCER (talk) 23:45, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

@DONALDRSPENCER, welcome to the Teahouse! Technically, going off of the statistics you provided here, your date of birth is not incorrect in the article, since your actual date of birth is between 1936 and 1937 and your age is between 86 to 88. However, should you wish to fix it, you cannot use your own legal documents to prove it. Wikipedia is based off of reliable, independent sources, and if you want to add a piece of information to that article, you are going to have to provide one of those. If you find a reliable, independent source, please make an edit request on the talk page of the article in question because you have a conflict of interest. It may also help Teahouse hosts if you tell us what article you're talking about, since all of the names listed on Donald Spencer are not born between 1936–1937. Let us know if you have any further questions ‍ Relativity 23:55, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Never mind about the title of the article— looks like it's Don Spencer ‍ Relativity 00:00, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
@DONALDRSPENCER@David Tornheim Don, it appears you have a personal website. IMO, the simplest solution is that you add your full DOB on this page:[16]. Or if the DOB already is somewhere on that website, please point us to it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Where can I find the basic area to find articles to help?

I swear that there was a spot I could go to find a bunch o' articles that just needed some help and to be reviewed. Where can I find this page? Thank you so much. Fastpaier (talk) 00:16, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Is this what you're thinking of? BaduFerreira (talk) 00:40, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
@Fastpaier: Or maybe Special:Homepage. Click your username at top to find it or a link to it, depending on settings at the bottom of Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-personal. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:13, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_1219&oldid=1216048029"