This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Teahouse. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.
The more I get involved in Wiki editing and read Teahouse and Help Desk replies from senior editors, the more I’m curious if somewhere there’s a collection of stories about intriguing editing situations they’ve been been involved in over the years. I can just picture the old-timers sitting around a campfire under the stars sharing memorable tales.
Thank you, @Gråbergs Gråa Sång … you’ve certainly expanded my to-do list exponentially! I delved into your first suggestion, WP:HOAXLIST, and found myself alternately in laughter and horror that so many hoaxes had actually gotten through Wikipedia’s security posts — even if they amount to only something like 1% of all posts. That’s 1% too many.
@Augnablik You might find some of the 'hairiest tales' being dewscribed during the week-long discussion process when an editor applies to become an administrator. Quite ofte,n the applicants are asked to describe difficult or challenging editing situations they have found themselves having to deal with. You can read mine here, and you simply have to change the url by replacing the username of the editor you're interested in hearing more from.
Sometimes the questioners tease out fascinating issues the applicant has encountered - sometimes dealing with them well; other times not. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:59, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
My already long reading list provided by @Gråbergs Gråa Sång has expanded hugely with your suggestion to read “some of the ‘hairiest tales’ … during the week-long discussion process when an editor applies to become an administrator."
Actually, Nick, this will probably surprise you but it's the second time that I’ve read your write-up for your exam week. The first was a few months ago when, as has occurred with some frequency, you gave me a particularly helpful answer to one of my questions in the Teahouse. I don’t remember what that question was, but I do remember the deep resonance I felt. So I decided to find out more about you. When I went to your user page, I eventually found a link to your write-up.
Reading it made me feel an even closer bond with you and the other senior editors as well, even those I hadn’t yet connected with, as I became aware of some of the behind-the-scenes work you’ve all had to carry on. I think it must have been through reading your write-up that I felt an unusually strong sense of commitment to the Wikipedia mission and of belonging in its editor community that brought me to a much further point than no accumulation of editor points could have.
@Augnablik What a kind thing to say! Thank you. I'm glad my and others efforts here have inspired you. That's precisely what we need in order to ensure a good supply of younger enthusiastic and committed editors. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 16:09, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
"Younger" editors? If only you knew, Nick! 😂 Well, your other two adjectives fit me ("enthusiastic" and "committed").
Now, thanks to you and several others, I have my own private collection of memorable editing tales. Wish someone would do a great service and weave them together for the enjoyment of all involved in Wiki editing, from the badgeless to those with the largest badge collection. Augnablik (talk) 10:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
@Gråbergs Gråa Sång, you’ve contributed to this thread several times now, and you seem to be an editor who might have quite a badge collection in addition to memorable editing tales … how about you taking this project ahead? Augnablik (talk) 10:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
I edit pages like WP:PRESS 24 quite a bit, I also add items to "This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:" when I find them (see Talk:Recession for an example). With those and the other pages, I think the area is reasonably covered (with some bonus-content on my userpage). We also have a, thankfully small, number of WP-articles about WP-content, see Category:Wikipedia content. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:04, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Thing is, how to get everything available into one space rather than spread out in many different places in Wikidom. Augnablik (talk) 05:19, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
The only problem with eating popcorn while reading Village Stocks, @Schwede66, is likelihood of choking on it while laughing, crying, "oh-no-ing," and the like! These are all real events, like "indefinitely blockedWP co-founder and head honcho Jimbo"? Augnablik (talk) 09:54, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
I looked through the reference you linked , @ 94.2.67.173, and there found a stunning revelation: that it’s permissible to cite material from the personal website of a living person writing about himself. This is fantastic to learn!
I thought only third-party material could be used in Wiki articles.
I have found an appropriate image to use for an infobox, but the image was taken about 50 years prior than when the election was held. Is it still encyclopedic to use, as the difference is a 70 year old to a college student. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 14:40, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
What article, and what image? If it seems encyclopedic, be bold. Make sure there is no copyright before uploading, though.
Hello, I would like some help with creating an account. Trying to do so, I get that my address is blocked for a vandalism reasons, which I don't understand how or why. First time trying to create and acc. Error says to contact any admin, but for that I have to have and account. How do I solve this?
Tried creating an acc through https://accounts.wmflabs.org, but did not receive email for confirmation, and on submission it says I need to confirm email, before an acc is created.
Tried to make an appeal for block, but on appeal site it says "We were not able to locate your block. Please click the button below to correct the information in your appeal." And I filled everything.
Tried wiki IRC help chat, no luck too.
And this point it seems I'm going in circles. 46.249.160.41 (talk) 08:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
"Jerusalem is the capital of the occupied city of Palestine, known by other names as Beit al-Maqdis, the City of Peace, and Elia. The city of Jerusalem is one of the oldest cities in the world, and occupies a prominent position among the cities of the world; for its religious importance to Muslims. In Jerusalem, the graves are organized as if they were the lines of the history of the city and the book of its soil. All of them passed through here. Jerusalem accepts from it. Let it pass through it and read its evidences in all the languages of the people of the land." [emphasis added by me]
I do not believe that describing Jerusalem in this way is encyclopedic, as the status of Jerusalem is disputed. Is an image description subject to Wikipedia's rules? JohnR1Roberts (talk) 11:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi JohnR1Roberts Your link is for MediaViewer, a feature which can display file descriptions which are not displayed in articles using the image (unless you click the image to activate MediaViewer). In this case the image and description is not stored at Wikipedia but commons:File:المسجد الاقصى.jpg. The uploader made many such "descriptions" which are both inappropriate and irrelevant to the specific images. I will report it to Commons and expect it handled within a day. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Note that in general, you or anybody may edit the description of a file in Commons. But given the contentious area, I think PrimeHunter's action of raising it at the Commons Help Desk is a good choice. ColinFine (talk) 17:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
I would like to request help from someone experienced on managing WP:PAID. I have seen that Daniel K. Winn may have been created in that manner. It has been edited (additions of information) by a few editors, 2-3 IPs and a user-editor. The IP-editors (1 and 2) are without almost any other history except for this article and the user-editor is now blocked indefinitely for advertising or promotion. Although there is a paid disclosure, I think there is a serious issue of WP:COIRESPONSE, relying only "on the sources offered by the paid editor". I have also seen that the official website of Daniel K. Winn's gallery uses this article as an official channel, together in the list with other social media platforms (see my comment). Since I am not experienced in handing these issues, any help will be appreciated! Chiserc (talk) 18:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Hello, Chiserc. I see that you tagged the article for undisclosed paid editing. But PitViper2000 correctly disclosed their paid editing status in December, 2020, and correctly used the Articles for Creation process. The Winn article was accepted in July, 2021. The editor was blocked much later, in December, 2022, for misconduct unrelated to the Winn article. Can you please explain why you chose that tag, which does not seem accurate to me? Cullen328 (talk) 22:25, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Hello Cullen328. I understand that this tag may not be suitable, and others (e.g., advertising or neutrality issues) may be more. My concern is that the whole article is probably made through paid contributors (this user and IPs). Although there may not be a direct WP:COI through the AFC, https://www.winnslavin.com/ seems to use the article for promo as covert advertising by listing it as a social media-like platform and, for that, WP:PAID tag may be still relevant. I might be coming across as harsher than intended, but I was thinking of proposing the article for deletion for this purpose. However, I would like to have an opinion on that before proceeding. In any case, thank you for the help! Chiserc (talk) 23:05, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Chiserc, the editor complied with WP:PAID and complied with the requirement to use Articles for Creation. The article was accepted by an independent volunteer reviewer. The AFC process was set up largely for that reason, to allow editors with a conflict of interest to create drafts of new articles that are then reviewed by uninvolved volunteers. The reviewer who accepted the draft is highly experienced, still active and has never been blocked. The fact that PitViper2000 was blocked a year and a half later for misconduct unrelated to this article is irrelevant.
As for the art gallery linking to the article from their website, there is nothing improper about that, and it is commonplace. I don't know why you bring that up. In conclusion, I see no basis for a prod, and would oppose it. On the other hand, if you believe that editors with a conflict of interest have improperly influenced the article, then edit the article to remove the inappropriate material. Cullen328 (talk) 01:26, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
To add to what Cullen said, a paid editor or a COI editor may make minor corrections to an article (spelling, grammar, numbers, names, dates), revert obvious vandalism, and add citations to reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Generally anything more substantive than that should be handled via edit requests on the talk page, although sometimes a paid editor can make a substantive change without the article requiring a 'paid' or 'coi' template if the edit complies with NPOV. Putting a paid or COI template in the article should be done only if you feel that there are some problematic things that would need review, and if you do that, you should start a discussion on the talk page. A template without a corresponding discussion is subject to removal by anyone. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:33, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Barry Devorzon
I am Barry Devorzon and after viewing my wikipedia page, I found the need to edit it to correct some of the information presented and to add to the information relating to my career. I published the new and more comprehensive Bio but the original bio and information comes up when I search on Barry Devorzon instead of the updated bio I created and published. How do I get the latest update I published to replace the original unedited Bio? Bdevorzon (talk) 18:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi there! I'm not sure why the new version isn't showing, but you might also want to see WP:COI before making or editing pages of yourself or your company.
Bdevorzon, because you have a conflict of interest about yourself, you shouldn't attempt to edit that article. You can make minor corrections such as spelling or grammar corrections. You can revert obvious vandalism. You can add citations to reliable sources that are independent of you. But anything more substantive than that, you should propose on the the talk page Talk:Barry De Vorzon. You may preface your proposal using the template {{Edit COI}} to cause your request to be listed on a category page monitored by some editors. Your request should be in the form "change X to Y" or "add X after Y", or "remove X", and you need to explain why the change is needed, and you must cite reliable sources that are independent of you to support your request. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:43, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
I am wondering if anyone can point me towards the conventions for citing WWII draft cards. These can be accessed alongside census records on websites such as Ancestry.com and FamilySearch. While census records have a citation template, I have been unable to locate one for draft cards. The cards can verify important biographical information such as complete names, citizenship status, and places of birth. RegalZ8790 (talk) 18:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
It depends on what source you are using. According to WP:RSP, the Wikipedia community considers ancestry.com and familysearch.com as unreliable and they shouldn't be used, although WP:RSP clarifies that in cases where these sites offer primary-source documents like draft cards and birth certificates, these could be used, but subject to WP:PRIMARY or WP:BLPPRIMARY, and possibly WP:OR.
Every page I visit has an 'edit' link to the right of each section heading, and I make heavy use of this feature.
However, User talk:Bennett1203 doesn't have these. It just has 'subscribe' links. I've looked at the page source and can't see anything amiss. Does anyone know why the section edit links aren't there? ~Anachronist (talk) 18:23, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
That talk page isn't protected. Even if it was, I'm an admin, so page protection wouldn't affect that section editing feature. I can edit the whole page (and I did just now to accept a block appeal), but I can't edit an individual section. I thought maybe there was an unbalanced tag somewhere, but I don't see anything like that. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Aha! It was hidden inside the {{box-header}} template. Thanks. I am mystified why that template would need to suppress section editing, however. It's still useful to edit sections that are inside the box. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:56, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Grabup, a deletion nomination is considered a clearcut recommendation to delete, unless you state clearly that it is a procedural nomination. That might be because an IP editor said that the article should be deleted, and you are nominating on their behalf. Otherwise, there is no reason to say Delete in the discussion of your own nomination. Other editors may well find that irritating. Cullen328 (talk) 06:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Cullen328, I think your clarification may have had the opposite effect here. I don't want to add to that by telling them what to do again but you may wish to check the AFD. They did make a procedural nomination, though they didn't use those exact words. They should be clarifying the nom to make clear which parts were said by the other editor, but it is perfectly fine for them to participate further. Best, — Usedtobecool☎️20:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Sure, but that doesn't help with the fact that Grabup has now got the wrong idea, which many inform their practice in the future and may even get shared to others. — Usedtobecool☎️01:14, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Template dagger malfunctioning
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
(edit conflict) Hi Anoopspeaks. This is probably something you should ask about at Template talk:Dagger. If there's an "error" (and I'm not sure there is), it probably has to do with Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 May 21#Template:Dag. The reason I think this might not be an error is because notifications are often added to templates, files, pages, etc. when they're being discussed for possible deletion/merging/redirecting. The notification is appearing wherever the "dagger" is being used to let others know about the discussion. The notification will go away once the discussion has been closed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:23, 22 May 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.
Non-reversing mirrors, aka True Mirrors(r)
Hi, thanks for letting me share:
Extended content
I am the producer of the first production, optically correct non-reversing mirror, sold under my registered trademark True Mirror(R). I've been doing this since 1992. There is a wiki page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-reversing_mirror) that discusses this, but with nothing about what it's like to experience one. It used to have links to some press articles about my journey with it, but those have been removed. The page is generally just the physics of this kind of mirror.
I've discovered significant psychological elements within this kind of mirror after exhibiting to more than 25,000 people over the years. The main concept I discovered is that "our eyes communicate correctly when they look into this mirror, and they don't in reverse". Most faces become expression poor within seconds after making eye contact, dramatically unlike how the person uses their face to communicate to everyone else. The entire experience of (nearly) every living person includes looking into their eyes in reverse, and without them expressing correctly. The impacts are unknowable both in scale and depth, because any dynamic feedback loop with information distortion will be unpredictable. But it's happening for everyone, over a lifetime no less: Ubiquitous, unchallenged, unconscious and solitary. We are the only ones who know ourselves this way. Most importantly, our best expressions, such as our genuine smile, are impossible to maintain for more than a few seconds because the eyes are not communicating why we are smiling, causing it to feel non-genuine, causing it to stop.
The contrast when people meet their eyes without being reversed can be quite remarkable. Smiles in particular look and feel correct, because its possible to accurately read the reason why within one's unreversed eyes, which causes them to last a long time, even grow into laughter sometimes. Other emotions and thoughts are likewise reflected correctly, allowing a more continuous sense of self. There are currently more than 750 videos on social media showing this effect of having one's eyes working properly to one's self. It can be a significant difference, and in many cases, quite positive differences. The reason:It's the same dynamic feedback loop, but without information distortion, so the expression looks, feels and expresses naturally. They become accurate and ongoing, creating long lived expressions that grow instead of fade. I believe that this can be good for our mental health in a number of ways, however there is no research yet.
My request is that someone help author entries into Wikipedia that reflect some of this, as I have struck out because it's original research not published, and because i have a commercial interest in it, it would be self-promoting.
Any ideas or network connections you could suggest on how to bring some of this new information to Wikipedia? I sincerely believe its compelling and worth it.
Speaking as someone with decades of experience as a Britannica editor, there isn’t anything wrong with what you intend to add so long as it is backed by reliable independent sources. The more sources you cite, generally speaking, the better. Obviously, on Wikipedia you should be prepared for a challenge to your addition, and for this reason I would suggest enlisting the help of colleagues to register and participate in consensus discussions. Hope this helps. Twinkmunt (talk) 11:15, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
I disagree with "the more sources you cite, generally speaking, the better". See WP:CITEKILL.
The entire purpose of a citation in Wikipedia is to verify one or more pieces of information in an article. If a reliable independent source verifies a piece of information, then adding a second source for the same information is irrelevant clutter.
If a citation is not a reliable source, then it doesn't verify any information, and two, five, or twenty more unreliable sources still don't. The same applies to non-independent sources, unless the information they are verifying is uncontroversial factual information, as explained in WP:SPS. ColinFine (talk) 17:18, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Having adequate sources is the best way to demonstrate subject notability that would warrant inclusion in an encyclopedic work. Twinkmunt (talk) 22:52, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia's notability guidelines don't really apply to in-article content as explained in WP:NNC; moreover, the quality of the sources is really what matters when it comes to Wikipedia regardless of whether you're talking about WP:NOTABILITY or WP:VERIFICATION. So, more sources doesn't necessarily mean "better sourcing"; it can just as easily mean WP:OVERKILL. If the OP, Jxwalter, is asking about how to create a stand-alone article about what he posted above, then demonstrating that multiple secondary reliable sources have significantly covered the subject matter will most certainly be useful in establishing the subject's Wikipedia notability; if, on the other hand, the OP just wants to add some of the above content to an already existing article, then a single secondary reliable source verifying the content can be sufficient as long as there are no WP:UNDUE or other policy-/guideline-relaed issues, or there's a not consensus in favor of not including the content. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:21, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Please ignore the striked responses, they were made by a now-blocked troll. Enlisting colleagues is also bad advice, as that would constitute meatpuppetry which might result in all involved users being blocked.
Italian Serie B 2023 Playoff Final. The match was played between Cagliari and Bari. The regulations did not include extra time and penalties, so if it ended in a draw Bari would have been declared Winners of the Playoffs and Promoted to Serie A. The match was tied 0-0 until the 90+5' when Cagliari scored an incredible goal to give them the lead and the victory. Cagliari Calcio (talk) 10:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse. If you have a suggestion on how to improve an article, the best place to do so is on the talk page of that article. You must include a reliable source for this information. Please see WP:RS. Shantavira|feed me10:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
There are inflamed passions regarding the article.
There is one side who wants the whole article dominated by Israel as if Israel was the only country to be at the contest. Whereas I think that belongs squarely in the sub article in Israel at the contest.
The RFC on the talk page was a good move. It will bring outside opinions in, allowing the dispute to be resolved. I would say that the best way to move forward is to let the RFC resolve and respect the decision it comes to. You can make your voice heard in the RFC and try to convince people to take your side, but be careful not to bludgeon the discussion. If the RFC fails to solve the dispute, we can figure things out from there, but we should let it run its course for now. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:33, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
In a spreadsheet it is possible to lock cells, such as a header, so when you scroll deep into a table, the title information for what you are seeing is still there. Is this a function or feature that I could be adding to tables?
I get lost scrolling up and down for example in an artist discography table where I'm trying to see the chart positions in different countries. It's made more difficult as some OP have the US in early columns, some at the end, etc. CaptHugh (talk) 13:57, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
...and I reverted myself based on your second comment. Better if it's a user setting than to force it on people. 15:57, 22 May 2024 (UTC) ~Anachronist (talk) 15:57, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
@CaptHugh See also the Gadget in your personal Preferences to "Make headers of tables display as long as the table is in view" (It's the 5th option up from the bottom on this page.) Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:27, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
I have been indefinitely blocked on another wiki. Can I still contribute here?
Hey @Non so che cosa mettere:. Yes. Each project is it's own island, and sanctions on one do not normally affect another. The important thing is to learn from whatever resulted in a block on the Italian Wikipedia. GMGtalk14:50, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
@NightWolf1223: Yes, I'm aware. But with the exception of disruption that results in a global lock, which requires at least two indefinite blocks on two different projects, blocks on one project do not extend to others. GMGtalk14:56, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Wait a minute. If they were blocked on it.wiki for evading 14 novembre's block, then doesn't that mean they are 14 novembre? And given that 14 novembre is also blocked here on en.wiki, aren't they now equally block-evading here as well? Or have I missed something? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:22, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
I believe that's just the Italian date unless I'm mistaken. The account in question seems to be Calicanto2023. GMGtalk15:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
See 14 novembre's user page, where on one of their userboxes it states that one of their previous usernames was Calicanto2023. That is the account blocked on ItWiki.
Additionally, if you check their global accounts, the block states both Calicanto2023 and 14 novembre as the offending accounts.
Greetings. I'm looking into whether it would be wise to ask for a particular website to be removed from the local spam blacklist. Specifically, I'm trying to see how many attempts to add links to this site have been blocked, and whether those attempts seem abusive.
The Special:Log/spamblacklist page looks like it should be useful - it looks like you can put "foo" into the Title field it would show you all the attempts to add links to foo.com. However, this never works. Is there a right way to use this page? Or is there a different page that would be more useful? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:18, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi Clayoquot. In the field "Target (title or User:username for user)", "title" means the wiki page somebody tried to edit. Special:Log/spamblacklist has no way to search for the links users tried to add. I don't know whether any external tools can do it. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Thank you PrimeHunter and Usedtobecool. I'm surprised there isn't an easy and obvious way to do this. It sounds more difficult than I have time for at this point. Thank you for saving me from futzing around further with Special:Log. Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:34, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
An Important Message
My real name is Akhinesh and there are 8 account exist in Wikipedia and 7 of them are created by me. I don't think I created this account User:Akhinesh it was created on 2017 and I think this account is not my first account on Wikipedia because I don't remember. My name is rare and I created several accounts in Wikipedia because I created my first account and lost password so I decided to create another account and did the same thing again several times that's why I have more accounts on Wikipedia. This is not Sockpuppetry, While I created few account's using different usernames and I'm not pretending as someone on Wikipedia.
Please check all these 7 accounts and leave a message on my talk page, if I did something unacceptable
i have a last question, is it possible to get a User lifetime ban?
Please investigate, I'm so sad today and worried getting ban on Wikipedia.
Hello, Akhinesh212. I am going to assume that what you say is true. Here is my recommendation. Use only one account in the future. Place a little note on the user pages of the other accounts you opened saying "I now edit as Akhinesh212." And then forget about those other accounts. Make sure your password is secure and you can't lose it, and make sure that you have a long term email address associated with the account. Everything will then be OK. Cullen328 (talk) 18:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
i have suffered from many strokes several years ago and have recovered as best as i can
i am now trying to help with editing and creating new articles on wiki to help everyone else in the world but some of articles are getting removed due to spelling and grammar issues even though on the talk page of the new article i have asked for help with making it look better
spelling and grammar have not been my strong suits especially after my strokes
what can i do because i am getting tired of my pages getting removed
Hello, Briannemartindale. I have looked at two of your articles that were turned into drafts, and the problems were not spelling and grammar. The problems were that the articles in question failed to make a convincing case that the people were notable in Wikipedia's definition. I suggest that you develop drafts carefully, taking time to develop them until notability is well-referenced and indisputable, and the articles cleaned up. Then, submit your drafts through the Articles for Creation process. That should result in less frustration. Cullen328 (talk) 18:24, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
I only see one note on your user page that mentions language or grammar. However, I did learn that you are trying to translate articles from French to English even though you state i dont speak much french. This is a really bad idea. You should not be translating any articles unless you are highly proficient in both languages. Please stop. Cullen328 (talk) 18:47, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
i am only translating basic information to get others a starting point on a person of royalty or nobility
if you want to help improve my articles you can and the help would be much appreciated and would be more helpful and productive for everyone than to remove the articles
Hi @Briannemartindale. As far as I can tell none of your articles have been removed, they were instead moved to draft as they were not ready for the project.
@Briannemartindale but Wikipedia has notability requirements, and if you are creating articles about people who are not notable, then they likely cannot be improved. No amount of editing can confer notability; only significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources can. So far in your two articles, neither person has any hint of notability. Qcne(talk)19:41, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
that is your opinion and each person's opinion is going to be different and i respect that and i will try and get the article moved forward anyway thanks Briannemartindale (talk) 20:12, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Briannemartindale, you're wrong. Your opinion or my opinion about notability don't matter a bit. See also notability is not inherited. Wikipedia has objective standards to determine notability and these standards are not based on anyone's personal opinion, but by community consensus.
I recommend you STOP creating articles about non-notable subjects expecting others to improve them, because that is not possible to do if a subject isn't notable. You need to demonstrate first that the subject is notable before anyone would consider letting the article exist in main space, let alone improving them. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi Briannemartindale. Are you aware of Wikipedia:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility? The members of that particular WikiProject seem to be interested in things that you're interested in; so, they might be good people to ask for assistance when it comes to types of articles you're trying to create. I've posted on that WikiProject's talk page to see if any of its members might be willing to sort of mentor you and help you with the issues you've been having. In the meantime, I suggest that perhaps you refrain in creating any more new articles directly in the mainspace, but instead work on improving those which have been draftified. While it's true that Wikipedia wants us to be WP:BOLD when we edit (including when it comes to creating new articles), creating too many one or two sentence ones with inadequate sourcing or unclear claims of Wikipedia notability isn't a good idea; moreover, subsequently posting on the article's talk asking others to improve things for you is most likely not going to get many favorable responses. It's not a good sign when the articles you're creating are constantly being draftified because that pretty much always has to do with WP:NOTABILITY and not spelling and grammar. Maybe also take a look at Help:Your first article and Help:Referencing for beginners for some tips on how to write articles and how to add citations to articles. Anyway, continue to work on your drafts and submit them for review to Wikipedia: Articles for creation when you think they're ready. Perhaps once you've established a better track record for creating proper articles, you might find the process to be a little less bumpy. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:44, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
i created a page for him the page got removed even though in the talks i asked for help about sources and references and for people to help and contribute back on sunday
today i find out that someone else yesterday created a page for him while my page was still in review
i need help to fix this problem and how to keep this from happening again
Briannemartindale, this is a collaborative project and anyone can work on any topic at any time. There is no such thing as "stolen work" in the sense that you are using that term. Please read WP:OWNERSHIP. To prevent it from happening again, write well referenced content that establishes notability. Cullen328 (talk) 19:32, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
In addition to the other replies, since this is a collaborative project, see what you can merge from your draft into the article. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Articles are similar and the mainspace one's first revision does not look like a page creation. Kansas Bear may have opened OP's article to improve it before it got draftified and published the improved version after the draftification. WP:HISTMERGE would be best if so. When you've only written one article so far, it hurts more when first revision goes to someone else than after you've created dozen or a hundred. So, I wouldn't be too hard on OP. Best, — Usedtobecool☎️20:02, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Actually, I was unaware that Briannemartindale had a draft of Walter I of Brienne. I took the French version[4], translated(what I could), then started adding references. I did the same for Guy of Bar-sur-Seine. Judging from this list, there are plenty of Briennes. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
It's just an unlikely coincidence, then. Briannemartindale, I've been involved in these sorts of incidents once or twice myself. It happens. Stay around long enough, and you may end up doing this to another editor too. I would recommend you just redirect the draft to the existing article and move on. Best, — Usedtobecool☎️01:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Short answer: you can't prevent someone else from creating an article while your article is in draft status. Just because you were first (to create a draft) does not give you ownership over the topic; Wikipedia topics/articles have no owners.
If you have content that is missing from the article in mainspace (the published article), add it. If you have (good) sources/citations that are missing, add those. If you think your wording about a particular point of the topic is better than the wording currently in the published version, change the wording. Just remember that you're offering your changes to all other interested Wikipedia editors; if they are good changes, they are likely to stay, but if someone doesn't agree that the changes are better, you'll probably need to discuss that (on the article's Talk page), and see if a majority of (interested) editors agree with you. Or to see if you can reach a good compromise. -- John Broughton(♫♫)23:56, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
@GoodHue291: If you think that it may not be notable, you should look for more sources. If you find enough sources, it is notable, and you should add those sources to the article. If you can't find enough sources, nominate the page for deletion. Make sure you don't just use Google and you also check Google News, Google Books, and Google Scholar. If you do not have time to check, you can tag the page with Template:Notability, which will add it to the category of articles that might not be notable so that someone else can eventually come and check the article. I hope this helps. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Hello, @GoodHue291. I have tagged the article as needing more sources and possibly not meeting the criteria for notability; I have also tagged the sole reference with {{failed verification}}, since it doesn't actually mention Noman or the position he is said to have resigned from.
The ideal course of action is to look for sources, and either add them or nominate the article for deletion (WP:AFD) if they can't be found. But this is not an insignificant task, so people often don't do it, but just do a "drive-by tagging", as I have done - which at least alerts a reader to the fact that there are doubts about the article. ColinFine (talk) 21:41, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Actually, the source does mention Marwan Abdullah Abdulwahab Noman, in the last sentence under "Exchange of Diplomatic Representation". It doesn't mention his resigning, though. Deor (talk) 23:17, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Oops, I see that the current source was added after you posted the message above. Nonetheless, it verifies only that he was appointed as ambassador in 2007. Deor (talk) 23:24, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
In a recent Teahouse discussion, a resource entitled Wikipedia: Biographies of living persons was suggested to an editor by another (presumably senior) editor. I took a look at that resource and there found a stunning piece of information: that it's okay to cite material from a personal website of a living person writing about himself.
It this is so, it beautifully solves a dilemma I've been facing about how to cite a few facts about a living person that no third party seems to have published. But it's been so hammered into us that only third-party material can be used that I keep hoping my eyes weren't playing tricks on me!.
Thank you , @Cremastra … you beat Colin to verify what I was asking about. But now a follow-up question: why is such a gem as this permission so buried in Wikipedia’s editorial caverns? I might never have come across it had I not followed up in curiosity about a resource suggested to another editor. Augnablik (talk) 01:58, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Does this count as a conflict of interest?
I was looking through recent edits and found an IP user that has only made edits about universities in their country. When I did a whois lookup on the IP address it showed as belonging to a government agency that helps universities communicate and collaborate on research. I know that if the editor worked for the universities it would be a COI but I'm unsure about a government agency that was made to work with universities. Does this count as a conflict of interest and if they're doing it as part of their job does it count as paid editing? RomeshKubajali (talk) 23:04, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
In my opinion, that depends on the type of edit. If what is being added are things like university size, university history, or major degree programs, that wouldn't seem to me to be a conflict of interest. If, on the other hand, what is being added is text like "The university has major research collaborations with X, on the topic of Y, and with Z, on the topic of A, and is looking to collaborate with other universities regarding B, C, and D", then yes, that looks like a COI violation. -- John Broughton(♫♫)00:09, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
i keep getting my articles moved to drafts even with sources/ references
my other issue is that it is the same few people are doing this while everyone else is being very helpful and nice to me and is helping to edit and contribute to my articles
i have picked up criticism from the same few people and they are removing my articles to drafts repeatedly but everyone else is being nice to me and is helping me out
i would like to get this behavior stopped but i don't know how
@Briannemartindale: Welcome to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1225. I see a fair share of seasoned editors have done you a kindness and drafitied content you started as a way for you to improve on them outside of the main articlespace. I strongly suggest you take a break from creating new articles and work on existing articles, as well as take some glances at featured and good articles to see what passes for acceptable content. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:15, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
i need help from others and not be drafitied as you say
i need help editing the articles and yet the people drafting and criticsing my articles are not helping me edit anything
i don't know how to get this all to stop without me leaving completely
No one is obligated to help you edit drafts that contain (at the moment) subpar material. Creating articles is one of the hardest things an editor can do on Wikipedia, and the drafting process is a proposed optional pathway where experienced editors can offer constructive criticism. You get this to stop by taking the time to figure out what makes an article acceptable on Wikipedia, and gradually apply those concepts to your drafts, such as verifiability, one of the core concepts of this online encyclopedia. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:37, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the articles are drafted because they are not presently in an acceptable state for the encyclopedia. You are asking for help, but the criticism you describe is other editors trying to help you. Remsense诉04:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
@Briannemartindale. You keep refering to these things as my articles, but there's really nothing about them that's yours per se as explained in WP:OWN. Whatever you post on Wikipedia is only 100% yours up until you click the "Publish changes" button; once you do that you're irrevocably agreeing to allow others to edit it, even perhaps in ways that you mightn't like. The fact that the content we edit and create isn't really ours is probably one of the hardest things to get used to on Wikipedia, but it's something that we all have to come to terms with. The only thing that really matters is whether our edits are in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If we want more control and freedom, then we probably should look for WP:ALTERNATIVEs that allow us to create what we want to create when we want to create. The hope is that through collaborative editing and adherence to relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, articles will be slowly improved over time; an article does, however, need a foundation to build on, and this foundation is Wikipedia notability. So, it matters not how well written an article is if its foundation is found to be lacking. Draftifying articles is an alternative to nominating an article for deletion; it recognizes there might be some potential for a future article but its foundation is just too wobbly at the moment to survive an WP:AFD discussion. Draftifying gives those interested a chance to strengthen the foundation and more clearly establish Wikipedia notability. As I mentioned in another of your Teahouse questions, creating one or two sentences stubs with questionable sourcing, no clear claim of Wikipedia notabilty and then asking others to fill in the gaps (i.e. establish the subject's Wikipedia notability) on the article's talk is not a good approach to take when trying to create articles; so, unless you slow down a bit and change your tack, you're likely going to find the articles you're creating starting to end up being nominated for deletion instead of being draftified. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:09, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Best way to handle articles with controversial names
Hello,
I have been infrequently working on improving documentation of the 1989 mass expulsion event that occurred in Bulgaria and is little-known.
The issue is that the name itself of this event is controversial. The most commonly accepted name is "Big Excursion", which is a euphemistic name which originally employed officially by the perpetrators (the Bulgarian Communist Party). You will often find the event referred to by this name and this name only. This is a bit like if "Final Solution" was the most commonly use name to describe the Holocaust. Unsurprisingly, the name "Big Excursion" is frequently rejected by academics and victims/their descendants, though I have not seen concrete alternatives proposed in what I have read, just rejection of that name.
In light of that, I have titled the article Big Excursion so that it actually pops up when someone searches for it, but the primary name used in the article and info box is the purely descriptive name of "1989 forced migration". Within the article, I have used "Big Excursion" in quotes and explained that decision in a terminology section.
Would anyone please provide feedback on this choice and link to any relevant Wikipedia policies? Additionally can anyone link to other articles with controversial names for comparison? In some articles, it seems some of the names are outright rejected whereas in others, a descriptive name is use in line with "1989 forced migration" (e.g. January 6 United States Capitol attack). I intend to make another push at revising the article soon enough, so would greatly appreciate feedback that I could integrate into that. Pietrus1 (talk) 00:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Article titles is the guideline on article-names. The "§Use commonly recognizable names" portion says in general to use "the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable, English-language sources)". So if there is only one widely used name, that's the article name. If there is scholarly commentary that the name is inappropriate, that's good article content. But if there's no specific alternative name that's at least somewhat-widely used, we might be stuck with the poor one. DMacks (talk) 03:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Pietrus1, if "Big Excursion" [...] is a euphemistic name which originally employed officially by the perpetrators, well, "ethnic cleansing" is a name that originated as a euphemism employed by the perps. All things being equal, Wikipedia should avoid euphemism, but one reason to tolerate (perhaps within scare quotes) a euphemistically intended term such as "ethnic cleansing" is that a good understanding of its actual reference can fairly soon outweigh any effect of its euphemistic intention. -- Hoary (talk) 04:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
To give another example: "The Troubles" is also both a euphemism and the common name for that period of conflict, and it wouldn't really make sense to call that article anything else. -- D'n'B-t -- 18:31, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Both of these are good examples and make sense. I suppose I am just particularly peeved by this name given that it is referring to crimes against humanity with a propaganda term. We also already had a user modify the page to something not using such a term. Pietrus1 (talk) 21:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
The most important thing isn't the big page title, but what you write in the article. Your first sentence could include both, perhaps sounding something like "The Big Excursion was the 1989 forced migration of Bulgarian Muslims..." You could also consider Forced migration of Bulgarian Muslims as a title. The policy permits multiple options, and you will have to use your best judgment to find the one that works best for the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:37, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Well actually before I forget I had another question (to prevent myself from creating another thread), is there a webpage here where you can do your test edits? I'm not talking about a sandbox it's another thing on here but I forget what it is. GoodHue291 (talk) 21:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi, GoodHue291. I'm not sure what you mean: there are actually two different things called sandbox: the Wikipedia sandbox (WP:SANDBOX) which anybody can use, and you can practise editing, but it gets cleared regularly (every day I think, but I'm not sure).
There's also your personal sandbox User:GoodHue291/sandbox , which I see you have found. You can edit and put anything in as long as it is in accordance with WP:UPYES, and as long as it doesn't break those conditions, nobody will delete it. It is typically used for developing articles, but you can use it for other purposes, including practising editing.
I'm sure we do. I started editing about 18 years ago and encountered an editor in his 80s, so if he's still around, he'd be centenarian. It's a small population. I'm only a, um, hexenarian? myself, probably about Cullen328's age based on his userpage picture. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:12, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Incidentally, GoodHue291, it's a good idea to give a new message thread a title that, unlike "Question", is informative and doesn't duplicate that of an earlier thread on the same page. -- Hoary (talk) 22:45, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
You can see the difference if you click on the threads. The thread or a header, should be the main topic of your question, followed by a message about it. I wasn't sure what to put as a header, so I went with question, because it's the main basis of my writing in the beggining. GoodHue291 (talk) 18:43, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Editing
Asked and answered at the Help desk
Hi!
I tried to edit the site of Avri Levitan, because everything that is noted there sounds like AI and he wanted me to change that. But everytime I edit something, it is gone the next day. May somebody help me with that? Musethica.as (talk) 08:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi! Not sure if the Teahouse is the correct place to ask this, but I'm trying to add the link 4D N = 1 supergravity into Main:Template
link to Supergravity#4D N = 1 SUGRA, but for some reason its not working. Other links seem to work but this one does not. The error is: Error: no page names specified (help).
Let’s say I want to cite the fact that a character in a cartoon TV show lived in a treehouse. I understand the best method is to cite a news article or press release advertising this, but I can’t find a source mentioning this specific fact.
In absence of this, what’s the best way to do it? Several episodes of the show display it on-screen. Can I cite one of the episodes or is that considered original research? Jaggywar (talk) 14:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
I need some help in identifying which areas sounds like advertising and promotion for this draft. I have read it multiple times but I can't identify where it sounds like an advertisement.
Hi @Shengyongchoo: it's promotional, because it's mostly the organisation telling the world about itself and what it does, which is pretty much the definition of promotion (see WP:YESPROMO). Wikipedia articles should instead be mainly based on what independent and reliable secondary sources have said about a subject and what makes it noteworthy. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:01, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
You start out by stating "According to EQuest Education Group..." Tell us what a newspaper or TV journalist has to say about the institution. Has EQuest or anyone on its staff won important awards? If so, write about that. EQuest probably wants to promote itself, so don't rely on data provided by EQuest. Karenthewriter (talk) 12:48, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Hello, Shengyongcnoo. Please note that 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) 17:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
What happens next?
I just published an article and I have made several edits on it. I was wondering what the next step is to finding out if it is approved. Thank you!
(edit conflict) Hi Ryanpaynter1 - you don't appear to have published an article. The only edits I can see are to your userpage. Perhaps you were trying to create a draft at Articles for Creation. That said, if what you've currently got on userpage were submitted, I can assure you that would not be approved. I'd take a look at WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY for starters, and especially take note that user generated sources like IMDb and Wikipedia are never considered reliable. -- D'n'B-t -- 17:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Hello, Ryanpaynter1, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia.
I'm afraid that, like many people who come here for the purpose of promotion, you have fundamentally misunderstood what Wikipedia is.
Please see autobiography to understand why writing about yourself on Wikipedia is very strongly discouraged.
In addition, you have written your attempted autobiography on your user page, which is not part of the encyclopaedia, and not an appropriate place to write an article.
If there were any point, I would consider moving your draft to Draft:Ryan Paynter, but I'm afriad that (like most new editors who attempt the challenging task of writing an article before they have learnt the necessary skills) you have written it backwards, and I doubt that much of it is salvageable. ColinFine (talk) 17:23, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Colin, thank you so much for responding. I am new to this and wasn’t sure how to proceed. I am mentioned in articles o. This site, but wasn’t sure how to be tagged (blue). Should I delete the article? Or put it in a different location? Thank you for your advice and time. 2603:6082:CF00:80:FC63:6013:95E:A928 (talk) 17:28, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
As a further reply, expanding on what DandelionandBurdock and I have said: If you meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability - roughly, that there is enough reliably published material (not user-generated sites such as iMDB and Wikipedia) that is wholly independent of you (not written, published, commissioned, or based on the words of, you or your associates) to base an article on - then there could be an article about you. As we have both said, you are strongly discouraged from writing it yourself.
Whoever wrote such an article, it would not belong to you, would not be controlled by you, may be edited by almost anybody in the world except you and your associates, and should be based almost entirely on what those independent sources said about you, not on what you or your associates say or want to say. Please see an article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. ColinFine (talk) 17:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for the information. I was attempting to link my name to the Deadline articles and movie article as some of the other fellow actors are linked. I will delete and let the process play out. I appreciate your input. Best. Ryanpaynter1 (talk) 17:52, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Disputed Article
Hello. Is it possible to get a review of this disputed article for Harry L. Williams? I have made edits to my previous edits in an attempt to comply, and those have been further edited. The most recent comment was from OrangeMike who said, "This reads like it was written by Williams' press agent." I reached out to him a few weeks ago to ask what triggered his comment but have not heard back. I am working on behalf of Williams' current employer: Thurgood Marshall College Fund. I've disclosed all related information as a paid subcontractor. I'm not disagreeing, I simply want to get this article in good standing. I can guess what might be causing the issues, but an objective review would really help define this for me if at all possible. Thank you! Sigridtx (talk) 20:55, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Hello, Sigridtx The sentence Under his guidance, TMCF has created innovative partnerships, grown organizational stability, and advanced HBCU bipartisan support is promotional, hagiographic and entirely unreferenced. Who says that? You? That is the sort of thing that OrangeMike was probably referring to. Cullen328 (talk) 21:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Thank you Cullen328. I actually had that sentence flagged myself and appreciate you confirming that, as well as your response. Sigridtx (talk) 12:20, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Hello, Sigridtx. What Cullen328 says -- though he has only pointed out one particularly egregious sentence. That aside, most of the references are to this or that among the subject's various employers. (Two are to pieces written by Williams himself.) Indeed, a quick look doesn't show me a single disinterested source. Where are the reliable, disinterested sources? (Do any exist?) -- Hoary (talk) 00:43, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Thank you Hoary, I totally understand. A couple of quick things if you don't mind. In navigating through trying to get this compliant, I reviewed articles for similar subjects representing the Black college community (like Williams). In more than one article their employers' websites were cited but the article wasn't "flagged." Also, if I cite an online article Williams authored in context of "Williams writes opinion-editorials on issues such as higher education... (as stated in the article), can I not cite those? Nothing in disagreement here, just mentioning to get this straight. I appreciate your help! Sigridtx (talk) 12:42, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi Sigridtx. Sources notindependent of the subject can be cited to support uncontroversial facts, but cannot be used to support the subject's Notability. (A 'controversial' fact, in this context, is one where a reader might say "Whoa, I'd like to see confirmation of that", or one where the fact has been challenged.) Non-independent sources should not be used extensively: most of the contents of an article needs to be a summary of what independent Reliable sources say.
Be aware of WP:Other stuff exists. A great many of Wikipedia's existing 6.8 million articles have deficiencies of varying seriousness (and there are far too few editors to bring about a rapid across-the-board improvement). Their faults do not justify editors allowing articles under active consideration to introduce or continue displaying similar faults. Rather than emulating cherrypicked less-than-great articles that happen to be about similar subjects, you would do better to look at a range of WP:Good articles. Hope this helps. {The poster formerly known as 878.81.230.195} 94.2.67.173 (talk) 14:02, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Thank you. I'm working on gathering some hopefully "disinterested" sources, however, a good portion of what I've found either have some tie to education (but not exclusively), and news sources focused on the African-American community. I'll work on this more of course. To my question in my previous reply about citing an online article authored by Williams' (in context of the "Williams writes opinion-editorials on issues..." sentence currently in his article), can I cite sources that aren't directly tied to his employer? I have one right now that needs to change. The other two were published in Diverse Magazine. Thanks again! Sigridtx (talk) 16:47, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
@Sigridtx, on the sourcing question, you might want to review Wikipedia:Notability (academics). AIUI (but I could be wrong), being the president of a bona fide university means an automatic pass under those rules, even if the only thing cited in the article is a press release from the university. You can ask for help from people who understand the very unusual rules for notability of academics on the talk page for that guideline. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Hey Teahouse, I'm wondering if you can add comments when you're editing, not like one of those boxes at the bottom when you're editing which is called an edit summary. Is there some kind of text that you need or some special character before you start typing your 'comment'? GoodHue291 (talk) 19:09, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
I am curious as to why Beastie Boys Square would be merged with Paul's Boutique when there are hundreds of articles dating back 15 years... Doesn't seem appropriate to merge a destination in NYC to an album when there is justification and a story. VeniceBreeze (talk) 18:45, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
In the first paragraph of the towns description there is an error in its location. It is not located anywhere near Skidegate inlet. They are about 30 Km apart. Try looking up Skidegate inlet on a marine map. Skidegate village, Skidegate lake , and Skidegate inlet are not located anywhere close together. Daajing Giids is located in Bear Skin Bay not Skidegate inlet. Skidegate inlet is located on the west side of Gram island. Can I get some help to fix this please? 209.53.84.49 (talk) 20:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi IP 209.53.84.49. Have you tried discussing this at Talk:Daajing Giids? Generally, the best place to discuss article content is on its corresponding article talk page because that's typically those most interested and familiar with the subject matter will be best able to respond. Article talk page discussion almost makes it much easier to keep all discussion relevant to the article in one place for archiving and reference purposes. As for Try looking up Skidegate inlet on a marine map, generally that's not the best way to approach something like this; it's much more helpful for you yourself to actually provide a link to a reliable source supporting the changes you feel need to be made instead of just saying to to others "look it up". You should also understand that a map is likely to be considered to be a WP:PRIMARY source and this limits how they can be cited as a reference for Wikipedia's purposes. Wikipedia policy doesn't really allow use to interpret such a map ourselves, but we can cite interpretations made by WP:SECONDARY reliable sources about the map and about the location of Daajing Giids. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:28, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Rejected Article
Hi Teahouse, my article Wancewot was just rejected because there were not enough reliable sources. The problem with this is that I wrote this article after hearing about the legend on my trip to Poland, and no one else had wrote about it! Other than one or two amateur websites made by locals, there are literally no sources to link to. When I heard this legend, I wanted to share it with everyone else because it is one of the myths the town of Wancerzów is based on, and the legend itself is very intriguing. Do you have any ways that I can get this through review? Blackwell09 (talk) 21:16, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi @Blackwell09, welcome to the Teahouse. If it's true that Other than one or two amateur websites made by locals, there are literally no sources to link to, then unfortunately there is no way to get this through review. Wikipedia exists to summarize what has already been published in reliable sources, not to be the source publishing something or "getting the word out". It might help to read WP:42. 57.140.16.48 (talk) 21:22, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
So would you just suggest creating a website to tell others, and encourage them to visit Poland to solidify the sources? Blackwell09 (talk) 21:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
@Blackwell09 Our advice is that this has, currently, no place on Wikipedia, and that another amateur website, ten other amateur websites, will not make it have a place.
We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS please. See WP:42. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact referred to, that meet these tough criteria is likely to allow this article to remain. Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the topic is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
@Blackwell09, have you heard of Fandom? That is a collection of wikis on various subjects, and their inclusion criteria are much different from Wikipedia's. There is, specifically, a Myth and Folklore Wiki where you might be able to create an article, and there may be similar wikis on similar subjects over on Fandom; I'd recommend checking those out. 57.140.16.48 (talk) 22:04, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
I'll get right into it. About a year and a half ago, I took a rather bad photo of my grandfather, edited it using faceapp to give him a goofy, horrible, hairstyle and then inserted that image into his Wikipedia page. It was only for a joke, I just screenshotted it to send to him then removed it a few minutes later. But then, just earlier today, he texted me that it was somehow still on his Wikipedia page. I looked through the edit history and apparently someone had added clearly joke image back in March. I removed that image once again and replaced it with a better one, but the image still pops up when you search his name on google.
He just wrote a book and I feel horrible since that image is now online because it's in the Wikipedia commons. I'm not the best with tech so I had no idea that everyone would be able to see and upload that image. Can you please help me fix this and get that image off the Wikipedia commons? I submitted a removal request but as I said I'm not great with tech, I don't know if it went through. I also need to make sure it gets deleted. I don't want this to damage his professional career. I already feel horrible.
Here is the link to the Wikipedia commons page with the image: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:John_Darnton_2022_restaurant.jpg
Here is the link to his Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Darnton
Please do what you can, I'm in a pretty desperate situation here.
Hello, @JohnDoe887 and welcome to the Teahouse. Images uploaded to Commons has to be dealt on commons, we have no say over the other projects. Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons go hand in hand but editors here sometimes don’t edit there. I saw that it was nominated for deletion on Commons so you can wait to see what the solution is over there. I also ask that you do not edit your grandfather’s wikipedia page as this is a conflict of interest in the eyes of the community. Thank you, Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥01:28, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Okay, looking at the history, I'm inclined to say that the danceanddance page copied ours, then somebody (seeing our info was unreferenced), Googled the topic and cited the first website that popped up. I'll double check, but I remove the reference (because we don't cite Wikipedia mirrors) and put a message on the talk page. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 23:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
For the draft Draft:Kirchhoff-Clausius's Law.
I don't understand, I have cited first secondary sources from Max Planck and others, then at the end primary sources, because primary sources are the origine of the Kirchhoff-Clausius Law. Malypaet (talk) 09:18, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
@Malypaet Can I comment that our encyclopaedia expects people to write introductory 'lead' paragraphs in Plain English, and should not expect them to dive straight into formulae? Whilst the concepts may be over my head, I would expect you to write an introductory statement something along the lines of "XXXs law is a scientific observation that shows a relationship between xxx, yyyy and zzz. It is defined nowadays as "insert quotation". The law was named after xxx and yyy, who published their initial findings in year x. The law was so-named by Max Planck in year Y. K-C's Law has significance in the field of xxxx" Only then would I expect the scientific explanation and equations that follow.
I would point out that the translated citation you linked to does not verify that it was named by Planck - only that he refers to it as "Now according to the well-known Kirchoff-Clausius law..." Does that imply he actually named the Law, or was it already well-known and referred to elsewhere? Or are you inferring that he named it thus? A quick word search of Planck's German article did not reveal mention of either Clausius or Kirchhof's names in the text (but I might have missed it). I suspect the topic may well prove to be notable, but I feel your draft needs restructuring to make it understandable, and the sources showing notability more apparent. You note on your talk page that "Publications on this topic are rare", so it may indeed be that it does not require its own article here. But you could at least ensure there is, at least, a reference to their publications in the relevant scientists' biographies. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 11:34, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, I will use your model. For the 1901 German version the search does not work, it is also in chapter II "Nun ist nach dem bekannten Kirchhoff- Clausius 'schen
Gesetz die von einer schwarzen Flache pro Zeiteinheit in ein
...". In their biographies the books that demonstrate the law are cited, but in them it is just a formula demonstrated in one of the many chapters, not named as a law. These are two famous manuscripts listing all their work. Without this law, Max Planck would never have found justification for his law found empirically. Malypaet (talk) 19:55, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
I support what Nick Moyes has said, and would add that the formulae are anyway of little use without an explanation of what c, f, λ etc. represent. Maproom (talk) 06:29, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Gloucester image renewal
Im a WikiProject Gloucestershire user who lives in the city (by that i mean the ONLY CITY). Im planning on renewing images related to Gloucester if i can get my hands on a camera. Please send thanks if i can! ~ Snipertron12 :3 ~ [|User|Talk|Cont|] 12:56, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi @Snipertron12, welcome to the Teahouse. Is there a question you have about using or editing Wikipedia? Are you asking if you can get money from the Wikimedia Foundation to buy a camera? 57.140.16.48 (talk) 13:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Our article on Gloucester has several excellent images and probably doesn't need any more. Unless you can genuinely improve on those images, your contributions are likely to be removed. Shantavira|feed me13:47, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
I can't find it at the moment but somewhere on Wikipedia there is a tool that will give you a list of articles flagged with Template:Photo requested that are within your local area. Perhaps someone else can provide a link. Shantavira|feed me10:10, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
How can I join a WikiProject
I am very excited as a new editor on Wikipedia and it has given a me new sense of purpose and a unique experience. I want to share my knowledge and information with others as a way of promoting learning. So as a matter of fact, there are numerous articles that are inadequate and lacks important information, which is absolutely unacceptable, that’s why I joined to make sure that none of them be left to obscurity. It would be helpful if I can find others to share my concerns and opinions regarding this issue, I am currently looking for a project to join and seems to have a slight problem. Can anyone help me out with this error? Davecorbray (talk) 02:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Hello, @Davecorbray and welcome to the Teahouse. You can join any WikiProject, no limit to how many, by putting your name in the participants list of the WikiProject. If you also want, you can display that you are in the WikiProject by using userboxes! Thank you, Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥02:58, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
@Davecorbray, getting started with a smaller group ("WikiProject" is our jargon for a voluntary group of editors) can be a little daunting some times. If there's not much conversation for you to join in, then you might need to start one yourself, to find out if anyone's watching that page. You can post a note on the group's talk page with any questions you have, or just to say hello and tell people what's interesting you right now. It may take a bit to get a response, but mostly people are friendly. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:28, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
@Davecorbray: I would probably recommend Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom as a starting point, although more of the conversations there are on contemporary politics. A lot of the articles you're looking at probably started out with the text of a short biography (say, from the old Dictionary of National Biography) rather haphazardly expanded as each editor dropped in a few facts of interest with a citation, so they tend to look rather unbalanced. I appreciate the wealth of academic sources you're introducing here. Choess (talk) 05:15, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
this is currently specifically regarding the last entry of the list of gen 3 pokémon (that being deoxys), though it might be useful elsewhere in the future maybe
trying to merge cells with templates (such as the recently-ish created poketype) or adding templates that affect cell colors to already merged cells doesn't seem to work at all on the visual editor
For some reason, Manhattan locations on the maps are shown in various balkan languages. Is this a bug? Please help! ~ Snipertron12 :3 ~ [|User|Talk|Cont|] 09:24, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
This comes in automagically via Openstreetmaps. As the page already has a map for its location in Lower Manhattan, you could ask Epicgenius, who added the OSM link, if it is really necessary to have somewhat redundant maps; other locations do not necessarily have them. Lectonar (talk) 10:33, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
How to stop a person called CNMall 41 in simply changing and deleting list of programs broadcast by Asianet page for stupid reasons
Hi, I am Manisha Asianet who had been editing list of programs broadcast by Asianet since few weeks, I have been adding relevant sources, along with the programs that were been telecasted on Asianet as I have watched the shows since 2001-2002 period, but a user called CNMall 41 is unwantedly deleting my content as well as many other persons content on Asianet list that too the program that is been telecasted currently on the channel, cant understand whats wrong with him, he even claiming that I am getting money for publishing content as per Asianet's wish it seems by giving me a warning this matter for no reason. What to do Manisha asianet c (talk) 16:18, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
@Manisha asianet c: Welcome to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1225. Rather than continue to edit war over the article in conjunction with an IP editor, you're better off making edit requests on the article's talk page, as you have confirmed a conflict of interest in this comment of yours, suggesting that you're doing it for promotional reasons ([...] which I felt necessary to add to the list as Wikipedia has a wider reach). —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:45, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Fastest way to number a list article?
I need to number this list article - List of ethnic groups in Nigeria to be sure it is accurate, but I don't enjoy repetitive tasks so much. I wish there was an AI integration somewhere that can easily get this done for me...that's just a joke. My question is: what is the fastest way to number a list article such as this? HandsomeBoy (talk) 18:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
HandsomeBoy How will numbering help the reader or otherwise benefit the list? (And is a single page in a news website an adequate source for the use that's made of it here?) -- Hoary (talk) 21:18, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Yes, it's semi-protected, and for good reason. It didn't merit promotion to article status when Bilorv declined it on 1 April; and since then it has been resubmitted several times by some Chilean IP without improvement. Now you (a Chilean IP) perhaps want somebody to resubmit it yet again without improvement. Which part of the repeated "declined" template, or which comment, do you not understand? -- Hoary (talk) 08:51, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
My mother was a creator. I am a professional writer about creators. Can I create a page about her?
Charleen Kinser Designs is a company that my mother, Charleen Kinser, ran from 1977 to 2002. She passed away in 2008. I am a professional writer about creators. I would like to create a page about her and her creative work (I have the archives and am the only surviving family member) but have read that one should not create a page about a family member because of COI. In this case, I am the one most qualified to write about her. See my website for proof of my professional status in this industry. Maggiehohle (talk) 17:47, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
@Maggiehohle It is not forbidden for editors with a COI to write draft articles for consideration by experienced reviewers. The process is described at WP:AfC. You should declare the COI and note that one of the things that Wikipedia is not, is a memorial site. You would benefit from reading this guidance and note that we have many technical requirements for the way we do citations. All this means that, despite your credentials, you may want to practice by editing existing articles before you take on the larger task of creating a wholly new one. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:27, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
@Maggiehohle Welcome to the Teahouse. My mother was also an artist and book illustrator, working mostly for The Bodley Head in the 1950s-70s. Like you, I am most qualified to write about my own mother, and I definitely think she was 'notable'. In my life, at least!
However, nobody else unconnected with her has every written and published a detailed, in-depth account about her life and her work (including her work in a wartime office drawing undercarriages of Lancaster Bombers). For that very simple reason, she fails Wikipedia's Noptability Criteria and so there can never be a page here about her.
So, my question to you is to ask if other independent sources have ever published detailed, in-depth biographical articles about your mother and her work? If so, then maybe she might be seen as notable by Wikipedia's criteria. If not, then she, too, would not merit an article here, irrespective of how wonderful her work may have been.
We do try to discourage people from writing about people they know or are related too, as they tend not to be objectively written, and are rarely based solely on published sources. I might therefore try to encourage you to contribute your skills in writing and research to improving other areas of Wikipedia that you are not directly connected with. This does tend to lead to better-written, neutral articles. I hope this helps. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 18:28, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi, Nick. Thank you so much for your reply. This is helpful. Biographical articles have been written about Charleen Kinser in State College Magazine (1/91), Teddy Bear and Friends (4/98), with a shorter piece published in Contemporary Doll Magazine (4/93). Do these count? Maggiehohle (talk) 21:42, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
@Specialrequestaccount: Please first consider carefully what Mike Turnbull has said, but on the specific issue, did you perhaps click on the tag, i.e. (Tag: Undo), instead of clicking undo at the top, i.e. Revision as of 23:59, 12 April 2024 (edit) (undo)?
The tag, of course, leads to a page describing what an undo is, while the undo at the top takes you to a page for undoing the edit (if there haven't been any other edits afterwards that would conflict with the revert, if there is conflict there will be an error, as is the case with the revision you've linked). – 2804:F14:8085:6201:EC0A:3D07:F537:12EF (talk) 22:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. Meanwhile, I sorted it another way by using the earlier template. But the information which you have given me above should be useful generally for the future. Specialrequestaccount (talk) 23:09, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Best way to solicit feedback on an article?
Hello,
I am looking for feedback on one of my articles as it remains classified as a start class article and I am not sure what else is needed to get it reassessed to a C. I am looking for the best forum on wikipedia to solicit feedback.
The article is currently live under Big Excursion. I previously incorporated some of the feedback I received here about the title of the article and infobox. I am most concerned with ensuring I have no unsourced claims given the contentious nature of the topic, and while I believe I have done a lot to address that (40 references, many used in multiple places), I am sure there is much more to do when discussing such a topic. Luckily Bulgarians seem much more reasonable about this sort of thing than a lot of other peoples. Pietrus1 (talk) 23:32, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Owing tn the widespread use of the term "Big Excursion", in line with Wikipedia article title guidelines Wikipedia:Article_titles, this article uses the term "Big Excursion" to refer to the ethnic cleansing of Bulgarian Muslims in 1989, but it is capitalized and presented in quotations.
Other than fleetingly, formulaically and inconspicuously ("see below", etc), Wikipedia articles don't describe themselves. Anyway, readers can see for themselves which term the article uses, and how this term is presented. So please remove the paragraph. (As for the question of "start" versus "C" ranking, the distinctions among "start", "C" and "B" were made decades ago, at which time they were useful; but since that time their utility has pretty much evaporated and these days few editors -- let alone readers -- much care.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:51, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
I use the WP:RATER script to get an automatic rating of articles I write or improve, which I think is generally useful for stub/ start/ C. TSventon (talk) 01:10, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
I had a talk page comment outlining four simple edit suggestions for Casualties of the Israel–Hamas war removed with the removing editor citing WP:ARBECR. My understanding of the policy is that non-extended-confirmed editors cannot edit pages related to contentious subjects, but are allowed to make simple edit suggestions on Talk pages provided they are non-disruptive. Am I misunderstanding the policy, or do my edit suggestions go beyond what is allowed (and if so, why)? See the removed request. ExVivoExSitu (talk) 21:47, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Talk pages should be protected if non EC editors are to be excluded from participation, as is the case for Talk:Israel–Hamas war. Such protection does get rid of drive-by edit requests, but otherwise merely shifts consctructive suggestions to WP:RFPP, which is an additional burden on administrators. I have reverted the removal of your comment, but it is likely the talk page may get protected. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:15, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying (and reverting), that makes a lot of sense. There is a lot of page traffic and some of it seems unproductive, so I think you're right. ExVivoExSitu (talk) 23:20, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
I have a different perspective. In my view, edit requests from non-extended confirmed editors should be entirely non-controversial, such as asking for typographical errors or obvious grammatical errors to be corrected. I see your requests as deep content discussions of a highly controversial topic. I recommend that you edit productively elsewhere until you meet the 30 day/500 edit standard. Cullen328 (talk) 03:42, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
The first six sections cite no sources. I'm not an admin, but I have the power to move it to draft, and am tempted to do so. I wonder if that would be in accordance with policy? Maproom (talk) 05:37, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Do not have the permissions to move page from Sandbox to Draft Namespace for review
Hello, I have created an article in my sandbox (User:Dr_Abhishek_Yaadav/sandbox) and would like to move it to the Draft namespace as "Draft:Dr Abhishek Yadav" for review. However, I am not autoconfirmed and do not have the permissions to move pages. Could someone please assist me with this move? Thank you! Dr Abhishek Yaadav (talk) 06:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
The process I followed: I have written content for artcle. I have created a new account. Clicked on sandbox. Drafted Article. Submitted for review. Its got rejected due to self promoting.
Please confirm:
1. Did I follow the correct process? Or something I missed?
2. Can I mention these words in article
Liver Surgeon in Pune
Liver Transplant in Pune
Liver Doctor in Pune
Liver Surgery Doctor in Pune
I think it might look like promotional?
3. Is there any specific guideline related to account age?
Please read the autobiography policy; you really shouldn't be writing about yourself at all. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell about their professional qualifications and services they offer. Please use social media to do that. Wikipedia is a place for independent editors to write about topics that they notice receive significant coverage in independent reliable sources and are notable as Wikipedia uses the word. Wikipedia wants to know what others say about a topic, not what it says about itself. 331dot (talk) 07:37, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Where do you see DD/MM/YY? It shouldn't normally be displayed in articles but can be used internally in some places. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:26, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
I assume they mean they're seeing day month year in prose rather than something like 09/02/19. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:45, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Right now, the novelizations section of Beverly Hills, 90210 is sourced to "thriftbooks", a retail website. This seems less than ideal.
What would the preferred type of reference for this be? Worldcat? Goodreads? The full text at the Internet Archive? A site like Fantastic Fiction? Walsh90210 (talk) 15:14, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Hey! I've been editing Wikipedia for four or so years now, but I've been publicly out as a trans guy for three and just realized my pronouns have been wrong in my profile for a long time. I'm having trouble switching them over, though—I've been trying to change them in Preferences but they keep reverting back to feminine pronouns. Anyone know how to fix this? Thanks! TariffedSparrow (talk) 20:57, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Try setting it to "unspecified" first and see if that sticks. If it does, set it again how you want. Oh, and as QuicoleJR said, be sure to click the Save button at the bottom. You can't simply simply change them, you must also save them. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:33, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Try from a different browser or device, try flushing your browser cache, try it from an incognito window. You may have a cookie that's stuck or a caching issue on your end. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether they would prevent overwriting local preferences, but you could look at your Global Preferences and check whether you have your pronouns set there. If not, try updating your global preferences and see if it (a) sticks and (b) affects this wiki. AdamBlackt • c00:24, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
I would like to move the draft of an article (Draft:Kerstin Becker) from the namespace to my userspace (in order to continue working on it later on). How can this be done?
Hello, Takeru Watanabe. You could move it to your user space (eg User:Takeru Watanabe/Kerstin Becker) but I don't know why you would want to. Draft space is generally a better place for articles being developed; and while anybody could edit it in Draft space (or indeed in your user space) it is unlikely that anybody will do so without discussing it with you first.
The only possible problem with leaving it in Draft space is that if you do absolutely nothing to it for more than six months, it might get deleted; but if you make even one edit in that time, it will not. ColinFine (talk) 18:51, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Hello, ColinFine. Thank you for your kind answer. Indeed, I wanted to rule out that the draft would be deleted if didn't edit it for a longer period of time. So, I'm now glad about your advice concerning the sixth month time frame.
May I ask yet another question? If I'm not quite sure about the notability of a person (in my case women writers and poets), might there be anybody willing to help me in that matter and discuss it before I submit the draft for review? Best, Takeru Watanabe (talk) 19:28, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
I've completed my first Wikipedia Article, and I just received a message about my article getting deleted due to the subject not being deemed significant or showing any importance of the subject. How do I correct this and contest it? Wikieditormneal (talk) 18:11, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Hello, Wikieditormneal, and welcome to the Teahouse,
As it says in the notice in Lorraine Whittlesea, If you created this page and you disagree with the given reason for deletion, you can click the button below and leave a message explaining why you believe it should not be deleted.
Note that neither discogs nor Apple Music is regarded as a reliable source (and so should rarely or never be cited), so your claim of notability rests solely on the two Baltimore Sun citations. I cannot read these, as they are not available in my area: does each of them meet the triple criterion of reliablility, independence, and substantial coverage of Whittlesea? (see WP:42). ColinFine (talk) 18:57, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Hello! Thank you for your response. Yes, the articles meet the triple criterion of reliability, independence and substantial coverage of Whittlesey. Wikieditormneal (talk) 19:48, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
This article has been deleted more that once, and was just moved back to draft. Stop recreating it. Work on the problems in the draft version. Meters (talk) 20:12, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
So, I was looking at the “Other Areas of Wikipedia”, and the description for The Teahouse and the Help Desk seem very similar. Would it be a good idea for a noob/old rusty editor to assume that WP:Tea and WP:HD are roughly similar, with Tea being more reserved for basic questions? ThePhaseMaster18:02, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Tea in action
@The Phase Master Welcome to the Teahouse! Yes - they're both very similar, but we do aim to welcome and support new users in particular, and in as friendly a way as possible. We have a less formal design layout here, too. And we do serve Tea to any editor, new or old. Here's one just for you! Of course, questions from anyone are always welcome. (The Help Desk does tend to take attract more technical questions, though.) Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 18:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
@The Phase Master Nope! They are absolutely nothing alike. Unlike the Help Desk, the Teahouse serves tea, therefore making us far superior and incomparable to them. Panini!•🥪23:08, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
The above mentioned user is a paid editor as he disclose himself but he hasn't done any significant edit so far, how can he be paid for contributing to wiki. --KEmel49 (talk) 20:30, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi KEmel49. Whoever this person may be, they aren't being paid by Wikipedia and aren't employed by Wikipedia. They're only required to declare their paid status in accordance with Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure and they've done this. Wikipedia policy and guidelines doesn't require them to make significant edits or justify why or how much they're being paid. You would need to ask them directly if you're interested in such things, but Wikipedia policy doesn't require that they respond to you if you do. So, unless you feel they're doing something that's not in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, you might want to focus on something else. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:44, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Ideally, an editor declares their paid status on their User page before making edits on a topic they have identified as paid. Which is what User:Seo.cypherms has done. In this instance an article or a draft about Arcade Business College does not yet exist, so the editor appears to be planning to create and then submit a draft. David notMD (talk) 00:32, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Same but different
I need a list that is the same as this one but that has no logos instead of including logos. I would like to work on adding company logos/emblems to any article for a company that is currently lacking them, but I don't know a good way to create that list and then sort through it. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:38, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
"the same as this one": the same as which one? And are you looking for a list format (to which you'll add items), or for a ready-made list of items? -- Hoary (talk) 22:30, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
I made a draft article Draft:Kepler-1972 but failed to find any publications on the astronomical object beyond its discovery paper and a few catalogs (thus failing notability criteria), so I tried to move it to my userspace. However, I mistakenly moved the draft to User:Kepler-1972. I reverted the edit so now the draft is restored, but I cannot figure out how to restore the (previously nonexistent) user page to its original state. This might cause some trouble if a new user tries to name themselves Kepler-1972. How can I (or anyone with the required permissions) fix this? I'm relatively new to Wikipedia, and I greatly appreciate your help. AluminiumWithAnI (talk) 03:20, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
@Suny8616 Welcome to the Teahouse. To ask questions here, please click the blue box at the top of this page. I have started a new section for you. The blue text in those message are links. Rather than have us repeat information here, please click on those links for help with those specific issues. Shantavira|feed me08:14, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
I removed the academic notability tag, as his holding an endowed chair professorship and AAAS membership qualifies. David notMD (talk) 12:04, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Leesburg Stockade
We need our true story about only what we seventeen girls of the Lee County Stockade lived, endured and survived because we are the only people who lived, endured and survived this saga in 1963. Please assist me with this much needed endeavor. You may contact me at [redacted]. Please assist me with telling only our true story that no one else lived in 1963. Thank you very much. This true story needs to be told truthfully. 99.110.81.53 (talk) 03:50, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Leesburg Stockade lists 14 by name, but states that there were more than that, possibly as many as 30 or 33. Your name (and others) can be added to that list if there is a reference to add that has more names. David notMD (talk) 11:42, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
The content you added to Leesburg Stockade was reverted because the reference you provided was your self-published book (listed at Amazon). Can you find a better source, perhaps a newpaper or magazine published at the time? You also described why there is/was confusion as to how many girls, as there appears to have been the original set - held for a long time - and another set of girls who boycotted the beginning of the school year on behalf of their held classmates, and were detained and added to the group at Leesburg for a few days before all were released. David notMD (talk) 13:34, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Hello,
I am seeking feedback for my article that I want to publish on wikipedia. It got declined twice and I have put every effort to integrate the provided feedback by the fellow wikipedians. I want to re-submit the artice and I want to make sure this time it won't be declined. Kindly give it a read and provide me with feedback for improvement.
I have posted this before as well. This is my article Draft:Amu Television, our fellows say it looks promotional. I have changed its content, I am requesting for a review and a specific feedback like which parts I should keep or remove.
Akbarirazia The most important problem is notability The draft is about an organisation, so it needs to show that the subject meets the guidance for inclusion of an organisation in Wikipedia, which requires multiple published sources that are in-depth, reliable, secondary and independent of the subject. There is background about what that means at WP:ORGCRIT. I found three sources in the 25 May version which could contribute to notability, but even they are based on interviews with Amu TV people. I would therefore recommend looking for better sources. Sources do not have to be in English. If you had better sources, then a summary of the sources would sound less promotional.
Hello! I hope you're doing well.
Recently, I've encountered two issues while translating on my mobile phone:
1. I'm unable to publish my translations because the "I'm not a robot" test continually prompts me to type the displayed word, even after correctly entering it.
2. I'm unable to continue translations started on my mobile phone when using the desktop website on my PC. The "continue translation" button does not appear; only the "start translation" button is visible, which does not function correctly.
Could you please assist me with resolving these issues or recommend someone who could help? Vasconcelos-Giovanni (talk) 16:30, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
I think you might be better off posting this to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical), which is specifically for technical issues. Someone else here at the Teahouse might be able to help you with this, but the village pump is your best bet for resolving problems like this. AdamBlackt • c17:46, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Hello, Vasconcelos-Giovanni, and welcome to the Teahouse.
From your language, and the error you are getting, I am guessing that you are trying to use the Content translation tool. That tool is not available to new editors: I believe that this is because new editors are not likely to understand the difficulties often involved in translating articles from other versions of Wikipedia.
Many articles in other versions of Wikipedia (and, indeed, many older articles in English Wikipedia) do not cite adequate reliable sources to establish that the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability. Where this is the case, a direct translation will not be accepted into English Wikipedia.
This means that, unless you first check that the original article does cite adequate sources, a straight translation (whether by machine or human) is not going to be acceptable, and you're better off treating this as creating a new article in En-wiki - see WP:YFA for how to go about doing that. ColinFine (talk) 17:56, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi! Thank you for your time! I'm trying to translate from English to Portuguese and the Content Translation Tool is available to me, even though I'm new here. Also, the article about the tool states: "this utility is currently suspended for newer editors on the English Wikipedia. This restriction does not impact translating pages from English". The problem is that I was able follow the procedure of translation, but I'm not being able to post the translation. Vasconcelos-Giovanni (talk) 14:39, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
MediaWiki version
Does anyone know the version of MediaWiki that is powering Wikipedia right now? Is it the latest version or what? Just wondering because I read somewhere that Fandom uses an older version. Bzik2324 (talk) 14:01, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Hello, @Bzik2324! The special page Special:Version will tell you the answer to this, along with a lot of other information about the software behind Wikipedia. As of this writing, it tells me Wikipedia's running MediaWiki 1.43.0-wmf.6. --bjh21 (talk) 15:17, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Infoboxes
Howdy! How do you add the map images to infoboxes? Also, the "part of the..." stuff. I want to add them to my articles. Thanks TheBrowniess (talk) 08:40, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Depending on the infobox in question, putting the subject's coordiantes, using {{coord|display=inline}} in the coordinates= field causes a map to appear. And there are other fields to tweak exactly what map image gets used. "part of the..." is probably a specific template, could you give an example of what you're thinking of here? -- D'n'B-t -- 09:15, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
@TheBrowniess: There are numerous different infobox templates with different parameters which should be documented on the template page. Template:Infobox military conflict has a partof parameter. There are others but most infobox templates have no such parameter. If they do then it may not always be called partof. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:57, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
I assume you mean the "part of" sidebars you can see at for example Reiki. You can hit "Edit source" in an article where you see one you want to use elsewhere and copypaste the relevant code. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:59, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Hello! I'm a new editor, currently going through the list of articles with bare URL sources to try and fix them. A few times I've come across PDFs or JPGs, etc that are scans of magazines that include reviews of games, such as ST Format's review on this game. Is it appropriate to use these even when they are not "officially" online from the original publisher? --Beanut H Butter (talk) 13:33, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Hello, Beanut H Butter, and welcome to the Teahouse.
Thank you for taking on this valuable but often overlooked task.
The important part of a citation is the bibliographic information which will allow a reader to find the source (even if they have to order it from a major library!) - things like title, author, publication, page, date. If the source is available online, then it is helpful to readers and reviewers to include a URL; but for most sources this is not a requirement.
To answer your question directly: you may include a URL to a non-official online copy (eg a scan) only if you are satisfied that the copy you are linking to is not a copyright violation. So if it's a scan of an article or book that is 100 years old, any copyright has almost certainly expired, and you're fine. But if it's only fifty years old, it may or may not still be in copyright (and this depends on what country it was published in as well) so you'll have to do some research before you can tell whether you are allowed to link to it. And if it's recent, you would need to show that the text had been licensed in a way that allowed anybody to copy it (such as CC-BY-SA, or that whoever posted it had explicit permission from the copyright owner to do so. But as I said above, in most cases a URL is not actually required. ColinFine (talk) 17:15, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
This makes sense, thank you for the response! I'll do some more research on these matters to make sure there's no copyright problems. I really appreciate the help. Beanut H Butter (talk) 18:51, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Providing translations
Hello! I’m new to Wikipedia and glad to finally be here.
I specifically decided to join to provide translations to Portuguese, and now am wondering how to do that.
Thanks in advance. Mvacarn (talk) 17:19, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
On the Bubble canopy article, I would like to add a box for the XB-42 and would like to use a image on the XB-42's article page, that is public domain, but Im not sure if im able to use other peoples uploaded images, I have checked the rules, but im still not sure. A-37Dragonfly (talk) 04:43, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
If a picture has been labeled public domain, and is a government made photo, is it fine to use even if it wasnt uploaded by you (5th image on XB-42 article), im new to wikipedia and I still dont fully understand the copyright stuff A-37Dragonfly (talk) 07:08, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
(Im using visual editor) How do I add images? I went to the article, clicked on the box for the gallery, and when I went to add the image, it said "your recent uploads", which i do not have any A-37Dragonfly (talk) 04:59, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Citing a newspaper article accessed through a university database
Hi! I attempted to check some sources on an article that failed verification and have successfully located one of them. However, I accessed the newspaper article through a paid database provided by my university (I am a student). I am aware of Template:Cite news, specifically the template for article clips accessed through an aggregation service, but navigating to the link to said newspaper article in an incognito window prompts me to log into my university account to proceed further, which is what I presume most people would see. How do I go about citing this source? If it helps, the aggregation service is Gale. 50shadesofweird (talk) 21:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
@50shadesofweird Include the link you have, but it's important you add as much other info you can (you probably have to do it "by hand"), publisher, author, date etc. You can add a |url-access=subscription parameter to your cite. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:46, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Hello! I'm wondering how to change the formatting of the archive box on a talk page. I would like to change the formatting on this page to look like the formatting on this page. How do I do that? Wafflewombat (talk) 03:55, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
should a or an be used before the word "uruguayan". I'm finding some people say its pronounced with a "ur" sound at the beggining but others say its "yur" Gaismagorm (talk) 22:47, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Gaismagorm: You can look at Commonly misspelled English words and with fairly minimal effort find ample misspelled words. Or you can just make up misspellings (e.g. transposing letters). I tried this with "cantaloupe", and doing a search for "canataloupe", I got a hit on Dominic Frasca for "canataloupe music". There was of course the possibility that it was intentionally spelled this way, but I was able to quickly confirm that it actually was a typo. Consider this suggestion of something to fix as my gift to you. Fabrickator (talk) 00:26, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
thanks, I've actually done this a lot before (I went through a lot of country demonyms and the proper a/an for them). thanks for the advice. Gaismagorm (talk) 00:45, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Personally, I don't see this as something to be corrected. Both usages and pronounciations are frequent and understanding is not impacted. Catalk to me!01:35, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Note that you can transclude (the mechanism normally used for templates) a page from any space using the curly brackets {{ ... }}: it just defaults to Template:. So if you created a template in your user space called User:CreatorMH/MyTemplate, you could use it in a page by {{User:CreatorMH/MyTemplate}}. ColinFine (talk) 10:53, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
If you look at the recent revision history for the article Lara Fabian, in the early life section, someone changed the spelling of the word Recognized to it's British spelling, Recognised, I have reverted that person's edit, mentioning that the article's language shouldn't be changed until further discussion. My question is, should the article be written in British English or American English? 70.50.199.125 (talk) 04:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1225. The closest style guidelines can be found at MOS:RETAIN, where generally the variety found in the first post-stub revision that introduced an identifiable variety is used. That being said, I find that many European articles tend to use British orthography, probably because that's what most editors interested in those subjects are usually exposed to. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:18, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Should the article be written in British English or American English - that depends: are Canadians British or are they American? Seriously though, it looks to me like Canadian English tends to prefer ize.[1][2]
In 2007, I wrote a book about my adventures backpacking alone across all 6 habitable continents. The book is titled "Travels in a Blue Chair, Alaska to Zambia - Ushuaia".
I am trying to determine if Wikipedia has a section on Disability Literature and related Authors? I have not found such a section yet.
How does one go about creating one? Thanks in advance.
Hello! I made a Wikipedia page about another school in Kuala Lumpur. But later the page was moved to draft with a set of instructions, I followed the instructions and moved it back to mainspace. But since it was already an old page it wasn't reviewed. Can anyone review the page or tell me how to resubmit it so that it would be rereviewed? N niyaz (talk) 15:40, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Well, that's one way to tell the story, @N niyaz. Here's another: after I declined this draft at AfC for lack of evidence of notability, you resubmitted it without any improvement, made a couple of minor edits, and a few minutes later moved it yourself into the main article space, where it has now been tagged for not meeting our notability criteria.
Just so we're clear, are you now asking for that AfC review which you submitted it for, or do you want new page patrol to review it? And would you like me to do either, or do you prefer to wait for someone else to review it instead? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:15, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Just so you know, there are like atleast 100 more articles about schools in Malaysia the same as that wikipedia page. I do not understand what is the problem. N niyaz (talk) 16:30, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi Soafy234! I haven't had much experience doing this with the visual editor. But what you normally do in code is give the first ref a name, like <ref name="ThisIsMyReference">...</ref> and then you can refer to it later just by using that name, as in <ref name="ThisIsMyReference" />. But if you are using the visual editor I can check for you. Do you use it when editing? - Bilby (talk) 11:31, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
I could not figure out how to do this but I used the source editing to use the same source twice when referencing. Soafy234 (talk) 17:59, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Changing image in infobox for Tiangong Space Station article
Hello. I noticed that the article for the Tiangong space station currently has a simulated image as the main image in the infobox. Since lead images should be representative (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MOS:LEADIMAGE&redirect=no) it seems that it would be better for an actual image to be there instead. There are complete images of the space station from the China Manned Space agency (https://en.cmse.gov.cn/dmt/tj/shenzhou16/) and the disclaimer for media on the CMSA website says that fair use is allowed. I was trying to upload one of the images to replace the current lead image but couldn't figure out how since I'm new to editing Wikipedia and was confused by only text appearing when trying to edit the infobox. I would greatly appreciate help. GoldenOrbWeaver (talk) 23:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Hello, GoldenOrbWeaver. Allowing for "fair use" is not enough. What is required is a robust, legally binding license that explicitly allows for unlimited use by anyone, anywhere, for any purpose at all including commercial uses, with the only restriction being proper attribution. The Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license is the most common license that qualifies, but there are others. Cullen328 (talk) 01:41, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Wouldn't this fall under WP:NFCCP? All detailed images of the Tiangong (including the ones I previously linked) were released by the CMSA so there's no free equivalent, there's no market role being replaced, it seems like it's minimal usage if just one image is used, the photos have been published in various newspapers, it meets Wikipedia guidelines, it would be used in an article, and having an actual photo of the space station seems important to readers' understanding. I apologize if I'm misunderstanding this policy. There seem to be other images published by the CMSA in the article already also. GoldenOrbWeaver (talk) 05:28, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
There is definitely the possibility of a free alternative, GoldenOrbWeaver. It could be photographed from Earth with a telescope. It could be photographed from a US spacecraft and works by employees of the US federal government are in the public domain. Appearing in newpapers certainly does not qualify an image to be added to Wikipedia. Far from it. Cullen328 (talk) 18:57, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
It probably couldn't be photographed from a US spacecraft because of the Wolf amendment. I've seen photographs of the Tiangong space station from the ground and even taken some myself, and because of the distance, they aren't very clear and don't show many details. Therefore, they don't seem to be a viable alternative. If the photos released by the CMSA allow free use, and fall under the criteria for using free use photos on Wikipedia, I don't see why they can't be used. Again, many of the photos already in the article were released by the CMSA, so I don't see why adding a complete photo would be any different. GoldenOrbWeaver (talk) 03:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
You can learn more about creating userboxes at Template:Userbox. If you wish to create userboxes, you can create them in the Template namespace or in your Userspace by doing “User:ThisIsMyUsernameToday/Foobar” in the search bar and creating the user subpage. Thank you, Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥19:51, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
I add book covers to pages which do not have one on a regular basis. Occasionally I see an article listed in the category that I work from Category:Books with missing cover which has an entry that is clearly not correct. One example is Michael Hussey from the "H" section of the aforementioned category. Is there a way for me to remove something like this, where it is obviously just a BLP and not a evidently a book article with a missing image in its infobox? Iljhgtn (talk) 19:36, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Hello, Iljhgtn. Thank you for doing this maintenance task.
The reason Michael Hussey appears in that category is that the section Michael Hussey#Underneath the Southern Cross has an {{infobox book}} in it, without a cover. It almost certainly cannot have cover art in the article, because the cover is probably copyright, and the WP:NFCC will not allow a non-free image to be used in that context.
Where/how can I add that in the infobox? Please do it, and then I will refer to this one as an example for the future for my own didactic purposes. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:51, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
I believe it would be appropriate to apply Template:Third-party to RelayFM, but wanted to make sure that sounded correct to someone with a bit more editing experience. I'm wondering if instead some parts of the article should just be removed due to a lack of sourcing or relying on that company's own site. – OdinintheNorth (talk) 20:49, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Hello, Odininthenorth.
There is no universal answer to that question. You are entitled to remove any unsourced or inadequately sourced information from an article; but that is not necessarily the most helpful thing to do.
The best approach is certainly to look for better sources, and if you can't find them, to remove the information; but that can be a lot of work, so many of us do not often do that.
So, unless you are prepared to put in the effort to do it properly, the answer is that if you think there probably are better sources, tag it; but if you think there probably aren't, then remove the information. Either way, an editor who disagrees with you can just revert your change, and then (if you wish) you can open a discussion with them, according to WP:BRD. ColinFine (talk) 21:13, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Edit summary
A sentence like: "They also wrote a play, Underwood's Finest Hour, about an obstetrician distracted during a birth by the radio broadcast of a Test match, which played at the Lyric Theatre, Hammersmith, in 1981." can be improved by untangling its component ideas. Is there a term I can use for such a sentence ? Doug butler (talk) 08:11, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, Bazza 7, "recast" is perfect for the edit, but is there a grammatical term for a sentence where proximity of a verb to the wrong object results in confusion if not ambiguity? Doug butler (talk) 13:28, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Hmmm, thanks Bazza 7. Nice link with lots of glorious examples, but my quote (from Terry Jones) was not quite ambiguous. I think I just opted for "recast sentence" with no elaboration. Doug butler (talk) 22:38, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
They also wrote a play, Underwood's Finest Hour, which played at Hammersmith's Lyric Theatre in 1981, about an obstetrician distracted during a birth by the radio broadcast of a Test match.
Improving representation from the Global South is tricky
Every minor English indie band has copious notes online but unfortunately that's not the case for profound writers from the Global South. I'd hoped to add more about South Africa literature but I don't think that's going to happen - too many sources aren't up to Global North standards. I understand why Wikipedia has to be strict about references but I wish there was more understanding of the conditions others are working under. Atinyfrog (talk) 13:26, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
(That said, if you know a language like Xhosa or Afrikaans as well as English, including a brief translation of any quotes is really helpful. You're allowed to use software like Google translate to do it, as long as you check the translation is correct afterwards.) –Sincerely, A Lime01:13, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Grammar Checker
Are grammar checkers allowed when editing Wikipedia articles or doing the easy check spelling, grammar, and tone tasks? I use QuillBot. 8bit12man (talk) 01:19, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
@8bit12man: Welcome to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1225. While not expressively forbidden, they must be used with care, as they sometimes mess with regional orthography (such as an article that uses British English being gutted by something like Grammarly). Wikipedia:Spellchecking has more details. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:23, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
This is a common scenario when patrolling new pages: a user with a promotional username creates an article that promotes what their username refers to in their userpage, sandbox or a draft. In such cases, I tag the article with U5 or G11 and report the user to AIV or UAA. I've noticed a small set of admins responsible for most speedy deletions, and another set responsible for most AIV reports. But often, the admin who deletes doesn't block even when the account is clearly promotional and a UP violation, and admins who block don't always delete the promotional userpage. Why is this? Air on White (talk) 00:50, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
There aren't really separate admins for the two queues. The phenomenon you describe happens mainly due to tunnel-vision. It's like how ypu notice a page has tonnes of issues when you revert vandalism, but still go back to Recent Changes rather than fix the page. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (talk to me!/my edits) 01:40, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
As an admin, I just deal with the issues as I see them. Sometimes I deal with UAA because it showed up on my watchlist, and sometimes with AIV because it showed up on my watchlist. If I see a promotional page or a promotional username, I typically do everything needed to clean up the mess, which is typically blocking the user and deleting the promotional page, and maybe even opening a WP:SPI case. An administrator who takes any administrative action should always look into related actions that might be needed.
There are no separate admin assignments for different areas, although some admins have their preferences. I know I do. UAA is often easier to deal with. There are admins who prefer to focus on the blacklist and whitelist queues, or on WP:RFPP, or on WP:REFUND, or on Category:Candidates for speedy deletion, or Category:Requests for unblock. Some seem to enjoy swimming in the WP:CESSPIT, which I tend to avoid. There are a few who have expertise in WP:OPP (I don't) and focus their efforts there. Administrators are going to self-select into areas of interest. There is no end of mopping up to do around here. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:39, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
I check on all contributions of a particular account if it comes through UAA and follow up accordingly if deletions are warranted for most cases. However I have encountered admins making comments on wanting another admin to action on the subsequent work so as to minimize the appearance of them abusing the toolset even if it is unwarranted. Partly I can empathise with this rationale, especially if all the warning messages and the subsequent block message on that editor's talk page are from the same admin. – robertsky (talk) 04:40, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Having different people with different backgrounds have a look at things actually really doesn't hurt; more eyes on anything in Wikipedia are a good thing, be it content, deletions, usernames etc. I specialize in protection, and only ever stray into blocking or deleting in the most egregious cases. Lectonar (talk) 07:26, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
That's the thing, I don't know how to do citation with superscript numbers (which is the citation style that wikipedia uses) on a mobile phone. 70.50.199.125 (talk) 03:22, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
I don't know how (or why) one would edit Wikipedia from a phone. But WP:CITE provides instructions on how to cite sources so they show up as superscripts linked to footnotes at the bottom. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:03, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hi 70.50.199.125. Per WP:CITESTYLE, Wikipedia doesn't have a particular "house style" when it comes to formatting citations; however, editors are, in principle, asked to be consistent when it comes to the citation style being used in an article and also to defer the citation style adopted by the article's creator or first major contributor as explained in WP:CITEVAR. If you're able to format the citations correctly per CITEVAR because of the device you're using, you could try a different device, post something about the matter on the article's talk page, or simply be WP:BOLD on the hope that someone else will cleanup the formatting later. Often, copying-and-pasting a citation from the same article, and just changing the particulars works when trying to maintain citation format consistency. Have you tried to do that? -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:05, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Anachronist may not know how (or why) one would edit Wikipedia from a phone, but I know both. I have done 99% of my editing from smartphones for many years. I have written many articles including Good articles on my phone. I have expanded hundreds of articles on my phone. I became an adminstrator six years old on my phone and am highly active. As for how, I explain that in my essay User:Cullen328/Smartphone editing which I wrote over eight years ago. As for why, part of the reason is that some people claim that phone editing is impractical and unrealistic, and I live to prove them wrong. Another reason is that it is convenient. My phone is always at my side or in my pocket. I can edit Wikipedia for a minute or ten minutes or an hour, anytime I want, without trudging to a big computer. Whenever I have a few minutes of spare time, wherever I am, I can edit. My phone is a fully functional miniature computer, and Wikipedia's so called "desktop site" is fully functional on most 2024 phones. To me, the real question is why not edit Wikipedia on the world's most popular internet access device, by far? Cullen328 (talk) 06:22, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Good for you. I'd say you're an outlier. I'll stick with my PC with sufficient screen real estate, multiple tabs, and multiple displays, an actual keyboard that fits both my hands, and a pointing device that shows me context-sensitive information. That's the environment I prefer. There is nothing so important happening on Wikipedia that I absolutely must use my phone for editing. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:19, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
What Anachronist said! Also the trudging is for only a few metres and is (only very slightly, I must concede) good for my sedentary self. Even processes as simple (with a keyboard and rat) as copying/cutting and pasting are tedious with my phone. Security and other updates to the OS and software of the computer come plentifully and quickly. The probability that the computer would fall into the hands of others is infinitesimal, whereas the disappearance of my chums' phones isn't a rare occurrence (though I've been lucky so far). -- Hoary (talk) 07:34, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
COI question
Where would this person fall under the current guidelines of need to declare a COI:
Someone who, although never having met the subject of an existing or planned Wiki article, is beginning to feel very close and connected to that person, but not yet 100% so? Examples: on the secular level: an increasingly self-declared Swiftie; on the spiritual level, an increasingly self-declared devotee of a guru or saint?
I assume someone 100% self-declared would have an “official” COI, right?
Hi Augnablik. Great question! Being a fan does not - at least under the guidelines here - mean that you are regarded as a having a conflict of interest. It will make it difficult for you to be neutral, but we do not expect that editors are neutral - just that the articles we produce are. However, if the editor is activly involved with the subject off-wiki, such as actively opposing them or actively supporting them (president of a fan club, writing articles about them for media sources, etc) then it will enter COI territory. - Bilby (talk) 06:20, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
This particular question I raised is a more internal than external COI issue, @Bilby. The hypothetical editor in the case I described isn't actually doing anything externally but coming to feel ever closer internally to a person who's the subject of an article ... to the point that the subject of the article seems more and more like an old friend or a kindred spirit, perhaps even moving to the point that the editor might feel drawn to defend the subject if it seemed warranted.
I realize this question might sound "overly molecular" — and obviously hard to use a yardstick to measure — but I'm asking for a reason. Augnablik (talk) 14:25, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
If an editor who feels "close" to a subject cannot be neutral about it, then it's best for that editor to act as if a COI exists.
I've seen this happen before: an editor adds all sorts of promotional puffery to an article, and when questioned about a conflict of interest or paid editing, the editor responds "I have no association, I'm just a fan."
When you're a "fan" who is intent on elevating a subject and removing negative information, you have a COI as far as I'm concerned. To me, this seems to be a big hole in our WP:COI guidelines. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:25, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, @Anachronist — you’ve confirmed something I’ve been wondering about recently: that there doesn’t seem to be much, if anything, about a strong internal connection to the actual or potential subject of a Wiki article being a COI.
I can think of many people who I feel deep kinship with but have never met or done anything on behalf of — except perhaps call them to others’ attention — with whom I feel a much closer connection than many people I have met and done something on behalf of.
If someday I ever decided to throw my journalistic and academic training — not to mention support of “Wiki transparency” — to the wind as I worked on production of an article, I really think it would be for one of the people on my my unmet but deeply resonated-with list.
I’ll leave aside the haunting question of “can we ever be 100% unbiased anyway” and hope that you and other senior editors will pick up on my original question. To me, it seems a very practical one that many other still-newish editors like me might also have. Augnablik (talk) 02:26, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
My 18 years on Wikipedia have honed my skills at dispassionate neutral editing. One way to do this is to work on topics that interest you but you have no strong feelings about. The only "feeling" that may come into play might be fond memories of a movie that has no Wikipedia article, but there's no personal investment, so you can remain detached. Honing this skill also helps me better identify non-neutral or unreliable reporting outside of Wikipedia.
Being interested but detached is how I approached each article I created, listed on my user page. I took an interest in the topic, started investigating, and eventually had enough information to write an article about it. Note that this is the opposite approach to that taken by new editors, who typically try to write an article first (based on what they know or feel) and then look for sources. That is the WP:BACKWARD way to write. Me, I learned to look for sources first, and if I can't find anything sufficient even for a stub article (and I've written several stubs), then I simply don't write about the subject. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:53, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Your story, @Anachronist, is valuable because it’s a combination of personal, relevant, and interesting.
If we newbies had more such stories, I think we’d get much further faster through the thickets of WP:DO’s and WP:DONT’s. Thanks. Augnablik (talk) 06:43, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
What you're describing doesn't sound like a conflict of interest, but if the person is injecting their own personal bias into articles, it violates WP:Advocacy instead. A conflict-of-interest is when you would gain in some way (like fame, money, etc.) from a Wikipedia article being written a certain way.
For example, if Taylor Swift wrote an article about herself, that wouldn't be allowed, because she stands to gain from hiding negative information about herself and promoting positive information.
On the other hand, if a Taylor Swift fan is writing articles that say only good things about Taylor Swift, and is deleting any information that makes her look bad, that would be considered WP:POV pushing and WP:Advocacy. The fan doesn't actually gain anything from doing this, but they're allowing their own personal opinions to control what they write, which is not allowed. –Sincerely, A Lime01:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, @A Lime, this is very helpful. I've never heard of Advocacy as a Wiki category, though occasionally a bit about POV. What I appreciate is that you've related all three categories (COI, POV, and Advocacy). Connecting related categories is just the sort of thing I wish we had more of in Wiki editing. It would avoid a lot of surprise discoveries long after the need to know about connections like this has passed for an editor trying to fully understand something.
As @Anachronist said earlier in this thread, "When you're a 'fan' who is intent on elevating a subject and removing negative information, you have a COI as far as I'm concerned. To me, this seems to be a big hole in our WP:COI guidelines." Your mention of POV and Advocacy, @A Lime, seems the missing link that should be directly included in those guidelines.
Or perhaps even more basically ... maybe we need something on how to put all three categories together as to a "total package" of what to steer clear of because the emphasis is so much on COI that we may be underestimating POV and Advocacy. Augnablik (talk) 08:37, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Tony Caravan
Why is there no listing for Tony Caravan on Wikipedia. He's the author of 12 books and 50 songs and one of the pioneers of webcasting -- well before podcasting was a thing. He was the first to webcast live video and audio from places like Antarctica, The Himalayas, The North Pole and The Amazon. He has been active on the internet in one way, shape or form since the late 1980s. His resume also includes being a general manager of a radio station, creative director of an advertising agency, talent manager, producer, impresario among many others. He is considered by most to be a modern Renaissance man, yet no mention of him on Wikipedia. Why? His works can be found on Amazon, Apple, Spotify, etc. 137.103.6.239 (talk) 09:16, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1225. If Caravan's as esteemed as you say, then there should be reliable sources that are secondary and independent of him that would support him being considered wikinotable. It also helps to think of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia than as a listing directory. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 09:43, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
The answer to any question of the form "Why is X not on Wikipedia?" is almost always one or both of "Because nobody has written it" and "Because the subject is not notable (in Wikipedia's sense)".
Notice that "notable" as we use the word here is not directly connected with what a person is or has done: it is mostly about "Has there been enough independent material about them published in reliable sources to base an article on?" (Nothing written, published, commissioned, or based on the words of, the subject or their associates, will cound towards that).
So, if you can find the sources that are essential to establish that he meets the criteria for notability, you are welcome to read your first article, and creating a draft. Note, however, that creating an article is not easy, and people who try it before they have spent at least a few weeks learning about how Wikipedia works by making smaller edits, usually have a frustrating and disappointing time. ColinFine (talk) 09:48, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Can you change the title of you draft?
Hi, sorry to disturb you. Could you assist me in modifying the title of your draft? Despite numerous attempts, I have been unable to find a solution. Nameless (talk) 10:31, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
@Helloidonthaveaname Whose draft? The process of changing titles is done by moving the page to the new title. For drafts there is little need to do this and it can be confusing as it usually leaves a redirect at the old title. When the draft is accepted, the accepting editor can place the draft at the correct title: you can add a comment now to suggest what that should be. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:43, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
I wanna know why is my article being deleted from wikepedia even my article is necessary to be on wikepedia as I am uploading the biography of a well known person of our province DrMaqsoodAhmed.psp (talk) 06:29, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
First, are you the person you are writing about? That is highly discouraged, please read the autobiography policy. Second, you edited your user page, which is not article space, but a place for the operator of the account to tell about themselves as a Wikipedia editor or user. New accounts cannot directly create articles and must use the Article Wizard to create and submit a draft.
Even if you submitted your draft, it would not be accepted, as it is essentially a resume. An article should not merely list the professional qualifications and activities of a person- it should summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about them, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. I'm not certain that this government official(a police inspector) would draw the necessary coverage. 331dot (talk) 07:10, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Your draft was deleted because it was unambiguously promotional. Promotion is prohibited here. Wikipedia is never, ever, to be used as a publicity platform. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:21, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
The account of the editor who posted the query is now renamed User:SarimMumtaz, who states on User page as paid to attempt to create an article about Maqsood Ahmed. You are welcome to try again, but use WP:YFA to create and submit a draft. As advised above, unless you have quality references about Ahmed, you will not succeed. David notMD (talk) 10:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
IP editor. Thanks for wanting to improve that article. Please note that, in this case, footnotes and references refer to two different things. The references, which are numbered in the main text, comprise the list of sources that were used. Readers can verify that what has been said in the article is backed up by the sources. The footnotes (linked by lower-case letters) are much less important. They are really just comments introduced to help give readers context. See the template {{efn}} for the general use of these "explanatory footnotes". In many articles where there is a section like that, it is just called "Notes". Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
.... Apologies, I see that you must have known all that, since your recent changes have been using the efn template! Keep up the good work. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:14, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Indexing
Hello! I am trying to find why my Article (Colt IAR 6940) cannot be indexed by Search Engines. While the article can be found in the Wikipedia website, it is currently not being indexed. I was able to confirm that sites like Google and Bing have not indexed it. I tried waiting for a couple of days to see if it's just needs time, yet it didn't work. I also see that the site can be indexed by robots in the information tab.
This is pretty strange as my first article, which I sent through AfC, was sent to the mainspace and indexed right away. I am highly suspecting I need someone to help me, but the Wikiprojects the article is in are pretty dead and nobody's responding. What can I do? Personally it would be a shame to put all that work and having nobody to see it... Mattrices (talk) 11:22, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Mattrices, indexing will happen once a more experienced editor reviews and approves it. It can take anywhere between 0 and 90 days. You will receive a notification and or talk page messages when is reviewed. See WP:NPP for more. Best, — Usedtobecool☎️11:29, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Just for clarity, it can take longer for someone to review it. However if it's been 90 days, the parameter telling bots not to index it is removed regardless of whether it's reviewed/patrolled so search engines will generally start to index. See Wikipedia:Controlling search engine indexing. (We don't impose any measures to stop search engines indexing it so technically a search engine is free to index any article at any time. They're also free to not index them for any reason. But for Wikipedia articles the only general reason for major search engines is the noindex parameter and related limitations which don't apply to articles.) Nil Einne (talk) 11:42, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
I see. Is there a way to hasten the process, like adding it to more Wikiprojects, linking other articles to it, or even just improving it in general? Or do I take a step back and just allow time to pass in anticipation for a reviewer to find it? Mattrices (talk) 12:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
@Mattrices Although you started in the AfC process, you moved it to mainspace yourself, as you were entitled to do. That meant it has to await new pages patrol. If the draft had been accepted by an AfC reviewer it would have been marked as ready for indexing immediately. Only WP:Autopatrolled users can avoid this. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:37, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I have a photo I took under Charles Bridge showing (not very clearly but unmistakenly) a Freemason compass. I looked online and someone was selling a similar photo (wth). Can I give it to wikipedia for free? 107.143.76.152 (talk) 13:53, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi Eotf537. You can absolutely can, thank you. You may upload it to Wikimedia Commons (you should be able to log in to Commons using the same account as on Wikipedia) using their Upload Wizard which will ask you a bunch of questions guiding you to select an appropriate free licence. If you were taking a photo of a public artwork then Freedom of Panorama laws might apply but I shouldn't think they would with a logo on a bridge. (by the way, are we talking about the Charles Bridge in Prague or a different one?) -- D'n'B-t -- 14:27, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
A few minutes ago, I edited the Foreign relations of Ireland page because I read an official article regarding Ireland's recognition of Palestine that also says that the two governments have also agreed to establish diplomatic relations. Here is ther reference:
A few seconds later however, some user by the name of Semsûrî (I'm not going to @ him or else he'll know) reverted my edit (which he at least labeled as good faith) just because the article is written in future tense. Prior to that, I clearly wrote a quote that includes words like "agreed" which is literally past tense. Even if the rest of the article is in future tense, just that diplomatic relations sentence has past tense on it. Even if I convince him I don't think that he will earn my trust because he takes diplomatic relations stuff very seriously in here. How do I cope this next time I edit an article here? Underdwarf58 (talk) 15:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
To be honest, the reason why I decided to not mention him is because I had an emotional breakdown after seeing his revert. How do I deal with that too? Underdwarf58 (talk) 15:14, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Hello, UNderdwarf58, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid that we can't help you deal with your emotional breakdown. If you are prone to this sort of reaction to having your edits reverted, then perhaps editing Wikipedia is not for you (or if it is because of the subject matter, then perhaps you need to steer clear of that subject).
But, as Mike Turnbull says, Wikipedia works by discussion among editors, not any sort of appeal to authority: please see WP:BRD for how this is intended to work. ColinFine (talk) 15:22, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
That's okay, I've figured that I need to control my emotions and practice empathy in order to cope with mental disorder and "taking things too literally". But thanks for your help nonetheless. Underdwarf58 (talk) 15:27, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Making a section extend to the end of an infobox
In 3Blue1Brown#Manim, the infobox doesn't fit within the height of the section on many screens and causes the following, long References section to have reduced width. Is there a way to have that section extend to the end of the infobox, or should it just be left as is? Sophon96 (talk) 23:55, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
@Meters, thanks for the info! I saw your edit, and I'm not sure if you intentionally added the template to the article infobox. I was referring to the one in the Manim section, and I had intentionally moved it to the top of that section as infoboxes at the top of the section seem to be the most common (plus, it looks more logical to me). I assumed it wasn't intentional (as I haven't seen many article infoboxes use clear), so I've moved the clear down to the Manim section. Sophon96 (talk) 00:20, 28 May 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.
This page is for help in editing Wikipedia. It is not for general knowledge questions, still less for speculating about the future. Please find another outlet (not anywhere in Wikipedia) for questions like that. ColinFine (talk) 18:41, 28 May 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.
Outdated Info for “Consumer Cellular Inc”
The page shows an alert with concerns of a too-close major contributor. But more concerning is that the company has moved its HQ from Oregon to Scottsdale AZ, and from a user friend I've learned that it has moved its user base entirely to T-Mobile.
I'm not familiar enough with all the operations and other cases where Wikipedia's info is outdated. Does somebody else want to try? Woof! (talk) 20:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Hello, Woof!, and welcome to the Teahouse.
In order to make a change to the article Consumer Cellular, we'll require a reliable published source for any information to be added : "I've learned from a friend" doesn't cut it.
The best thing to do is to start a discussion on the talk page Talk:Consumer Cellular, where people who have an interest in the subject are more likely to see it. If you can find a source for the information, include it, and that makes it more likely that somebody will decide to edit the article. ColinFine (talk) 21:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia Group Theme?
Is it possible to creat a collaborative Wikipedia Group that focuses on specific themes?
If yes, how can I creat a Group on Wikipedia? IlEssere (talk) 20:55, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Hello IlEssere, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "themes", but I suspect that what you are looking for it WikiProjects - there are many, some of which are very active, and some inactive. ColinFine (talk) 21:02, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Sarimqureshi 6, it was deleted. The oddity of Draft:Dr. Maqsood Ahmed started with its title. Albert Einstein is somebody who, rather famously, earned a doctorate, yet the article about him is titled plain "Albert Einstein", not "Dr. Albert Einstein". "Dr", "Ms" and the like don't belong in draft/article titles.
Here's a humdrum example from the rightly deleted draft:
Performed extremely well in providing protection to important personalities whenever and wherever needed.
Three problems: (i) This grand claim comes with no evidence whatever. (ii) Bits of this are in bold for no obvious reason. (iii) It should be a sentence; but as a sentence it's clearly defective: it needs a subject.
Before attempting any new article, please improve existing articles in accordance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, thereby familiarizing yourself with Wikipedia norms. -- Hoary (talk) 21:32, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Ref error
I need help fixing an error on here: Draft:Unomattina estate#Seasons
I have tried playing around with source editing to fix the issue but couldn't find it. I preview the edited changes and the message of "Cite error: A (see the help page)". is still there after multiple attempts to fix it. Anyone know what the issue was? Soafy234 (talk) 21:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi Soafy234. There were several errors. I haven't examined the content of the references but is [9] what you want with three references for Barbara Capponi? PrimeHunter (talk) 21:33, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
I have a question about Wikipedia style policies on the use of euphemism and weasel words, in particular as used in article titles. Eg. is it inappropriate to use the "unrest" as a euphemism for "riots". Do such style policies exist? Can someone point me to them?
See MOS:WEASEL. As for whether 'unrest' rather than 'riot' is appropriate in a title, it would depend on the context, and on how appropriate sources described the event in question. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:18, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Looking at WP:EUPHEMISM, if the event meets the definition of riot then "riot" is preferred over "unrest". Do I have that right? RealLRLee (talk) 20:57, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
No. The common name is generally preferred over others. Also the definition of something is often not so important to us directly anyway. We generally go by what reliable secondary sources say rather than editor interpretations of whether something meets some definition. Reliable secondary sources will normally rely on definitions but it's not something we're independently deciding. Nil Einne (talk) 07:16, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Would you please reference the applicable Wikipedia policy that supports your claim that WP:EUPHEMISM is to be ignored is selecting multiple possible common names? RealLRLee (talk) 22:35, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
@RealLRLee: COMMONNAME is a policy about article titles, not article prose. And just because something is a guideline doesn't mean we give it less value. I consider policies as our governing rules, and guidelines as our best practices. Ignoring either one isn't a great idea. If reliable sources use a euphemism to describe something, that doesn't mean we should. It also doesn't mean we should ignore what reliable sources call something. Particularly if the naming might be controversial, we should see what most reliable sources use. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:14, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
EvergreenFir -- Would you please QUOTE the specific guideline or policy text that suggests that MOS:EUPHEMISM [1] does not apply in the current case? RealLRLee (talk) 00:49, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
User:Nil Einne: Again, as I asked above --"Would you please reference the applicable Wikipedia policy that supports your claim that WP:EUPHEMISM is to be ignored is selecting multiple possible common names?"
Can I close/carry out a merge I've proposed if there has been no opposition?
Per heading, if I have requested a merge and no one has opposed it and a reasonable time has passed e.g. a fortnight would it be appropriate to simply carry out the action? Closing moves and mergers requires someone uninvolved but I feel this is somewhat different given if I had just done the merge/move before I wouldn't need to worry about that. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:54, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure what merge you are referring to specifically, but on the page on mergers, it mentions that other than obvious cases the other use for the request process is if it is beneficial to have discussion, or is difficult to carry it out. If there has been no discussion, and based on the proposals around the same time as it, you don't expect any more conversation, you may want to try and WP:Be Bold, as the link above suggests. Happy Editing--IAmChaos01:21, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Hey everyone! I apologise if this is a silly question, but a draft I made recently was moved to namespace and I've been told I can now create articles without the AfC process (if I've interpreted that correctly).
I have another article (Draft:Still House Plants) that I made a couple of weeks back, before my approved article was made. This draft was declined, but in the time since, I'm pretty sure I've fixed the issues raised (information re: WP:NMUSICIAN which a reviewer directed to me at the AfC help desk). My question - is it appropriate for me to move the article myself, instead of waiting for the reviewers, now that I have the ability to do so?
Hi LemurLiterature. In my oersonal opinion, it doesn't really matter in the long run whether you or an AFC reviewer moves the article to the mainaspace per se as long as the article truly belongs in the mainspace; however, since you've already submitted the draft for review, it might be best just to let the process run its course. There's really WP:NODEADLINE in effect here; so, if you've satisfactorily improved the draft and addressed the reasons why it was previously declined, it will likely be accepted this time around. Even if, by chance, it's declined yet again, you will at least have an better idea as to what was lacking and you could use the feedback to help you avoid similar problems when creating future articles. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:22, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Article addition: Conquest of Mount Everest by first Kurd & Iraqi
Article addition: Conquest of Mount Everest by ,,Dadvan Yousuf", who became the first person worldwide to achieve this feat on May 20, 2024, as reported by reputable media sources.
Many hundreds of wealthy people spend many tens of thousands of dollars every year to be led up Mount Everest by professional guides. This is not a notable mountaineering accomplishment any more. A mountaineering accomplishment becomes worthy of mentioning on Wikipedia when it covered by reliable mountaineering publications, not by cryptocurrency publications, which have zero expertise about mountaineering matters and poor reputations for reliability in general. Cullen328 (talk) 07:26, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Being "first X from country Y", "youngest Ä to do Ö", etc. may make someone 'noteworthy' in some sense of the word, but that's not what we're talking about; the issue at stake here is notability, and such factors were never (AFAIK) criteria for Wikipedia notability. They may generate publicity of sufficient quality and quantity to indirectly satisfy the WP:GNG notability standard, but even then, pulling off a blatant publicity stunt like being the first to plant the Bitcoin flag on the summit (!) will carry little or no weight. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:16, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
I thought the OP was suggesting to create a new article. However, there's already an article on Dadvan Yousuf, apparently. There's no reason it can't have a mention in the article, but doesn't need to be in the lead section. There's already discussion about this on the article talk page. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:03, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Here is what Wikipedia:WikiProject Climbing/Article recommendations says about this: Editors should be cautious of modern climbers of eight-thousanders (especially normal routes on Mount Everest, Cho Oyu, and Makalu), which are now achievable by ambitious tourists with $50,000, but little climbing skills. These ascents are no longer covered in climbing media per above, although they are often covered in blogs run by touring companies to promote their guiding business to eight-thousanders. There has been no coverage of this person's ascent of Mount Everest in any legitimate mountaineering publication because it is of no interest to people who are serious about mountaineering. The coverage of this climb in cryptocurrency publications is duplicative, promotional and repetitive, and is obviously generated by press releases and self-promotional public relations efforts by Yousuf himself. There is literally zero original reporting because cryptocurrency publications have zero interest in reporting on actual mountaineering accomplishments. Cullen328 (talk) 02:42, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
if a school student decides to vandalize and the whole school uses the same ip address does that just screw everyone over
Is this section of the Anxiety Threshold article appropriate for Wikipedia? It seems odd and out of place, but I can't figure out it's actually against any specific policies. I had a look at WP:NOTGUIDE and it seems to fit, but I'm not confident enough that I feel comfortable removing/changing it and would like advice from a more experienced editor. -- NotCharizard🗨07:32, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
As it is an encylopedia, and all the content is sourced to multiple third parties from the medical field (only one source is broken), and one source is even used within the "Statistics" section, i would say that: No, it does indeed belong. While I understand that it is sometimes expected for an encyclopedia to be clean and sterile and therefore a "home remedy section" seems out of the ordinary, that does not mean that they do not belong into the Wikipedia. Not only problems deserve to be catatalogued into an encyclopedia, solutions are also worthy of the same. And if I were to create new page on Home remedies against anxiety I'll betcha there would be a merge request in a week. Also, you are talking about a subsection within "Management", so the content definitely belongs.
HOWEVER, you are very correct regarding the language used. Since as you rightly linked, WP:NOTGUIDE clearly disadvises the "how to-style" of speech, which is the case here. Also, nor is WP:VOICE folowed here, as shown below. So, per example,
"Be physically active. Having a routine to follow can help stay active throughout the week. Staying active throughout the week can be a great way to relieve stress and improve mood. This exercise doesn't need to be strenuous. It can start out easy and slowly increase in intensity"
Therefore, your idea of changing it seems appropriate, simply deleting it seems like a loss to the encyclopedia, as phyical activity etc. do in fact help with anxiety and mood which people should be aware of, especially if anxious, and could be corroborated even harder with more than an ADAA link.
P.S.: Maybe the odd feeling comes from the fact that the section looks eerliy similar to a copy-paste answer a modern LLM-based ChatBot might give when prompted "Can you give me a sourced list of lifestyle changes to help with my anxiety/depression?"
"Why certainly! Lifestyle can make a big difference in how people feel and think. Here are a few things people have tried to decrease anxiety throughout their everyday life:
Guidelines on adding information currently unavailable on the internet?
Edit: I realise the title isn't semantically correct by saying only "on the internet." Here I mean something more along the lines of there's no source (book, website, otherwise) for this factoid available.
Hi! I'm relatively new to Wikipedia editing, despite my account being a few years old by now. I've read and understand WP:NOR and that Wikipedia is very strict on zero first-party research being allowed in articles due to conflicts of interest, etc, etc. However, I've had this hypothetical that actually had a good example in a stub I was reading the other day (I can't remember what), and I'm curious as to what the protocol would be for it.
Say that an under-cited/under-written section/article was in need of citations or would benefit from more relevant information (within encyclopedic reason/relevance): How can I get information—that has no reference/source extant on the internet—added there? My first thought is to publish (on my website or something of the like) a secondary documentation that cites the original primary/reliable source of my information; my goal would be to get the information I would want in the section/article on the internet to start. But, as per WP:NOR's policy, I would not add this to Wikipedia myself. I can respect that.
Assuming my reliability can be 100% proven to Wikipedia beyond doubt (not sure on the details of proving what I'm saying online when I'm the first person to say it…it's a hypothetical!)—what's the precedent for getting this info into the article? Is there some protocol, like when one has a conflict of interest when creating an article, they can request it be written by someone unassociated, where I can give my documentation as a reference for some fact(s) that should be added?
Hello, @Toydotgame and welcome to the Teahouse. Sources for your citations technically doesn't need to be on the internet to be sourced for information. You can use WP:OFFLINE sources. If you do use offline sources, make sure you use a parameter in the citation template to show that the source is offline. If this doesn't answer your question, please let me know. Thank you, Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥14:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Yeah sorry I realised after writing my question that "not on the internet" isn't semantically correct and I was thinking under the assumption that the internet is where knowledge exclusively exists[? not sure why]. I meant more along the lines of there are no extant books/papers/journal articles/newspaper clippings/audiovisual media or web sources for a certain thing.
My hypothetical is quite flimsy but in essence I'm trying to ask if I had relevant/useful information (that exists nowhere) I can publish and defend myself—and I'm not allowed to add own research to Wikipedia—how can I get the info into the article (as a caption or article text/whatever) in order to improve the article's reliability/encyclopedic value? Thanks for your response! toydotgametalk contribs14:40, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
If the information is not sourced and you can not find any information about it, it is best to remove it as original research. You adding the information into a webpage would make the source unreliable and the sources verifiability would be questionable. So if I had an article say "Foobar had voted Republican in 2000" without a citation, I would delete it if I did not find a reliable source for the information. If you are uncomfortable with making the edit, you can link the article here and I can take a look at it. Thank you, Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥14:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Ah I see, that makes sense. In my mind as much information as possible should be there (within WP:NOTDB reason, obviously)—but the policy of no own research (and un-cited info counting as own research) taking precedent over the comprehensiveness of an article is understandable and I can agree to that! Now that you say it, {{Unreferenced section}} templates meaning a section is "own research" and its existence is in jeopardy because no dubious information is better than having a section that's completely unverified by anything. Thanks for clarifying! toydotgametalk contribs15:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi Sock-the-guy. Good find. See Wikipedia:Merging#How to merge for detailed instructions. Rather than repeat a lot of that, I suggest you read it and either ask more specific questions you still need, or make the merge and ask if you did it right. The pages are not suited for history merge. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Seems fine, I re-added the image of the building and the infobox thing with all the links at the bottom (whatever that is called). Traumnovelle (talk) 23:59, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Would you mind undoing it so I can have the practice? I imagine this will be much less intimidating in the future if I've actually done it before 68.2.230.114 (talk) 00:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
All I did was edit the old page that is now a redirect. If you wish to edit/view the history of a redirect you need to click on the page when it says '(Redirected from Article here))' If you are using source editor it is not that hard to find the content and copy it over. If you are using visual editor - I have no idea. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:06, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
I understand where you are coming from. However, please try to see my perspective that as a new editor I am trying to learn how to edit. It took me a while to even find an example like this that was a bigger edit involving some actual formatting rather than just copy-editing. Please allow me to ask for directions without losing the ability to try myself (as I mentioned twice in my original post). There is much more educational value in doing something rather than looking at someone else's edits. Sock-the-guy (talk) 00:11, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
I'm trying to be civil but my god. Is it so bad to let an edit take slightly longer so that someone can learn? This is exhausting. I suppose what I've learned here is "don't ask for help" Sock-the-guy (talk) 00:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
It doesn't seem very nice to link WP:OWN as if they are violating it, they aren't - this is a collaborative project, trying to do everything yourself even when people explicitly request the opportunity to do it themselves is the opposite of collaborative. – 2804:F14:8085:6201:79B8:8DAD:273E:E996 (talk) 03:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
The only request was 'please don't just do it for me', I didn't merge the page - I merely copied over an image and navigation template that were left behind. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:34, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Well they asked if it's correct, clearly there were things missing, which you did yourself instead of answering - on that topic, @Sock-the-guy, the talk pages still need to be merged or redirected. If there are more things, I don't have the experience to tell so I didn't look for them. – 2804:F1...3E:E996 (talk) 03:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
No big problems, but all you've done, Liah78, is to remove swathes of unreferenced material. You don't seem to have touched what you haven't removed. The material in the article of course ought either to be referenced or to be deleted. In your place I'd have added Template:Citation needed and Citation:Unreferenced section where appropriate, and returned a month later to delete what remained unreferenced. Your edit summary, "Clean up" is oddly uninformative: "Removing unreferenced material" would have been better. -- Hoary (talk) 01:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
@Hoary Thank you so much. I will do that. Regarding the information I removed, it seemed to me that someone was attempting to add "SABS Commercial (Pty) Ltd" in the draft, which is why it was so confusing.
Hi, Liah78. To enlarge a bit on what Hoary says: anybody is permitted to remove unreferenced material from an article, so in that sense you haven't done anything wrong. But this is not always the best thing to do.
In an ideal world, in a case like this you would look for the reliable sources for the information, and either add them, or remove it if you can't find any, preferably with an edit summary explaining why you've removed it. But that's a big job, so most of us don't always do this: cleanup tags such as Hoary suggested are usually a better approach. ColinFine (talk) 10:39, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi @SnoopyStudent: as I don't know what exactly you're trying to do and what error message you're getting, I can't comprehensively answer your question, but the first thing that jumps at me is that 2500 x 1400 is almost certainly too high-res to qualify under the fair-use provisions, per WP:IMAGERES. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:18, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Hello all. I see that some new editors are assigned a mentor to be there as a guide, support, etc. Such a cool idea. How are folks assigned to a mentor, do you have to sign up? Do you just reach out to an editor and ask? Thanks :) Taevchoi (talk) 16:15, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
@Taevchoi We only have enough mentors for about 50% of new accounts to get them at present. However, if you were in the half that didn't, then you can activate the Newcomer Homepage at Special:preferences (at the bottom there is a check-box). Once you have saved that change in your preferences, the homepage tab will be visible when you navigate to your userpage and that tab has the name of your assigned mentor. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
@Gråbergs Gråa Sång Yes. I am a mentor and wanted to check out how the newcomer homepage tab worked and what it looked like: in activating it on my account I was assigned a mentor (whom I have never contacted). Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:52, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
@Michael D. Turnbull, I'm in the 50% of editors who got a mentor. But now, two years after the Wiki start gate opened for me, I feel that so many senior editors have been like mentors in the Teahouse and other areas where we can ask questions that I'd be willing to "free up" my assigned mentor. Perhaps other editors would, too. Augnablik (talk) 01:43, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
I don't actively check who is being assigned to me. I await their contact, which happens on my Talk Page. I currently have 625 mentees, with new ones being added at 2 to 4 per day. If I added a welcome message to all of them I would have little time to do anything else! Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:51, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Yes, my mentor dashboard is set so I get the "average" number. This perhaps explains why only 50% of new users on enWiki get the newcomer homepage. Note that, as I've already said, few of my assigned mentees ever contact me: about 30 have done so this year (see my Talk Page: they are the ones with timestamps in the section title, which is how this newcomer feature works). Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
The idea of assigned mentors is a nice “warm fuzzy,” and appreciated as we start out on our Wiki editing journey making our way through the fog.
But if (1) there aren’t enough mentors to go around; and (2) mentor-mentee interaction isn’t as strong as anticipated when the program was initiated; and (3) mentees find good support from non-assigned senior editors simply through discussion like here in the Teahouse, perhaps assigned mentors aren’t really needed.
But something is. For awhile, at least. What about occasional Internet forums via threaded message boards. These could be available for all new editors to take part in, within some sort of time frame like 6 months or a year after they come to Wikipedia.
Since newbies would interact with several senior editors rather than just one — and in addition, with fellow newbies — this could actually expand their sense of connection with Wikipedia beyond what they have in the current assigned mentor arrangement. Augnablik (talk) 13:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for the invitation, @Marchjuly — can you say a little more about that team, though? Because GROWTH would seem to be a much larger focus than just mentorship. Augnablik (talk) 00:30, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
I'm not a member of the Growth Team, but there is more information about it on the link I included in my earlier post. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:50, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Seems that some accounts don't have mentorship, even with the homepage. (Homepage seems to be rolled out to all accounts.) All accounts technically do have an assigned mentor, but the panel is not visible to the other half of the new accounts. However, based on my past testing, "claiming" a mentee (from a mentor's dashboard) makes the panel visible, as I did on my own account. ~~2NumForIce (speak|edits) 15:18, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
I do not see that option when I go to my user page. I would really like a mentor to show me how to appropriately edit various pages on Wikipedia and work on citations. So far, I've only been participating in discussion on a few talk pages, but that's the extent of my participation on Wikipedia thus far.
I'm a new user. I need some advice on accepted practices.
I created an article on the artist Dan Earl May. I see that it has recently been revised. Many of the additions (on exhibits, publications, etc.) strengthen the article. The first sentence has been changed, however, to note the artist's association with a specific art gallery. (The original highlighted what May was known for.) To me it reads as if it is promoting the gallery.
I'm not sure how to proceed. If I were to change it back, it could be seen as a petty attempt to maintain my original work. Is there a third party or someone to look at this? Thanks in advance for the advice.
Hello, Owleyesinthelibrary. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and nobody owns any article. Editors regularly have disagreements about what is best for an article, and are expected to discuss the matter calmly and attempt to reach consensus. If you collectively are unable to achieve this, then dispute resolution tells you ways to proceed.
If you disagree with the edits that another editor has made, the best thing to do is to open a discussion on the article's talk page Dan Earl May, and make sure you ping the other editor there. Please see WP:BRD for how this is supposed to work. (It says that you are permitted to revert their edit once, but in this case I suggest that you go straight to the discussion phase). ColinFine (talk) 19:54, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
"Many of the additions (on exhibits, publications, etc.) strengthen the article." Owleyesinthelibrary, the bulky additions on exhibitions do not strengthen the article, as they're unreferenced. Almost all of the group exhibitions sound very minor and I suspect that the great majority, perhaps all, are better deleted, unless some editor can cite an art critic/journalist/historian commenting on them. The list of awards, too, is unreferenced. -- Hoary (talk) 22:29, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Unable to resubmit
I am getting an error @Theroadislongwhen trhying to resubmit this with the requested changes. Any tips?
I am getting this error message: No stashed content found for (followed by a nonsensical arrangement of letters and dashes and numbers) Saraalutz (talk) 06:01, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Previous people who helped with this error said that it might be caused by having the edit page open for a very long time before publishing the changes, that you might need to copy your changes (if they aren't lost), click edit again, paste your changes and then try again. – 2804:F14:80E4:8401:DCFE:5436:C21:470C (talk) 06:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Most of the draft cites no sources at all. Where did you get all that infomation from? Only the list of "Media Appearances:" cites sources. Maproom (talk) 07:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
@Saraalutz I believe you may have an undeclared 'conflict of interest' in writing about Debbie Matthews. Please follow the instructions and declare any connection you have with her on your userpage. See WP:COI for how to do this. If you are being paid in any way, you are obliged to declare who is paying you. Again, please read and follow WP:PAID to ensure you remain within our policy requirements whilst editing.
I am concerned that the large number of images you have uploaded to Commons suggests you have direct personal access to photographs collated by Debbie Matthews, and that you do not understand the way Wikimedia Commons works. I would point out that even if Debbie Matthews holds those photos, she will not own the copyright to many of them - especially those taken whilst she was racing on her bike and not holding the camera! Unless you were the photographer, yourself, you will not have the legal right to release another person's photos under a Creative Commons licence for anyone else to use. Equally, whilst we encourage you to cite news stories from newspapers in which she is mentioned, you may not upload photos of newspaper pages to Commons as they remain copyright of the newspaper publisher. You do not have the rights to release them, either. Do not be surprised if many of these photos are marked for future deletion. Kind regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 08:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Saraalutz, there is no way under the sun that such a poorly referenced draft can be accepted into the encyclopedia. You have provided no way for readers to verify that many, many claims in your draft are true. Please be aware that Verifiability is a core content policy, as is No original research which is also applicable. Cullen328 (talk) 08:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
You have some neck charging for your poor editing! You are being paid by the subject to write this, do your client a favour and learn how Wikipedia actually works before submitting this again. Theroadislong (talk) 07:55, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
@Saraalutz has declared on their user page that they are being paid, my kindness extends to editing for up to 8 hours a day to help the encyclopaedia for free. I hate seeing people being taken advantage of by poor quality paid editing. Theroadislong (talk) 05:39, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
@Saraalutz Your inline citations are messed up (Superscript? Why? Just use the ref tags.) Also, your sources are very questionable. Interviews on YouTube and primary sources… 48JCL(talk)02:43, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Copyvio
Hi, I can't get access to the book used as the source but it looks like a large chunk ("The Last Will and Testament of Miss Sophia Smith") of this article was directly copied from a source. This isn't okay... is it? And if it isn't, do I just delete it (and request revision delete)? Thanks. GoldRomean (talk) 03:14, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
The will must have been published before she died (1870 based on the article), so is therefore in the public domain and freely reproducible anywhere. In my personal opinion it should probably be summarized rather than placed there verbatim for readability but there is no legal issue with how the article is currently written. You are correct that if the text was eligible for copyright protection (which it isn't), you would delete it and request revision deletion. Tollens (talk) 05:29, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
How to work on articles about politics
I've been on Wikipedia since 2008, but only off-and-on. I'm an academic in the fields of political science and international relations. I'd really like to get back to editing regularly, and I'd love to help improve articles and resolve disputes in those topic areas. But I don't know quite where to start.
I've signed up to receive RFC notices about politics. Can anyone offer some other ideas for how to get involved in the editing community on those topics? Pecopteris (talk) 04:22, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi editors, I'm Altaf with the IKEA Foundation. I made a request to add a History section to the IKEA Foundation article on April 16 but so far it has not received a response. I have posted to several WikiProjects and to individual editors to see if there was any interest but so far have heard nothing. I realize there is no deadline on Wikipedia, but I was wondering if there is anything else I could do to drum up interest? Thanks in advance for your insight. AMfromIKEA (talk) 07:18, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
@AMfromIKEA Perhaps because they saw this discussion, an editor has suggested you go ahead with the change you proposed. There is a specific template {{edit coi}} you can use for such requests which are more likely to be followed up quickly since there are some editors who specialise in working on them. That helps when there are few people with the article on their watchlist. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:37, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
I am a very, very intermittent editor who maybe once or twice a year makes minor fixes to articles.
I was looking in Wikipedia for information on a specific "think tank", but couldn't find it by the name it was referred to in an article. Eventually using a search engine I found that is not its formal name, which I then used to find it on Wikipedia. I thus feel that there should be a link in Wikipedia that redirects from a search using the name it is sometimes referred to.
I notice this frequently. For instance: searching for "National Aeronautics and Space Administration" redirects to "NASA"; "JB Priestly" to "J. B. Priestly"; etc.
In this case, I searched for "Misgav Institute" after seeing it in a mainstream newspaper article identifying a writer. I finally found using a search engine its proper name, "Institute for Zionist Strategies". Its Wikipedia's first line says: "The Misgav Institute for National Security and Zionist Strategy (formerly named Institute for Zionist Strategies) ...".
What I want to do is add to the Wikipedia search function a link to that article if "Misgav Institute" is entered. How?
Hello - how do I deal with somebody repeatedly reverting an article to put incorrect information in it. It is quite frustrating - I have addresed the issue in the edits, but every time I do they revert it back.
Hello, D-AIFF. I haven't looked at the article, but by the sound of it, both of you are edit warring, which is regarded as disruptive editing and may get you blocked.
If you have a disagreement with another editor, you must not keep reverting them, but must instead discuss it on the article's talk page - if you cannot reach consensus, then dispute resolution tell you how to proceed. See WP:BRD for an overview of the process.
One other thing I will say is "I am right and they are wrong" is not a helpful approach to the collaborative process that is Wikipedia. You may be right, you may be wrong, I don't know. But the object is achieving consensus, not bludgeoning your version into the encyclopaedia. ColinFine (talk) 10:29, 30 May 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.
,,Dadvan Yousuf" needs to be added in Wiki List with first summits of each country.
And his article needs to be updated with it. He summited 20 May 2024.
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.
Can RfCs be removed for any cause?
I have come across an RfC that was removed by another editor (without any discussion, withdrawal, or close ensuing), see diff (though the editor has notified the submitter thereof on the appropriate talk page section).
I appreciate that RfCs without prior discussion on an article’s talk page are not encouraged, but I thought it was against community policy to remove an RfC from community purview once submitted – no matter how rushed or ill-advised the RfC may have been. I am aware of WP:RFCBEFORE, but that is, per the project page itself, not a policy, nor a guideline, so not all steps listed therein necessarily reflect consensus.
What are the established rules for RfCs that are submitted too soon? Can they be removed so unceremoniously? Thanks in advance! (P.S.: If any editors should be notified of what I consider an informal question, please let me know!) –Konanen (talk) 21:53, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
I don't want to speak for Primefac, but his comment at Talk:Vaush#Pronunciation of 'Vaush' was I've removed the RFC tag - there has been little in the way of previous discussion, and we don't need all and sundry giving opinions when likely the folks watching this page will be able to make a well-informed opinion on the matter.Deor (talk) 23:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Okay, well, uhm… I have as of now not received an answer to the core of my question. I am trying to learn the massive amount of existing WP P&G, so I will elaborate some more: I thought consensus was key for most things, especially when it came to RfCs or other community-widely requested input. I do not disagree with the outcome, nor with the opinion that the RfC in question was a bit too rushed, but would the only permissible courses of action not have been to either (a) ask the submitter to withdraw, or else (b) move for a procedural close (if they exist in RfCs)? –Konanen (talk) 12:00, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
internal links and inviting to a talk
I would like to do two things and am struggling to see information about them:
1 Put a link in a talk to page to an internal wp page eg this one or a wp policy?
2 invite someone to a talk page? Hewer7 (talk) 11:55, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
@Hewer7 The classic way to link to a WP-page of any kind is putting the title between double square brackets, for example [[gold]] gives gold. To WP:PING another editor, one way is writing like this: [[User:Hewer7]]. If you're in conversation, using the "reply" link in a WP-thread, there is a button that can be used for that, little guy with a plus. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:22, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
@Hewer7 To link to a talk page, type [[Talk:Article_name]] in source editor. To invite someone, you can ping them using @[[User:Hewer7|Hewer7]], like I did here. Toadspike[Talk]12:22, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Pretty much just a basic question; is this Wikipedia in any way affiliated with Simple Wikipedia? (In my case, Simple English Wikipedia)
The reason I ask is I noticed there are very little sources and frequent vandalism on some articles, and when I tried to fix the SEW article on Amun (SEW) as best as I could, I realized that they're two different websites. Madamepestilence (talk) 20:20, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi Madamepestilence! It's a little complicated. The English and Simple English Wikipedias are both administered by the Wikimedia Foundation, so in that way yes, but the Wikimedia Foundation is not responsible for article content. Articles are written and maintained by volunteers on each project, and while some of them work on both projects, most do not, and users with advanced rights (administrators, for example) on one of the projects don't automatically get them on the other. Policies on each project may also differ significantly. For most purposes, no, they are not affiliated. Tollens (talk) 20:27, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
A separate tab called "Simple" on every language edition of Wikipedia, which shows the simplified summary using approved list of simplified words/grammar, but is summarizing somehow the regular language edition. I know Simple English is a distinct language, which complicates this, but this would enable English Wikipedia editors to contribute to both English/Simple English.
Hello Everybody,
Im looking for a mentor who could construct my band's page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beast_in_Black
Unfortunately i dont have the time or knowledge and especially the energy to learn how to make a proper wikipedia page but id like to have a great page which goes well with all the wikipedia rules. Because i think wikipedia is the most important online platform to deliver accurate and up to date information to people.
Thanks in advance
Mate Molnar Wisdommetal (talk) 08:54, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Wisdom metal Hello and welcome. I would encourage you to think of it more as an article about your band, and not your band's page- the article is not for the benefit of your band in any way. There may be benefits, but those are not our primary mission. An important thing to remember is that the article about your band is not a place for your band to provide current, up to the minute information about itself- you should do that on your band website and social media. The article about your band is for summarizing what independent reliable sources choose to say about it. This can include current information, but our goal is to provide a good summary of general information about the band and what makes it an important band as Wikipedia defines it.
This isn't really the place to seek out editors to edit the article for you- you are welcome to propose edits on the talk page(Talk:Beast in Black) as formal edit requests(click for instructions) that detail the specific changes you want to see. You will need to declare your relationship with the band, please see conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 09:04, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Beast in Black is already a "proper wikipedia page" and it is not clear what you think requires improvement, but if you have specific suggestions the place to do so is the talk page of that article. If you are looking for someone to create a page for some other band, you should be aware that by saying so you are liable to be scammed. Do not pay anyone to create an article for you as it is very unlikely to be published. See WP:SCAM for more information. Shantavira|feed me09:12, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Hello Wisdommetal. I see no problems with the Wikipedia article on Beast in Black, and after checking the View history I see that several editors have voluntarily chosen to improve the article over the years. Could you explain why you want an article "constructed" when the article already exists? Karenthewriter (talk) 13:54, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
@IJohnKennady I was able to copy and paste the table directly into Excel. Not the MediaWiki source code, but the displayed table itself, the thing you have after "e-g". Toadspike[Talk]12:20, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
So I'm currently working on this draft right here which is a novel by John Connolly but there is already a article on the mainspace called Dark Hollow which is a novel by a different author. Both novels have the same name which can be confusing so what can I name the draft so it isn't confusing? Soapforduck(Say what?)(Did what?) 15:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
If you submit your draft through the AFC process, see the "submit for review" button on the top of the draft, and the draft is accepted, the reviewer who accepts your article will properly rename both articles. Esolo5002 (talk) 15:44, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
The typical way this would be disambiguated is that the Connolly novel would be titled Dark Hollow (Connolly novel) and the other article would be titled Dark Hollow (Keene novel) based on the way I see other pages doing it. Reconrabbit15:57, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
How do I edit and upload my biography on Wikipedia
Can someone help me make sure this meets wiki standards? After the initial denial, I've made more edits, added a lot of references and uses of research. If someone could point me to what else I need to do, or given help research these assessments themselves that'd be great. (Verbal Behavior Milestones Assessment and Placement Program) Needs more citations too which was created in 2008~. Risinglms (talk) 19:09, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
@Risinglms: A couple of quick obervations: You should either add citations to the "Measurement criterias section," or remove it, don't leave it with a tag. Any interviews or articles written by Barbara Esch are not independent and won't demonstrate notability. Many articles need improvement, but that doesn't lower the standard of acceptability: please read WP:OTHERSTUFF. Beyond that, please be patient and wait for the AFC review. RudolfRed (talk) 19:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Text coming and going
A query...I added a section to a page about a book store called Cody's Books as the history section was thin. I have no connection to the bookstore and have never been there. The text I added was based on information I had gleaned from a book written by the people who founded the book store and owned it for years. The book details the history of the store. My additional text was reverted without explanation. I put it back and asked the editor via their talk page, politely, to explain why they had removed the text. They removed it again claiming that it had been copied and pasted from a website and they gave the link to a site. The link led to text nothing like mine. Also I still have the original source and double checked to verify that nothing was copied from the book. The information is gleaned from the book but is written up in my own words.
Is this the start of what is known as an Editor war? I have not experienced one before. What should I do? It seems that a page about a book store that has a section on History should have information about the history of the store. If this is in the editor's own words and is correctly cited, I cannot see the problem. Any advice gratefully received. Balance person (talk) 17:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Someone took my thing down on a page and said I need a reference, but I was adding to a chart where other columns of the same thing didn't have references. Jd101991 (talk) 18:40, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
@Jd101991 Unfortunately, social media sites like instagram are generally unreliable — any one can basically say anything, and there's no fact-checking. However, if it's an instagram post about the subject, by the subject, it can be used. Which article is it? See WP:RS and WP:INSTAGRAM for more information. Cremastra (talk) 21:54, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
I just find it weird because the entire page is about a YouTube channel and people seem to be doing exactly what I did and I’m confused why theirs aren’t being taken down. Jd101991 (talk) 21:56, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
people seem to be doing exactly what I did and I’m confused why theirs aren’t being taken down. Hmm, that is weird. Which article is it, please? You can link to the article by putting the title in two square brackets like this: [[Paris]] (That results in Paris) Cremastra (talk) 21:58, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Okay. Looking at the edit history (a timeline of changes to the page, see Help:Page history) two different editors have undone your changes. @Cerebral726: said not a sufficient source to establish that this is when they began filming. They are simply posting the photo that day. Lots of WP:OR here. The second user seems to agree, saying season 11 has not yet happened, nor official confirmedCremastra (talk) 22:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Firstly, I’m not here to argue. If I’m not mistaken, you were telling me it’s not that I didn’t do it correct, it’s just that there wasn’t enough evidence? Also, where can I see these feedback notes? Jd101991 (talk) 22:06, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
@Jd101991 The reason for that is WP:PLOTCITE and WP:PLOTSOURCE, which essentially says that while yes, you do need inline sources for quotes and analysis, you don't need them for the overall summary (although they are nice to have), which is what is being done in the prior seasons.
What you tried to add wasn't a plot summary, it was information about a game show that hasn't been shown yet, thus it requires a source. CommissarDoggoTalk?22:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
It looks like the problem is that the existence of season 11 hasn't been confirmed yet. My search for it only finds some Reddit speculation. While it's fun to speculate about when the next season of your favourite show is coming out, Wikipedia isn't really the place for it. We need a really solid source — something like a new article saying "The long awaited eleventh season of Jet Lag: The Game is now being filmed!"
In response to your comment above-- you can see the feedback (called "edit summaries") by going to the article and clicking on the "View History" tab— or just following this link. Cheers, Cremastra (talk) 22:07, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
The Instagram post that was used as a source was unfortunately insufficient, as it doesn't state anywhere that the 11th season was confirmed or that it's being filmed, it only shows them posed in front of a building. CommissarDoggoTalk?22:07, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
@48JCL Well, not quite. Reading above, it looks like the post qualifies as a self-published primary source. The main issue mentioned is that it's being used for WP:OR, as the post doesn't explicitly say season 11 exists. ayakanaa ( t ) 04:39, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Well everyone who watches know's it's starting and when this happened for S10 someone did it and it didn't get taken down. Jd101991 (talk) 12:57, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
See, here's the weird thing about Wikipedia. We don't say what "people know is true". We just summarize what reliable sources say is true. That's it. Wikipedia doesn't deal with the truth, it just compiles what reliable sources have said about something. Cremastra (talk) 19:33, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Probably because mass article creation had a time and place in the early days of this project, but as time went on it became increasingly viewed as a problem rather than a positive way to expand knowledge. In other words, in the interest of not rewarding poor contributions. It seems from your comments you are already familiar with where such information is recorded, so do feel free to bring this up at Wikipedia talk:List of Wikipedians by article count if it bothers you so. Just Step Sidewaysfrom this world ..... today21:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Hey everyone! I should ask this at the help desk but this is way more active. Anyways, for Wikipedia ads, I was trying to create one (which I did successfully) and after reading the tutorials, I found something slightly confusing. The tutorials talk about how only gifs can be approved which was enforced, I assume, considering around the first one hundred ads were all gifs. However, now, there is an influx of non-gif ads being png ads with not much to say other than “WikiProject Thing” and a logo. Should all these ads be removed? I wanted to try the talk page but after seeing how inactive it is… yeah. Does this require a concensus somewhere? If so, where? 48JCL(talk)02:31, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
@48JCL: I think GIF is required for animated images. If you saw a page which says GIF is required but doesn't say it's for animated images then please link it. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:16, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
48JCL, all sorts of stuff appears in user space. It can be safely ignored, though some of it may be helpful. Incidentally, I wonder why you want to create ads. Or perhaps I'm unusual in regarding them as a minor annoyance. -- Hoary (talk) 21:57, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Resolving copyright violation by rewriting copied content
Hi all! I got a newcomer task to copyedit an article, but someone before me happened to have also marked a copyright violation. I think I can help resolve both of these issues, but the copyright violation template dictates that "Your rewrite should be placed on this page." How do I place it on that page? Should it be within the copyvio template tags, or should I link to the temporary page that it has me create? Sophon96 (talk) 00:11, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
I think this is about the instructions from {{Copyvio}} under "What can I do to resolve this issue?" (formatting and links removed): "Otherwise, you may rewrite this page without copyright-infringing material. Your rewrite should be placed on this page, where it will be available for an administrator or clerk to review it at the end of the listing period. Follow this link to create the temporary subpage. Please mention the rewrite upon completion on this article's discussion page". Rotideypoc41352 (talk·contribs) 04:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Look in the history of the article, Wafflewombat, for an appropriate version. Opt to "Edit" this. (You'll have to edit it as a whole, not section by section.) For each reference that you want, copy it and paste it into a text editor on your computer. "Cancel" your "edit". For each relevant section of the article in its current state, copy a reference from your text editor and paste it where you need it. Then save. (I'm assuming that you're editing the "source"; I have no idea about the "visual editor".) -- Hoary (talk) 08:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Wow, that was easy. Thank you! It never occurred to me to edit an old version, I was just trying to copy and paste the text from the finished page. Wafflewombat (talk) 08:56, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Regarding the correct handling of old sources
Hello! Thank you for your time.
As I am new to the fray, and want to learn and to do it right, I will make use of this here establishment by asking the following, all though I have a set viewpoint to a certain extent which will now doubt be evident:
When a website moves its content from "https://www.subsection.example.com" to merely "https://subsection.example.com", and, ten years ago, "https://www.subsection.example.com" contained information which allowed the corroboration of a certain factoid (lets say "It used to be XYZ, and now is only ABC") written in the body of the page, and a user had created a source to the effect of "Examplesite (2013), Linktoexamplesite, Example Ltd, Retrieved 2013-02-13", then the link SHOULD STAY AS IS in its entirety and should not be changed, even though it is currently broken and leads to a 404, right?
If someone wanted to "repair" the source by mereley deleting "www." from the link and changing nothing more, that is plain wrong, correct?
If they actually want to help here, they should either resource the material, use and integrated webarchive link, or just leave it alone so that someone else can do one of the above, yes? And if they do change the link, they would have to do their due dilligance, and then also change the date of retrieval. What should not be done is to say, quote, "The www. being there or not is a technical issue, it does not change the webpage but rather how the server deliver that webpage. That I didn't access the webpage in 2011 is irrelevant, someone else did. If you want to know what the webpage looked like in 2011, use WebArchive or similar.", because if I, as a hypothetical clueless third party, would then try to find the "https://subsection.example.com" from supposedly 10 years ago, I could not find a thing since back then it was "https://www.subsection.example.com", yes?
Addendum: Especially if, after doing so, they then go and deleted part of the text, to the extend of "It used to be XYZ, and now is only ABC", leading to only "And now is only ABC" left in the body (at least they capitalized the first leter of the now gramatically rather dangling sentence), because, quote, "As for "[It used to be XYZ, and now is only ABC]", there is no source to support the '[XYZ] anywhere.", based on the now "new" source (which by the way also does not corroborate ABC anymore as times have changed, and the same site contains new info (duh)).
When need be, I can link the Page and Talkpage in question if you want to see the situation in not a generalized form but "in the wild" so to speak, I however hope to have made a general enough case to not have to drag anyone down.
As I am new, yet they pride themselves as a seasoned editor roaming the Wikipedia since time immemorial, I don't want to, and most likely can't, just haggle it out with them, as I would 10 out of 10 pull the short straw.
(1) Please don't SHOUT! We are all volunteers here, answering in our own spare time, so no-one is obliged to respond to you rapidly.
(2) Frankly, your query is so convoluted and over-detailed that I cannot fully understand it, and am not sufficiently motivated to try any further.
Speaking generally, if a citation's internet link is broken it should be replaced: if it can be 'repaired' by redirecting it to a new url for the same original source, that is OK, but if not it would be perfectly correct to replace it with a different Reliable source that corroborates the same information. It would also be perfectly in order to replace a working link with one to a different, perhaps more recent, Reliable source that corroborates the information better. Wikipedia Articles are, by design, ever-changing and hopefully improving, and are not intended in themselves to preserve internet history – in any case all older versions, edit by edit, can be found in their page histories. I hope that helps; if not, perhaps someone else can untangle your problem. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.2.67.173 (talk) 13:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
I was doing some research about famous people born in Crawford County, WI. I was astonished to find out author Ben Logan was not listed. You do have a page about his best selling book, The Land Remembers but do not list him as a famous person being from Crawford County. Can you please correct this and add him to the list of famous people born in Crawford County? Thank you for your attention. 45.59.57.201 (talk) 03:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
I noticed that the article Crawford County, Wisconsin doesn't currently have a section of notable/famous people, so I'm wondering which article it is that you're suggesting a change to? -- D'n'B-t -- 03:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
WikiProjects don't have jurisdictions. There's currently no article titled Ben Logan. If somebody wishes to create an article or draft about him that demonstrates his "notability" (as this is understood here), they're free to go ahead and create it. Once there's an article about him, his name can be added to relevant lists of notable people. As long as no article exists, his name shouldn't be added. -- Hoary (talk) 05:03, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
@Hoary: I disagree. No, he shouldn't have an article because his notability is only tied to his autobiography, but he should be included on such a list because he is the author of a notable work (which is, of course, about his own life). — VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 05:34, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
@Vortex3427: In principle, article content is not subject to Wikipedia's notability guidelines as explained in WP:NNC; so, in that sense, you're correct. However, what I think Hoary is referring to (Please correct me if I'm wrong Hoary) has to do with WP:LSC and WP:CSC. Common practice over the years with respect to embedded lists of people (e.g. "Notable alumni", "Notable residents", "Notable practioners", etc.) seems to be the first criteria for inclusion is that the individual in question does have a stand-alone Wikipedia article written about them; this is why you'll will sometimes find links to WP:WTAF or WP:Namechecking in edit summaries when such individuals are subsequently removed after being added. Perhaps this approach was works best when it comes to lists in which lots of people could possibly be added but only some are deemed to be encyclopedically relevant to the reader, while a more nuanced approach works best for cases where the entire list is likely only going to be populated by a small number of entries. Inclusion in any such list isn't automatic though and the WP:ONUS still falls those wanting to add an individual to the list to establish a consensus in favor of doing so when others disagree. In cases where there are no clear inclusion criteria already established, the article talk page can be used to hash them out and establish what the criteria should be for that particular article. Now, given that there's no such list in the article Crawford County, Wisconsin, there are no established inclusion criteria to really speak of; however, it would be a bit WP:UNDUE (at least in my opinion) to add such a section to the article with the only entry being Logan, particularly given the fact that there's currently no stand-alone Wikipedia article written about him. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
It has been claimed that Marchjuly and Hoary are among those depicted here.Marchjuly, you read my mind. But that remarkable parapsychological feat aside, you easily surpass me either in memory for what's covered in which project page ("WP:LSC" and the like) or energy for looking these up, or very likely both. -- Hoary (talk) 08:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
See this is why I thought we should establish which list we were talking about first. I concur with the redirect though. -- D'n'B-t -- 10:37, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Created this article. I request people to add background (as in context) and templates ecetra. ~ Snipertron12 :3 ~ [|User|Talk|Cont|] 11:38, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Jumping within hours on this thing that's "going to be" (maybe), and suggesting the sort of input suggested hints at a kind of urgency--like there's could be an underlying purpose and hidden political agenda, et cetera. Uporządnicki (talk) 14:26, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Blum integers
Shouldn't the list of the first few Blum integers, in the entry for Blum integers, include the number 149, which Google's Genesis AI says is a Blum integer? Ozziemaland (talk) 01:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi Ozziemaland That's kind of a difficult question to answer here at the Teahouse and probably is better suited for Talk:Blum integer. In general, Wikipedia wants us to be WP:BOLD and try to improve article whenever possible. So, if you feel this information should be added to the article Blum integer and are able to support the addition by a citation to a WP:SECONDARYWP:RELIABLESOURCE, then feel free to make the change yourself. I'm not sure whether Google's Genesis AI would meet Wikipedia's criteria for a reliable source, but perhaps that's something else that can be cited to support this claim. If you are bold, someone also disagrees and revert's the change, please follow the guidance given in WP:BRD and try to resolve things through article talk page discussion. If you're not feeling to confident about being BOLD here, you can be WP:CAUTIOUS and propose the change on the article's talk page first to see what others might think. You could also ask for input at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics since that's more likely where you're going to find individuals familiar with the subject matter. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:40, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi @MAG2024, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm not sure exactly what you're asking, but try removing the first two headers (articles should start with a lead section, not a header), that might resolve the problem.
Can I ask what is your relationship with this subject? Your user name suggests you might be an employee, am I right? I've posted two messages on your talk page about conflicts of interest, one a generic one, the other about a more specific type, namely paid editing. Please read and action as applicable. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:49, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, I have just seen this. I am an employee of Magnopus. Just reading messages and I realise I need to disclose a conflict of interest but I don't know the best way to do this. I think I should have done this a different way - used the AfC process? Is it too late to do that now the article is on the main space? MAG2024 (talk) 10:11, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Also, as an account created on 5/29, you do not yet have the right to convert a draft to an article, but you did so on 5/30. The proper path would have been to submit the draft to the AfC review process. I suggest Magnopus be converted to draft. David notMD (talk) 10:04, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
The account made the first edit 29 May but Special:Log/MAG2024 shows it was created 1 May so after 10 edits it had the ability to create articles or move drafts to mainspace. In this case it shouldn't have been done due to paid editing with a conflict of interest. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Thanks @PrimeHunter, did not know that. Every day is a school day for an old git. :)
Not that my answer would have been much different, as I didn't twig that they were asking specifically about an image appearing in the preview popup; I thought it was about the preview 'image' popping up at all (or with any meaningful information, at any rate). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
They referred to images appearing next to some search results in [10]. The image is selected by the same proccess as the image in popups when you hover over a link, except the latter rejects more small images. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Confirming now at Draft:Magnopus and submitted to AfC. Because of backlog of drafts, the selection to review not being a queue, can be days, weeks or even months before a review. David notMD (talk) 15:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi there! I was hoping to make note of some related Wikipedia entries on a specific page, almost like what you'd find in a "See also" or "Related articles" section. The page in question doesn't appear to have anything like that at the moment. For reference, I was hoping to link the other language variations of this rhyme at the bottom of the page. How might one go about this? (Or, would non-English variations be linked under the "Origins and variations" sub-section?) Tkamgsaw (talk) 13:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi Tkamgsaw, depending on what exactly you're wanting to do, there are a few methods of adding such links:
If the article has a corresponding article on another language's Wikipedia, links are added to those through Wikidata - see this help page for instructions
If you want to link to other English Wikipedia articles - feel free to add a "See also" sectionbefore the Notes section, which you can do by adding the following wikicode: == See also == and putting the links below that, or by adding a section in the VisualEditor
Using an updated version of a web page as a source
Hello. I'm really confused when it comes to citing web pages.
Say I have a reliable website with a piece of info I want to use – so reliable in fact, that it's been already used as a reference in the article I'm working on. The issue is, I'm certain the piece of info I'm interested in was added only after the website was last "retrieved".
What is the best practice here? Do I need to update the "retrieved" date and go through all the places the reference was used to make sure it's still applicable and rewrite the parts of the article it no longer supports? Or can I just cite the new version of the page separately?
What if the old version contains a factual error that the new version has fixed, is that automatically the former case (replacing and verifying)?
And what if there's no archive available from the retrieval date, and I actually don't know if the page contained the info I'm interested in at that point in time? Is it best to update the reference/quote separately/whatever else it is you do, just in case? Or do I just re-use the old reference?
Finally, if I'm taking info from several different sections of a website (sections that take clicks to get to, with slightly different URLs), is it better to quote the website once as a whole, or separately for each case?
Hi Vtipoman! It might depend on how exactly the website was cited before. Most of the time, the reference to a website is actually just one reference in the page source, so updating it in one place will automatically change it everywhere else. Assuming that the reference has substantially changed it might be reasonable to cite it twice with a different access date (though you can absolutely go through and check if you like), but if the only thing that has changed is that information has been added, the source will clearly still support anything it supported before, so just updating the date retrieved is fine. If the source has changed so much that it now contradicts what it said before, or if you are certain it had errors before, it would certainly be a good idea to go through and check the article as you described.
Thank you, I think that covers the major cases. Just to make sure though, what is the best thing to do if the updated version of the website removes some other piece of information used in the article without changing substantially? I ran into a situation like that before – the new version had what I wanted to use, but was missing something else – though I ended up resolving it by finding a new, separate source.
Also, in the case of a small website with maybe a dozen pages total, is it still better to cite each used page separately? The specific example I have is the official site of these caves.
In the first scenario, just adding a new reference with a different access date is probably still okay (unless you want to find another source, as you did, which is of course totally fine). With regard to the second question, you should still use multiple references. The point of a citation is not only to provide attribution but to uphold WP:V – it should be as easy as possible for a reader to see that yes, the content on Wikipedia does indeed come from reliable sources. They shouldn't have to search through the linked resource to find the source material, it should ideally be immediately available where possible (this is the same reason we often use multiple citations with different page numbers when different parts of the same book are used in an article). Tollens (talk) 21:38, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Alright, that's everything from me. Thanks again for your replies, I'll try to put the information to good use. :) Vtipoman (talk) 18:05, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Question on the course of action for a particular article that caught my attention
I'm currently at an impasse about the appropriate remedial measures to rectify these issues..could someone elucidate the correct course of action to ameliorate this article? GoodHue291 (talk) 19:55, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
This does not align with my intended discussion. I was referring for the right course of action for the article, because I'm uncertain what to do with it. GoodHue291 (talk) 01:01, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
@GoodHue291, regarding the article's brevity and lack of clarity - a good way to start addressing that is to find some more sources that talk about Robert N. Cox. Then, you can add those sources & their content to the article. Pecopteris (talk) 01:11, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Hello! I have a question about how nitty-gritty our citation types get, and how to cite a particular type of document.
I'm working on cleaning up bare URL citations and ran across reference 56 from Flash memory. It appears to be a set of presentation slides from a conference talk. Do we have a particular template for this use case? I wasn't sure if the Web Page template would be sufficient, or if it would be better to use something that can indicate what slide in particular the information comes from. The presentation video is not currently available to view that I can tell from a cursory search.
In a bigger sense, is there somewhere that I can see all the kinds of citation templates there are on Wikipedia? I see the list on Wikipedia:Citing sources, but is that all types currently supported or are there any other more obscure ones? Beanut H Butter (talk) 19:08, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Search for all articles that contain a particular source?
I'm trying to look at the reliability of a certain source (newspaper/website) and it would be really useful if I could perform a search that pulls up all the articles with this source in the reference. Is there any way of doing this? Orange sticker (talk) 12:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
The only way I see of doing this is submitting the draft, which would imply it's done. And peer review is only for articles and NOT drafts. So?? Defaulterror0 (talk) 00:36, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Submitting a Draft only implies that you think it's done enough to pass muster as an Article. No Wikipedia article is a finally finished product; they all continue to be 'works in progress' and many will hopefully be improved further as more sources are found and information added, or more things happen that are relevant to them. Unless you think it's really below par (in which case you should have ideas of how to improve it), submit it and get reviewer feedback – this is quite normal. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.2.67.173 (talk) 01:37, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Defaulterror0 - The draft has to be in a 'good enough' state before being submitted. That means content and references. However, there is strong advice to put in time improving existing articles before attempting to create and submit a draft.
Hi Defaulterror0. A draft need not be "perfect" to be accepted as an article, but it should be reasonably understandable and (more importantly) clearly establish how the subject of the draft meets Wikipedia:Notability. Formatting mistakes, grammar errors, spelling mistakes, and other copy editing needs are generally considered to be fixable "problems" and thus not considered a sufficient justification for declining a draft, unless they are so bad they can't be fixed without a lot of time and effort being expended. However, it matters not how well written a draft might be if there's nothing demonstrating that the subject has received WP:SIGCOV in WP:SECONDARYWP:RELIABLESOURCES; unclear/questionable Wikipedia notability is too much to WP:OVERCOME and is probably the main reason why drafts are declined. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:59, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Not essays
A reviewer moved my article back to draft, because, " Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because Wikipedia articles are not academic essays.". Does that mean it needs to be "dumbed down"? Any elaboration appreciated, if known. Fixingthingsguy (talk) 20:52, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Fixingthingsguy, I guess this is about Draft:How the PET bottle became ubiquitous. No, dumbing-down is not the issue. But there's a lot of things wrong with that draft, which would prevent it trom being accepted as a Wikipedia article:
It's not an article about a subject, it's an essay about how (in your view) something happened. I assume that's what the reviewer meant.
It uses capitalisation and italics in seemingly random ways: "Polyethylene Terephthalate", "glass", "2-Liter".
It says "50 years ago" rather than giving a date. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and hopes to exist for at least another 50 years, it's not a newspaper. "Today", likewise.
The punctuation is chaotic. Some periods are mid-sentence, some sentences have no period. Punctuation should always followprecede references, not precedefollow them.
The last three items will be fairly easy to correct. But while what you've written is not about a notable topic, it has little chance of being accepted. Maproom (talk) 21:17, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Fixingthingsguy: a Wikipedia article should be a summary of what reliable sources have said about a subject, nothing more. It should not present any argumentation or conclusions at all, except possibly summaries of arguments or conclusions presented in one single source. It could summarise (separately) arguments or conclusions from two or more different sources, but should make no attempt to compare or reconcile them. ColinFine (talk) 22:02, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Thanks . I'm getting a better picture of what I need to do. My grandson is likely never to ask, how did the plastic-like beverage bottle get ubiquitous! But if he was super observant, he might ask, how come all these beverage bottles in the grocery have a weird shape in the bottom. That might be a subject of interest. In which case I would tell him about these super smart people who tossed around various ideas and came up with a petal like base, that ensured the Coke bottle or Pepsi bottle would stand a lot of jostling around from manufacture to the dining table and stand upright at all times. How did they do that, grandad, and I would say, they made a preform that looks like a syringe with the small end closed, and shoved a burst of hot air that made it into a form that ends looking like a beverage bottle. And they received patents for that from the US Patent office. And, oh, by the way, they made trillions of these and now are struggling to find a way to recycle them without becoming a hazard for future generations.
How does that sound. Thanks in advance for any feedback
That sounds like a great blog post, but like it wouldn't quite fit on Wikipedia. However, that doesn't mean the information you've collected wouldn't be useful, or couldn't be incorporated into Wikipedia!
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. A good way to think of it is that the title of a Wikipedia article should be a noun: Wikipedia articles should describe a single thing, rather than try to answer a question (like "how did X happen").
Once we've chosen a thing, we find and summarize all the information there is related to that particular thing. For example, your article could probably be split up and included in our article on plastic bottles or polyethylene terephthalate! –Sincerely, A Lime01:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
@FixingthingsguyDo not rework the draft. It is a blatant essay and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an essay hosting service. Hasn’t your WikiEd teacher thing taught you that already? 48JCLTALK00:54, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Hi @48JCL, I think your comment might have come across sounding harsher than you intended it to (the use of bold comes across as shouting)—just a friendly reminder of Wikipedia:BITE.
@Fixingthingsguy just to clarify, I believe JCL is saying that the material you've written is not well-suited to a standalone article. Instead, it should probably be merged into a different article after some revision. –Sincerely, A Lime01:03, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
In anser to your question, not good. Articles consist of facts and references, not "telling". And are you aware that Polyethylene terephthalate has a section on bottles? Perhaps you have referenced content that can be added there versus a separate article. David notMD (talk) 00:46, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Ignore All Rules
Hey editors, I hope you all are well. I want to know when one should use WP:IAR at AfD. It is obvious that the creator of this rule knew it could be misused to save articles. So, what are the limitations of this rule? When can't someone use this guideline? GrabUp - Talk15:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
@Grabup It seems to me that AfD is a discussion intended to decide whether or not an article should be deleted. As such, rules shouldn't need to be relied upon (or ignored). Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:32, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
@Grabup: You could use it in your post at AfD but it isn't really meant for discussions and the closer may put little weight on your post. AfD is not a straight vote and IAR is a lousy argument by itself. Do NOT use it to bypass the AfD process, e.g. by hiding links to hte discussion, posting from multiple accounts, changing or removing posts by others, closing the discussion too early or against consensus, damaging the article in hope of getting more delete support, or canvassing. Personally I almost never use IAR and only when a rule wasn't written with the specific circumstances in mind, almost everybody would probably agree with my action, and it doesn't seem important enough to start a discussion. I never use it in discussions. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:10, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for your detailed information. Another thing I wanted to ask is why this rule was created. We have rules such as GNG, NPOL, NACTOR, and others, so why is there another rule that just skips them? GrabUp - Talk17:13, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
It essentially exists to say "it's OK to use common sense". Policies and guidelines shouldn't be interpreted as laws – they exist only to describe principles that the Wikipedia community thinks are generally good, and are intended to help Wikipedia, not harm it. Occasionally, some action that would be indicated by a policy might be so obviously bad for Wikipedia that nobody would reasonably agree with the policy in that scenario, so in those rare circumstances there's no good reason to follow the rule.
Think about it like how a police officer would obviously not expect a doctor to obey a law against jaywalking if someone was having a medical emergency on the other side of the road and there were no cars in sight – the rules don't need to carve out every possible exception, as long as everyone uses common sense. Tollens (talk) 17:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the detailed answer. I was asking about it because I had a small discussion with a person who is likely to use this rule at normal AfDs at the recent RFA. His question was Q26. You can see the discussion if you search for Q26 or see this diff. GrabUp - Talk18:08, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
In my 18 years on Wikipedia, the last dozen of which have been as an administrator, I have never had to invoke IAR. I consider it a cop-out. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
I didn't say I'd use it personally, I just said I think it would be justifiable in that specific situation. To my knowledge, I've never invoked IAR at AfD. You can scrutinize my votes here, but I'm fairly sure I haven't. Cremastra (talk) 22:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
If you ever have to say you're invoking IAR, you're doing it wrong. It's either for cases where what you're doing is so obviously correct no one would disagree with it even though it may technically contravene a rule, or where there's a really weird corner case there's no rule at all for and you're muddling through it the best you can. As an example of the first at AfD: There are zero independent sources about humans, as every single one (or at least every single one we know of!) was written by a human. But if you nominated that article for AfD on the grounds of failing notability, even though strictly it does, that would get SNOW kept enough to bury Mount Everest in a drift. Everyone pretty much just knows that applying the rule literally in that case would lead to a ludicrous result, so it just gets quietly ignored in that instance, without anyone even having to say so. SeraphimbladeTalk to me05:20, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Hello and welcome. Writing a new article is the most challenging task to perform on Wikipedia; it is usually recommended that new users first gain experience and knowledge by spending time editing existing articles in areas that interest them, to get a feel for how Wikipedia operates and what is expected of article content. Using the new user tutorial is a good idea too. Users who dive right in to creating articles often end up disappointed and frustrated as they don't understand the many aspects that are being looked for, and get angry when things happen to their work that they don't understand. I don't want you to have bad feelings here, so I would suggest you edit existing articles first.
I've been going through pages that are part of Danielle Steel's body of work as every one I've looked at has virtually no sources, if it has any at all. I've upgraded several of the film adaptation pages this month, and today I've been working on Full Circle. It already had a section for the film adaptation, so I searched AfD and found that back in 2010, Full Circle (1996 film) was turned into a redirect to Quidam.
Since the other adaptations do have their own pages, though, I'm not sure how to proceed. I'm putting all the info on the current page, structured under the pre-existing section.
Do I create a new page (Danielle Steel's Full Circle; a lot of the telefilms are referenced that way in the professional reviews)? Do I undo the redirect on the old page and add all of the info once I've made sure it passes NFILM? Do I leave it all on the current novel page, and if so, how do I handle the naming there?
I don't want to run afoul of a regulation I haven't seen (because I haven't had this particular issue previously). But it seems odd to me to add Wikiprojects to the talk page of a novel for films and television, which I will do if that's what I need to do, not to mention adding film categories to the bottom of a page that has "novel" directly in its title.
The redirect of "Full Circle (1996 film)" seems to me a little odd (though apparently valid), because the Quidam article itself has absolutely no mention (that I can see) of that so-titled short documentary film about the CdS show. anyone thus redirected might be a little puzzled.
Since the CdS film appears to be fairly obscure I suggest that, assuming you have the Reliable sources for a valid article about the film of the Steel novel, you remove the redirection from the page, insert the new article material, and add a Wikipedia:Hatnote saying something along the lines of ". . . for the 1996 documentary film about the Cirque du Soleil show, see under Quidam." You might also want to WP:Move the page to "Full Circle (1996 TV film)".
There is, as you may already know, a disambiguation page Full Circle in which both films are listed along with several others; those entries would need tweaking.
You might also place a suggestion on Quidam's Talk page suggesting that someone more au fait with the subject might like to add material about the related film.
I'm not particularly knowledgeable about cinematology, so others may have better suggestions. Hope this helps. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.2.67.173 (talk) 16:01, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
I appreciate the response. I've found three reviews, but they're all from different countries, so I don't think that qualifies for NFILM-1. I mean, Variety is known in the U.S. and The Age is known in Australia, so to each country, that's nationally known, but I still don't know that it passes. So I've opened up a discussion on the novel's talk page.
If it comes to making a page for the adaptation, I do think your suggestion of "1996 TV Film" will solve the problem.
And I'll look into the CdS documentary to see what I can find. I don't see a mention of it on the Quidam page either.
Hello, Redmyname. I believe it is because it is a non-free image. Since one of the conditions for using such an image is "minimal use", they are deliberately not used in previews and searches. ColinFine (talk) 13:36, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Non-free images are used in popup previews like on Jamia Millia Islamia where only one article is shown but not in search results where lots of page images might be shown. These API queries show that it's returned as page image if you ask for any image but not a free image:
By the way, your signature should link to your user page User:Redmyname31 and not the non-existing article Redmyname31. If it's a deliberate trick to link a non-existing page then don't, it's disruptive. You are allowed to omit a link on the name when you do link your talk page, but it would be annoying. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:56, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Hey editors, I'm currently working on an article that is a recent incident spread from April to June 2024(the incidents are still ongoing). The topic is very popular in India, and also has gained international media attraction. But the article on it doesn't seem to attract editors, as others do. Can you suggest some tips to improve the article? Redmyname31(talk)(Contribs) 09:44, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
The first thing that I can tell is that it is written in prose line. This is acceptable but it doesn't help give out enough information or tell about the details. Wikipedia is about giving information about a subject, not spreading out a timeline of that information. Please read, WP:PROSELINE, for more information. Thank you, Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥16:21, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I'm new to wikipedia. I read an article about the Wikipedia Project Women in Red, and jumped in to try to help. One of the women on the list in red was Gianna Bryant. I tried to submit an article, but it was declined.
I went to the talk page of the person who declined it, and they said if an article was declined that you could come ask questions here. I also looked at the page he suggested with debates last time about whether Gianna was notable.
And it seems many people are saying that she's only notable because of her dad/many articles are led by Kobe (e.g. "Kobe and his daughter Gianna").
She's had 2 Nike shoes come out in her honor. She's on numerous murals with Kobe and had a number of tributes and honors that either included her deeply or were specifically for her (e.g. The University of Connecticut who was already recruiting her in middle school honored her by leaving a seat open for her during a game; that was an honor purely for her, not involving Kobe.)
She was also an honorary member of the WNBA draft class that year.
I believe she had enough honors and enough coverage to warrant her own article. She has indeed been covered at length (not just in passing) by many reputable sources. Yes, sure, maybe her death or her dad were big reasons that her notability rose, but people's notability rises from tragedy or nepotism all of the time, so even if those were the reasons, it doesn't make her *not* notable.
Also, there were many victims in that crash. Not all of them were covered to the extent that she was. Her extensive coverage leads to the argument about her notability.
And even if she often paired with Kobe in coverage, again, that doesn't make her *not* notable. Certain notable people are paired in their coverage all the time because of relationships or business deals etc. Even if one is more famous than the other, if they both are often in coverage, it doesn't make the other one *not* notable.
I truly believe all the evidence points to her being notable enough in her own right to deserve her own page. Is there a way to argue that she is notable enough in her own right to deserve a page? MoreWomenOnWiki (talk) 18:29, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
MoreWomenOnWiki, it appears that an article about this subject was previously deleted by consensus at this discussion, and by pretty clear consensus too. The concerns was that she was primarily only notable for one event, and that the rest of the reference material was not sufficient to merit an article. Now, of course, that was four years ago, and certainly things could have changed since that time, but I would suggest that you read that discussion and be prepared to answer the question "What's changed since the last time it was discussed?". If the answer is "There's been a whole lot more comprehensive source material written about this subject, look here and here and here", maybe it's time to reconsider that. If the answer is "Not much, really", well, then the question's already been answered, and that answer was a "no", so if that's the case it's probably better to find a different subject to work on instead. SeraphimbladeTalk to me19:02, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Nike's dropped 2 different shoes (one on what would've been her 16th birthday and one on what would've been her 18th) to honor her: https://www.complex.com/sneakers/a/victor-deng/nike-kobe-8-protro-mambacita-release-date For instance the article above describes the shoes coming out in honor of what would've been her 18th birthday: "'Gigi' is stamped on the left heel, while her jersey number is printed on the right shoe."
Add that to the stuff that happened at the time of her death with being an honoree member of the WNBA draft class, etc., I'm wondering if that might be enough?
Granted, I am new, so maybe I don't understand the ins and outs, but even if she is only notable for one event, isn't that the case of a fair number of people? Aren't there Olympians notable for one Olympics they were in? Or even for instance, the 'Bus Uncle' has a page because of a viral video: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bus_Uncle
I guess I don't have to completely reopen the whole discussion, since people much more experienced than me seem to have already had it, but to what you've said above, do you think there is any merit that with the release of 2 Nike shoes (in '22 and '24) and in 2022, a yearly WNBA award having her name added, that she has crossed the threshold of notability? Or still no, for now?
Hello, @MoreWomenOnWiki. I took a look at the page and it looks more like a WP:MEMORIAL than as an encyclopedic person entry. While she does meet notability, you had not showed anything about her before her death with her father. It looks and reads as if it's a memorial page. I do believe she is notable under WP:1E but it doesn't really read as an encyclopedic article. Thank you, Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥19:36, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for the guidance. I tried taking all the notes and resubmitting, so hopefully the article is better now. Thank you! MoreWomenOnWiki (talk) 22:00, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
How to Get Back to the Initial Page When I Signed Up?
Hi, sorry if this is a dumb question, but when I very first signed up (just like last week haha), Wikipedia had this little slideshow-type thing I could click through with suggestions - e.g. articles that needed more internal links, articles that needed more copyediting, etc. But I don't see that anywhere anymore.
Do you know if it still exists anywhere so I can have a launchpad for whenever I'm looking to do smaller edits instead of write pages from scratch? MoreWomenOnWiki (talk) 22:18, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Extract info from author interviews to add to entry?
An author who died in 2022 has book reviews but little else written about his work. His WP entry is rated as a stub. He has been interviewed by CBC Radio several times. The articles on the CBC website provide some information but also links to the radio interview recordings. Can information from these interviews be referenced as a reliable source to provide more information for his WP entry? Similarly, can the author's lectures and interviews posted on YouTube by the organizers of the lecture series be reliable sources? If not, are these sources properly classed in the "External Links" section of the WP entry? Marjimac (talk) 03:08, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Yes, interviews can be used! I would recommend you have a quick look at WP:IV. I believe the lectures and interviews on YouTube should be fine as well. (These doesn't quite fit the bill, but WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:PRIMARY may be useful. I'm not sure if there's a specific policy regarding lectures published by an organizer.) Hopefully this was at least a little helpful! Best, ayakanaa ( t ) 05:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Marjimac: interviews with the subject may be used to support uncontroversial information about him. But they will generally do nothing to help establish that he's notable enough to warrant an article. Maproom (talk) 09:36, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
@Maproom Editing an existing article, so someone else believes author to be noteworthy. Thanks for your guidance on the use of interviews. Marjimac (talk) 22:46, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
ПФК ЦСКА София
Защо в страницата е заличен Директора на Академия ЦСКА -Костадин Ангелов? Той не е уволнен и в момента е действащ на поста си. При положение че нито един играч на ЦСКА все още не е махнат, защо са заличени МАхмутович, Кох,Каранга и Юрген Матей ? Защо го няма третия вратар Орлинов. 62.73.100.119 (talk) 21:46, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Google Translate translates the Bulgarian for us: PFC CSKA Sofia / Why is the Director of CSKA Academy Kostadin Angelov deleted from the page? He has not been fired and is currently serving in his post. Given that not a single CSKA player has been removed yet, why were Makhmutovic, Koch, Karanga and Jurgen Mattei removed? Why is the third goalkeeper Orlinov gone?
There was announcment here in which it was declared that the coaching team was declared vacant and that there would be restructuring of the management and playing teams. I assume it was in reflection of that news. - Bilby (talk) 00:24, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Your spelling is another area for improvement. Editors (and users) want to see useful, well written content, that cites sources and makes a meaningful contribution. So if that is what you want to do, then stick around. Otherwise? -Jcbutler (talk) 03:29, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
References for translating pages
When translating pages, should I try and find sources in the target language or put the references all in the source language? What if the topic does not has many or any at all reliable sources in the target language? Do I not translate it? Mestre Aranha (talk) 19:09, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Hello, Mestre Aranha, and welcome to the Teahouse. The answer is that if there are good-quality sources published in English, they are preferred; but if not, then reliable sources in another language are quite acceptable. See WP:NONENG. ColinFine (talk) 19:15, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
If you're translating into Portuguese, Mestre Aranha, then I imagine that you're writing for Portuguese-language Wikipedia. And if you're doing that, then the policies and guidelines of English-language Wikipedia don't necessarily apply; those of Portuguese-language Wikipedia do apply. So start looking at pt:WP:Verificabilidade and follow the promising links from there. -- Hoary (talk) 03:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Hello. I've read a lot about the problem of systemic bias on Wikipedia. I'd like to help address it. How can I get started? RomanBathhouse (talk) 05:32, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
I agree with CanonNi. If you're concerned about a certain type of systemic bias, you might be interested in other WikiProjects as well. Here is a WikiProject directory. Feel free to ask more questions. Pecopteris (talk) 06:48, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Solved by @Robertsky:
Courtesy link: Avri Levitan '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 08:55, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Note: page name is Lorraine Whittlesey, currently tagged for WP:A7. Victor Schmidt (talk) 19:01, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Resolved
Courtesy link: Talk:M._K._Stalin § Removal_of_sourced_content GrabUp - Talk 15:31, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
