Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1236

Archive 1230

←

Archive 1234

Archive 1235

Archive 1236

Archive 1237

Archive 1238

→

Archive 1240

Draft submission

Something very strange happened. When I was just reading my draft, I realized that the submission button disappeared. What to do? I have a great knowledge (talk) 16:09, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I doubt if a submission button is really needed today ...

Is it true that reference number 1 is a book that he wrote? A book by the subject of the article is generally a poor reference, except in the little parts of the article where that book is being discussed. How would the article be affected if reference number 1 was removed, and replaced with references from third parties? TooManyFingers (talk) 16:32, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Its is about the Mizo language (book is Ṭawng Un Hrilhfiahna, roughly translated to elderly language) though the author did not write his life story in it, the publisher did. so, its not an autobiography. you can think of it like a publisher's note. I have a great knowledge (talk) 15:51, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Please link the draft you're asking about. Draft:Lusei has been submitted for review. RudolfRed (talk) 16:33, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Sorry – I didn't think to check for more articles. TooManyFingers (talk) 16:43, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

its another one Draft:James Dokhuma I have a great knowledge (talk) 15:25, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Does it make sense that we can't use things that he wrote himself (and not by his relatives or friends either)? TooManyFingers (talk) 16:07, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers The main task for new editors writing drafts is to understand the notability guidelines, which is why most drafts are declined. This means (roughly) providing three cited sources which meet the golden rules. Once a biographical draft has such sources and is likely to be accepted as notable, then it can be expanded using WP:ABOUTSELF sources and, for example, a listing of selected publications. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:33, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes. The draft in question (the last time I saw it) relied almost exclusively on one book, apparently authored by the subject. TooManyFingers (talk) 16:43, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Disturbing anonymous users

Hi, Some(maybe one person) with IP 2405:201:A415:2930:A82C:6A8D:6F7B:2C2B has been continuously editing ESPN World Fame 100 without citing. I assume, the user is trying to replace some other name who is not featured there. Kindly, protect this page.. since, this article has no future events to include on it. —𝐏𝐞𝐫𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨(𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔) 18:52, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

@Perfectodefecto You need to alert the admins at WP:AIV. Note that you are also expected to warn the IP on their Talk Page first. Mike Turnbull (talk) 19:31, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

The user is temporarily blocked, I saw. Now, no need to take more action.... —𝐏𝐞𝐫𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨(𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔) 19:49, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

YouTube Videos

Hi, I was wondering whether YouTube videos (or vlogs on other virtual platforms) are eligible to be cited as references when writing an entry. Thank you! DemirWikiTR34 (talk) 18:52, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, DemirWikiTR34. If the video has been uploaded to YouTube by a professional news organisation then the answer is likely yes, but many videos on there are self-published and therefore not usable outside of very specific circumstances. See WP:RSPYT and WP:SELFPUB for more on this. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:00, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Cordless Larry. I understand it. Some videos on YouTube are not reliable, I very agree. But there are some videos, which publishe by independent people but their credibility can be seen arguable. It makes things harder. There is no problem to find references for the entries which are more well-known in media but there are some new things which can be written as an entry but there are very few resources about them. In this case, Wikipedia prefers waiting. This is understandable but a bir barrier for expanding the knowledge range. (For instance, I am in a difficulty to find many references about the Antarctic Film Festival which isn't known very widened. There are a few of YouTube reels talking about the details of the festival. But all are from ordinary users.) Anyway, thank you for your time and efforts for me. DemirWikiTR34 (talk) 19:50, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

You're right that "Wikipedia prefers waiting". On that, you might be interested to read WP:LAGGING. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:59, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Draft Rejection

Hey guys, for about a year I’ve been trying to publish Draft:Cayden Brown. I keep getting a notice saying that the publications and citations aren’t up to par. Someone please help Brownjustice (talk) 18:40, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello Brownjustice. Are you Cayden Brown? If so, please read WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. Writing an autobiography is strongly discouraged. Your draft has severe problems with the Neutral point of view, which is a core content policy. Examples of unacceptable language include His work in this position garnered significant attention due to his unbroken series of courtroom victories and Brown seeks to educate and empower young people to seize positions of power within their communities and Cayden Brown is a powerful speaker who has addressed some of the world’s most respected platforms and His boldness in addressing critical issues has earned him global recognition as a leading figure in child rights advocacy and Cayden Brown identifies as a Black man of faith and He is active on social media, where he shares insights about his work and advocacy efforts. Many assertions in the draft are unreferenced, violating another core content policy, Verifiability. The draft resembles a promotional brochure as opposed to a neutrally written, well referenced encyclopedia article. Cullen328 (talk) 19:09, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh that’s actually really helpful. I’m not Cayden but he posted on Twitter that he wanted a page so I’m trying to help get him one. I took that language from his website bio so that makes sense why it’s not neutral Brownjustice (talk) 19:13, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

As well as being promotional, the text from his website is subject to copyright and can't be copy-pasted into a Wikipedia article without permission. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:25, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Brownjustice, when I scrolled to the bottom of that website, I saw the copyright symbol. It is both a violation of Wikipedia's Copyright violations policy and real world copyright law to add massive quantities of copyrighted material to Wikipedia. I am sorry but I will have to delete the draft. Cullen328 (talk) 19:30, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

I didn’t directly copy and paste it. I was just using the same style is what I meant Brownjustice (talk) 19:31, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Large parts were copy-pasted word-for-word. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:35, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm sure that "not up to par" is not how they described it... What did they actually say was the problem? TooManyFingers (talk) 19:03, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

The edit said “Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.” even though I cited major publications Brownjustice (talk) 19:10, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy links: Draft:Cayden Brown (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 19:11, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

@Brownjustice A few things immediately strike me about your draft. 1) Brown is a powerful speaker.....He also graced the cover of The Michigan Chronicle’s September 2023 issue. The citations don't say anything about his power or his grace, so that's peacock wording that is against Wikipedia's policy of a neutral point of view. 2) Large portions are uncited, which is against the biography of living people policy. 3) There are external links from the body text, which are not allowed (see WP:ELPOINTS). Brown may well be wikinotable but your draft needs a lot more work. Mike Turnbull (talk) 19:27, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Mike! I just edited the draft to have much more neutrality but would you mind elaborating on points 2 and 3? I’m having trouble knowing exactly what to cite because the only feedback I got prior to this was to include more publications Brownjustice (talk) 19:30, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deleted for copyright infringement (subjects webpage). If you intend to start over, do not copy or close paraphrase anything. David notMD (talk) 19:32, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

That sucks because I worked to rephrase it and didn’t violate the rule. Do I have to start all over?

How do I find someone who knows how to do it correctly? Brownjustice (talk) 19:34, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Like many newcomers to Wikipedia, you have decided to start by writing a whole new article, rather than learning the ropes first. Try contributing on other articles that cover areas you are interested in for a while, then read the good advice at this essay and especially the detailed policy for biographies. Long-time editors here know that the chances of newcomers writing acceptable full articles straight off is about 1 in 100. Don't let that put you off: there are many ways to contribute here. Mike Turnbull (talk) 19:42, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate that advice. I honestly only came here to help Cayden Brown because he should already have a page but it’s too much to learn for one. Can you point me who to ask who can properly write one? Brownjustice (talk) 19:44, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Brownjustice, I see no evidence that Brown has attended law school or passed the Michigan bar exam. He participates in a teen diversion plan that calls its volunteers "attorneys" in quotation marks. He is not an actual attorney and Wikipedia will never say that he is, unless the State Bar of Michigan says he is. Cullen328 (talk)\

All attorneys in Michigan are required by law to be members of that state bar association. I just checked their website. There is no member named Cayden Brown. Cullen328 (talk) 20:17, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Like you said, it’s within the diversion program Brownjustice (talk) 20:18, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

He is NOT AN ATTORNEY but your draft said he was. Cullen328 (talk) 20:19, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

“…in the 52-1 teen court diversion program.” As does every publication outline. In future drafts I’ll however be sure to never leave “attorney” standing alone but always place it within context of what the program allows for the teen volunteers Brownjustice (talk) 20:22, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

If an online publication calls him an attorney, that calls into question the reliability of that source, Brownjustice. Cullen328 (talk) 21:18, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

There's a lot going on here. The Cayden Brown here appears to go by thecaydenbrown on Twitter and styles himself as a 17-year-old who works as a "teen juvenile defense attorney." Following the actual links that mention him, that's not an actual attorney job, but as a participant in a peer court for at-risk teenagers in which he acts as an "attorney" on trials for other teenagers as an intervention program. His request for someone to make a Wikipedia page was back in January, in response which someone gave him a link to firm he could hire to write his Wikipedia page, for which he thanked the responder. A lot of the references on his website seem to be exaggerated; the first two referenced I checked did not reference him.

Honestly, if this editor is, in good faith, representing Brown as a lawyer with an "unbroken series of courtroom victories," I would have serious questions about them creating this article. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 21:41, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

You’re great at research. You must’ve missed the recent WXYZ interview where Cayden was interviewed IN the courtroom where he argues cases with the Judge that presides over his cases affirming all of that: https://www.wxyz.com/news/voices/meet-the-local-teen-making-waves-in-the-legal-world-who-also-spoke-at-the-un Brownjustice (talk) 21:45, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Interviews don't really count, because it's Cayden doing the talking. TooManyFingers (talk) 21:47, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Very false. Watch it before commenting! This is sad… we have a young kid here doing amazing things and he’s being discounted before any true research is done Brownjustice (talk) 21:48, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia's explanations of what notability is, before you say "very false". TooManyFingers (talk) 21:51, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

While it's correct to WP:AGF where possible, the fact that you're responding in this manner to an analysis of notabilty and sourcing which you asked about is causing me to increasingly doubt that you do not have a connection in some way with Brown beyond simply seeing an eight-month-old tweet and wishing to help him out. That he's doing things for a good cause is not relevant here; notability is not a reward for good works. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 22:13, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

(Interviews do count for settling whether he said something, but not for whether he's notable.) TooManyFingers (talk) 21:49, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Brownjustice, if you are being paid to write an article, then you must comply with the mandatory Paid contributions disclosure. The conflict of interest disclosure is not sufficient. Cullen328 (talk) 22:09, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Hey he didn’t pay me. I was just trying to do something nice but it seems like there’s more to this so I probably won’t try again Brownjustice (talk) 22:11, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

@Brownjustice: As Michael D. Turnbull pointed out, creating a new article from scratch is something that new editors are gently discouraged from doing from the start. We suggest spending a few months making edits to existing articles, learning what is and isn't considered a source that establishes wikinotability, and reading good and featured articles of a similar topic to the one you wish to write—in this case an article that happens to be a biography of a living person.
You should also be aware that if an article about Brown does manage to be accepted, neither he nor his proponents will have any control over the article, and if sources deemed reliable by Wikipedia report something negative about him, it will not be scrubbed. Consider that an article about him isn't necessarily a good thing. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:22, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Alan Watt - New World Order, Dissector of the

Hi, Everyone: Seeing how helpful it is to know the facts Alan Watt, a New World Order reseacher and author wrote or spoke in about 100 radio interviews available on his website, "though he was not (covered; mentioned) in the mainstream media or other sources (mainstream media really being a hotbed of mostly lies), I am certain a page on Alan Watt would help improve Wikipedia. We had some discussions with Wikipedia editors who insisted he had to have been covered by reliable sources, and I pointed out that because his research findings confirmed that the mainstream media is a hotbed of mostly lies, and society, with all due respect, is, if you dissect it, fraudulent, he stayed away from society. He was a recluse. He died in 2021.

The good news is that reading Wikipedia's page on IGNORE ALL RULES, (I guess that title means "sometimes"), I believe we have found the logic(al) basis to proceed with the creation of an Alan Watt - "Dissector of the New World Order" page.

His website is CuttingThroughTheMatrix.com

Please comment to see if enough editors agree that his extremely helpful findings that help people who take the time to find things out (which might be about 5% or less of the population) know what is really going on, would help improve Wikipedia and help them live better.

Thanks, Writing is Easy (Author of "Write Talking" https://a.co/d/a10Esyv)

WIKIPEDIA SAYS: Use common sense "WP:COMMON" redirects here. For other uses, see WP:COMMON (disambiguation). Shortcuts WP:UCS WP:COMMON WP:SENSE WP:COMMONSENSE Wikipedia has many policies or what many consider "rules". Instead of following every rule, it is acceptable to use common sense as you go about editing. Being too wrapped up in rules can cause a loss of perspective, so there are times when it is better to ignore a rule. Even if a contribution "violates" the precise wording of a rule, it might still be a good contribution. Similarly, just because something is not forbidden in a written document, or is even explicitly permitted, doesn't mean it's a good idea in the given situation. Our goal is to improve Wikipedia so that it better informs readers. Being able to articulate "common sense" reasons why a change helps the encyclopedia is good, and editors should not ignore those reasons because they don't reference a bunch of shortcut links to official policies. The principle of the rules—to make Wikipedia and its sister projects thrive—is more important than the letter. Editors must use their best judgment. Why isn't "use common sense" an official policy? It doesn't need to be; as a fundamental principle, it is above any policy. Writing is easy (talk) 16:28, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

@Writing is easy You have already been given reasons not to proceed with an article at WP:Teahouse#Alan Watt (author, radio commentator). Your proposal to ignore not only the "rules" but the advice is unlikely to sway opinion. Among other problems, if there are no pubished sources, you would be forced into original research (i.e. your personal opinions), which have no place in Wikipedia. At best, you could try to write and publish his biography elsewhere in a reliable source, which could then be the basis of an article here. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:44, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

You have a minimal start at Draft:Alan Watt page biography. If you can find references, continue. If not, not. Interviews do not count. Your other effort (Draft:Bedroom Ventilation) has been declined for lack of references and for being in essay style. David notMD (talk) 16:47, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Doesn't common sense suggest that without reliable sources about a person we don't have any information about that person to include in an article? Cordless Larry (talk) 16:52, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

If it's true what you say about "mainstream media really being a hotbed of mostly lies", then Wikipedia is probably not where your work belongs, and probably not where you belong either. If you create an article about Alan Watt, other people are going to add all of the mainstream media opinions they can find into that article, and you will be powerless to stop that from happening. TooManyFingers (talk) 16:51, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

You have submitted two drafts to AfC without references. Please do no do this again, as just a waste of reviewers' time. David notMD (talk) 21:22, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

What does "AfC" mean? Writing is easy (talk) 21:33, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Articles for creation (see link) is the process that new editors must use to draft and seek approval for their work. Mike Turnbull (talk) 21:42, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Mike Turnbull. Writing is easy (talk) 22:23, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

How to classify stub-class articles after expansion?

Hi! Quick question, once you've expanded on a stub article, should you remove the stub template and the category assessment on the talk page or should you leave it until someone else is able to independently assess the updated article's quality? WP:DESTUB seems to indicate that you should remove both, but I'm not entirely clear on that. If so, should you remove the tag/category assessment without replacing it with anything or should you just place it in, for example, the Start class? Spookyaki (talk) 21:17, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

@Spookyaki The guidance at WP:ASSESS is useful in deciding what rating to give an article and the advice is to be bold, certainly up to C class. WP:RATER can be useful if you are not experienced with rating articles. Mike Turnbull (talk) 21:52, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Right, but would this apply to an article that consists primarily of expansions to a stub that I myself made? In other words, am I allowed to assess my own contributions? Spookyaki (talk) 21:55, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the guidance at WP:ASSESS says Generally speaking, all editors, including editors who have written or improved an article, are encouraged to boldly set any quality rating. Mike Turnbull (talk) 22:01, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Okay, gotcha. Thanks! Spookyaki (talk) 22:01, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Spookyaki, I routinely reassess stubs to start when the article has been expanded. Cullen328 (talk) 22:34, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Help for 2024 Bangladesh anti-Hindu violence

In 2024 Bangladesh anti-Hindu violence, some statements of individuas have been added. As a result, approximately 40-45% of the words match with the 3 websites. Will this be considered a copyright violation? TheNeutrality (talk) 20:18, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

@TheNeutrality: Which individuals made these statements? Which websites have been copied? TooManyFingers (talk) 22:06, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

If statements are properly attributed (they're in quotation marks and have a footnote to the source), it's usually fine. You don't want to make really really big blockquotes, but a couple of sentences is ok. Whether it's a good idea to use quotes is a different question. -- asilvering (talk) 22:39, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Alan Watt (author, radio commentator)

how can I contribute to Wikipedia by submitting a quote written by a man whose name appears in a Wikipedia disambiguation page in red letters? the page I am referring to is https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Watt

I will be creating a new page about him and his work, but first — if it is doable — I would like to submit some of his most enlightening quotes to Wikiquote. Thanks, Charles Fabara Writing is easy (talk) 23:43, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Writing is easy, I think you may be mistaking Wikipedia (which is where we find ourselves) for Wikiquote. -- Hoary (talk) 23:57, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Not knowing if there is a teahouse for wiki quote, I am wondering if someone in the Wikipedia teahouse knows if I can, or if anyone can, or is permitted to, submit a quote by someone whose name appears and Wikipedia and red letters. 2600:1017:B8C0:CF4A:3D87:1ED5:A326:20E9 (talk) 00:05, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Dear Hoary: I need to create a new Wikipedia page for "Alan Watt" (author and radio commentator). Can you help me do that? Thanks, Charles (username: Writing is easy) Writing is easy (talk) 16:40, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Create the page Draft:Alan Watt (author and radio commentator) and submit it for review, but don't write the article WP:BACKWARD. Write it forward. That means, find reliable source coverage of him that is independent of him first, before you write a single word. If he's obscure, you may not get traction with Wikiquote. I have removed your addition of his name to the disambiguation page because it seems like you're trying to promote his website. What is your association with this person? ~Anachronist (talk) 01:30, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Anachronist.

Good and correct and knowledable advice.I am trying to make people aware of the mountains of data his website makes available. I am endeavoring to, now that he died, having dedicated his life to educating people about the workings of the New World Order. He has been a guest on hundreds of Internet radio shows. Those hosts interviewed Alan Watt, which is to say the "covered him", because he is obscure, but worth knowing about. It seems he worked to not be part of mainstream society, such as Wikipedia. Now that he died of a heart attack in 2021. His wife is thinking whether she wants to have Wikipedia have a page about her deceased husband or not. If she tells me she does. I want to be ready to write it. I never met Alan Watt in person. I only emailed him a few times. I bought two of his books. And I am in email contact with his wife, Melissa. I thank you for, and agree with, your advice to, "Write it forward" (not "BACKWARD"), meaning after finding reliable source coverage of him that is independent of him. He was well known in certain underground Internet networks or large groups. In 2006, Alex Jones interviewed him on PrisonPlanet.com and Infowars.com. I look forward to reading your kind reply. Thanks, Charles (Writing is easy) Writing is easy (talk) 17:13, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

His wife's desire to have a Wikipedia article, or not, doesn't matter. We have a policy: Wikipedia is not a memorial site and shouldn't be used that way. Nor is it a platform for "getting the word out". Wikipedia publishes articles about topics that are notable, with notability defined as significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Interviews aren't independent of the subject, so those sources don't count toward notability; they can be used only to verify statements he made. And InfoWars fails the reliability requirement; in fact it is blacklisted on Wikipedia so you couldn't link to it anyway; see WP:INFOWARS.

Articles on demonstrably notable topics are kept. Articles on non-notable subjects are deleted (or never started). If those outcomes are against his wife's wishes, there's really nothing she can do about it. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:09, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Dear Anachronist:

I agree that Wikipedia is not and should never start being a "memorial site". It is an excellent and unique encyclopedia. "Getting the word out" is an interesting idea. I do want to make Wikipedia's users and Internet searchers aware of his research findings. That is why I am interesed in creating a Wikipedia page for Alan Watt, an author whose main point was to suggest people think for themselves.

The essence of his notability, of the value of his findings, may ultimately lie in his findings themselves. Anyone who reads some of his findings can rationally decide if they are or are not "notable" and worth sharing on Wikipedia.

Do you see of a way his notability requirement could be fulfilled? The challenge is that because his research and his conclusions were so different, sometimes opposite the mainstream views that he stayed away from mainstream media.

The conundrum is that author Alan Watt was a mostly a recluse, but his research reveals the inner workings of the ruling elites throughout the ages. Inner workings conscious individuals like you would probably be very happy to become aware of.

I don't see a way to present some independent source as VALIDATING Alan Watt and his research findings. I see that his might be a similar situation as Galileo's who discovered some shocking facts, but the establishment put him under house arrest. The only light at the end of this tunnel we seem to be in might be for some Wikipedia judges to read at least one of Alan Watt's articles, or see the video I send you a link to, titled "Reality Check", and thinking for themselves see for themselves that Alan Watt knew things the more intelligent people will be grateful someone told them about.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhrYRzvVssM&list=PL0273C286EBCA0464&index=1

All the best,

Charles

"Writing is Easy" Writing is easy (talk) 15:47, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Until you can grasp what "notability" actually means in the context of Wikipedia, I do not see a way forward. Please read the pages I lined to earlier if you haven't yet. Notability doesn't mean importance, it doesn't mean value, it doesn't mean validation. It means significant coverage by reliable independent sources, nothing else. I could self-publish a rock-solid plan for achieving world peace, which is undeniably important and has value, but if there is no coverage of my work, then it isn't notable. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:13, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I will be studying your quick and kind reply, Sir. Writing is easy (talk) 16:14, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Thinking about the coverage requirement, I wonder if it really means that in order for Wikipedia to display any statement, some major mainstream media outlet has had to have covered it. And that reminds me of a quote I read on the window of the Brooklyn College Library around 2007. It said something like: For it to be "newsworthy", it has to have been covered by a major media outlet. In order for a major media outlet to cover it, it has to be newsworthy". I am surprised that after so many years I remember a semblance of it.

And all that makes me wonder if some people are being narrow-minded and afraid of new views. Somebody has to be first. It also resembles a Catch-22 situation. It's "almost" like saying: "Hey, we invented the airplane!" And "The New York Times" or "Wikipedia's" editors saying, sorry, no major media has covered it so it is not newsworthy. Newsworthy, and notability, look, at this point, to me, arbitrary, thus closed-minded. Almost like a type of establishment club.

Also, some scholar said that even if he does not agree with someone's points of view, he supports their right to express them. Is Wikipedia a fact source for facts some entities have already arbitrarily, of course, approved? I do also see that not every whimsical idea and viewpoint would work in Wikipedia. But, perhaps I am biased because his findings make sense go me, I do think Wikipedia's readers would be glad and grateful they could read them there.

I admit, the situation is not black and white, it is not mathematical. It is subject to interpretation.

Thanks, Anachronist.

https://www.unomaha.edu/office-of-strategic-marketing-and-communications/public-relations/what-is-newsworthy.php

What is the meaning of the word anachronist?

a person or a thing that is chronologically out of place. especially : one from a former age that is incongruous in the present.

Respectfully, may I ask if you are you more into the past or the future? Writing is easy (talk) 16:34, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

There is no requirement that a media outlet be major or mainstream. We require only that it has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and is independent of the subject it's covering. A media outlet often becomes "mainstream" by virtue of gaining public trust in its coverage of a wide variety of topics. But we have articles citing significant coverage in minor news outlets with a political bias (bias doesn't mean unreliable), in niche trade publications, in gaming websites, in academic books, in low-circulation scholarly journals, and other things that aren't considered mainstream; just look at the list of reliable sources in WP:RSP. As for my username, see the second sentence on my user page. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:47, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Sir. I will be thinking about what you were kind enough to inform me about. 2604:2000:6FC0:4:3161:7469:3434:D60C (talk) 23:10, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q90023730

https://reasonator.toolforge.org/?lang=es&q=Q90023730 Writing is easy (talk) 16:44, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Anachronist points out that you'd need "reliable source coverage of him that is independent of him". True. It means coverage of him that (i) is independent of him and (ii) is from what Wikipedia regards as reliable sources. Not what he, or you, or I would regard as reliable sources, but what Wikipedia would. As I gaze at his website, I sense that amassing such coverage would be difficult, if not impossible. -- Hoary (talk) 01:55, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

That website sure doesn't give you a confident feeling, does it? Lots of promotion of self-published works. Even the website about the Pacific Northwest tree octopus was more convincing. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:06, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

But the formatting/design has a certain period charm. (1996 or so, perhaps?). -- Hoary (talk) 02:12, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, Hoary, his website is original-looking and unique. Originality and uniqueness are good.

Since you know Wikipedia, do you see a way we or I could fulfill that notability requirement? The catch or challenge is that because his research and his conclusions were so esoteric, so different or sometimes opposite the mainstream views, he stayed away from mainstream media. All that presents a conundrum. An author who was a mostly a recluse, but whose research reveals the inner workings of the ruling elites throughoutthe ages. Writing is easy (talk) 15:14, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

There's no conundrum at all. If he stayed away from mainstream media, it was only to avoid being found out, keeping his circle limited to people he was able to hoodwink. But from the way you're acting, it seems clear that he in fact craved coverage in mainstream media all along, and that the media wisely ignored him. TooManyFingers (talk) 00:27, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikiquote says "We limit ourselves to quotations which are notable. A quotation can be notable because it has achieved fame due to its enduring relevance to many people, or because it is attributed to a notable individual, or appeared in a notable work." Perhaps not a good fit for Alan Watt. -- Hoary (talk) 02:12, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I would just add that redlinks are not permitted on disambiguation pages, per WP:DDD. Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:44, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Sports Stats sub pages

Hello! I'm a huge fan of sports Stats and I created an account mainly because I believe that's my area of expertise. Many many many moons ago when I was younger I used to edit some Wikipedia pages and certainly wasn't as into Stats as I am now. I know Wikipedia has certain standards for notability so I was wondering if it would be possible for more obscure stuff to use my User page for some fun Stats information. I've seen people create subpages using their user page and I want to learn how to do that and also think that would be a good way for me to practice things like learning how to make tables and such. If this is stuff that would be better served for not being on Wikipedia I completely understand too lol GoingToTheDisco (talk) 10:26, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Consider practice at your Sandbox. David notMD (talk) 11:17, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @GoingToTheDisco: Whatever you put on your userpage or any subpages in your userspace is going to need to be in accordance with Wikipedia:User pages for it to avoid being removed/deleted. Users are generally given a bit a leeway when it comes to what's allowed, but userpages aren't owned by users and egregious violations of WP:UPNO often end up tagged for speedy deletion (sometimes quickly). -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:20, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes understood! I think the sandbox idea sounds like a better option after further review lol. Or even a sports blog xD. Thank you for the suggestions!! GoingToTheDisco (talk) 00:28, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

​The sandbox idea is fine for messing around with tables and experimenting on how to use them in articles, but it wouldn't be appropriate for simply creating an page of sports stats just for fun or which has no value to the project as a whole. Something like that could end up being tagged for speedy deletion per WP:NOTWEBHOST. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:25, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Ethiopian Government Works

In some pages works of the Ethiopian Government are deemed Public Domain with the following reason: Important note: Works prepared by the Government of Ethiopia and its employees are prepared in a fashion for general news format and noncommercial publication and for public dissemination freely an equivalent to how laws and non-laws at the legislative and administrative ministerial positions are free and public in a general distributable format: and as such copyright laws usually do not legally apply for such a basis. I would like to use some footage in a documentary but my legal department is looking for a source for this information. Can anyone point me to an official Ethiopian government site/document that states this. He does not consider Proclamation No. 410/2004 on Copyright and Neighboring Rights Protection Part 1 Section 5 sufficient. 65.95.141.171 (talk) 19:56, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

That was added to Template:PD-Ethiopia a few months ago, by CtasACT. @CtasACT: can you explain? DS (talk) 23:59, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

@DragonflySixtyseven yes, the Ethiopian copyright rules stated by the Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Ethiopia do not really dive into the nuisances of the Ethiopian legal texts. But as mentioned by @Asilvering the general rules for copyright applicability found regarding Ethiopia can be read and administered through Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Ethiopia. However, an important part left out is that "forms of general use" even when "described, explained, illustrated or embodied in a work" (these are quotes from the legal text itself found here: Copyright and Neighboring Rights Protection Proclamation No. 410/2004, Ethiopia, WIPO Lex) are public domain under Part 1 Section 5 of the Proclamation No. 410/2004 on Copyright and Neighboring Rights Protection. Meaning works even when illustrated through photography, audio or works of such nature are public domain. Government works of Ethiopia are of such that they are merely for general use for news purposes whether propaganda or general information of government initiatives, policies, and debates forms, and projects, and as Proclamation No. 410/2004 on Copyright and Neighboring Rights Protection states verbatim any court, rulings or government decrees or laws are public domain as well as others mentioned previously. But to restate once more, works of nature which are simply for general use whether described through any type of work are generally noncopyrighted and as such non-applicable (for private individuals, a mathematician cannot copyright their equation) but it does not limit general use to only scientific but an all-encompassing term. However other parts of proclamation quite clearly defines that the usual private person(s) and businesses by nature of being of a separate function whether non-profit or for-profit businesses do have such rights, and as listed on have to expire for them to be public domain, which is of a completely different nature. But my last statement since the courts usually try claims of copyright infringement in fact all of recorded copyright suits have been initiated by private businesses and individuals, they have not been a precedent enough for the executive ministries to reiterate what the law states. And even after all that you don't seem to be satisfied, I would add again since Ethiopia doesn't have a treaty regarding intellectual protection with any country but within its own borders, meaning is not binding over 190 countries, and they would have an okay for your documentary. CtasACT (talk) 04:50, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

And whether part 1 section 5 is "sufficient" is really a personal consideration but as I stated, Ethiopian intellectual property which by record have been always administered for private person(s) and businesses or organizations: do not apply outside of Ethiopia, and even in Ethiopia there is no known court rulings stated government works cannot be considered "forms of general use" whether for the information for government policies, incentives, or projects or initiatives. Ethiopian intellectual property laws have always been applied for private person(s) and such, but for coat of arms or other insignias they have restrictions which are independent to intellectual property rules. CtasACT (talk) 05:04, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

We have information on Ethiopian copyright at c:Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Ethiopia. -- asilvering (talk) 03:21, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Potential advertisement - can anyone tag?

I believe the article Lycée International de Londres Winston Churchill reads like an advertisement, but I am unsure if I can tag it, not having many edits. Can I or do you have to be more experienced? SillySarah321 (talk) 20:25, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

@SillySarah321 The main problem with that article is that it cites no sources and I assume that the main source has been the website of the school. You can certainly add extra tags if appropriate: there is no qualification required. The worst that might happen is that someone else would revert your edit, or object to what is called "drive-by tagging" (see WP:TAGGING). Also, it would be helpful to explain on the Talk Page exactly what you think is wrong (or even try to fix it) but without suitable sources, fixing will be difficult. Mike Turnbull (talk) 20:43, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, but it appears it has been resolved SillySarah321 (talk) 08:15, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for flagging this up, SillySarah321 (and good to see you here again!). Rather than tagging the article, I've rewritten it. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:07, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks an awful lot. Have a good day. SillySarah321 (talk) 08:14, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Adding images from an External site with unclear licensing terms

I'm refering to the Wikipedia Article "Burunga Massacre"

So I've taken note of the fact that no "proper" images ie. visual of the massacre is available on Wikipedia. I'd like to add some as there are some images on Google parsed from different sites. If I take an Article from India Today it does have the images I want but does not make its lisencing terms clear. It would be of much help if you could help in my efforts to document this massacre. Caesarian Cobol (talk) 15:32, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

For images, "unclear licensing" means "no". The only way you could use those images is with proof of written permission from the publisher of India Today. TooManyFingers (talk) 16:01, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

I was wondering if one could use it under 'fair use' since this is a massacre we are talking about and things are sensitive. If you could review it personally it be a great help. Thanks. 😊 Caesarian Cobol (talk) 16:41, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Finding out that the licensing is unclear IS a personal review. Using news images without clear licensing is definitely illegal. Wikipedia is not the place for "getting the word out". TooManyFingers (talk) 16:57, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for clearing stuff up. Caesarian Cobol (talk) 08:17, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Question about my page

Hi, my name is Eric Kessler. I searched for "Wikipedia Help" and was directed to this forum. Right now there is a Wikipedia article about me (just search for my name). Several of the details in the article are incorrect, including my title as identified in the first sentence. I haven’t been a senior managing director or in an executive role at Arabella Advisors since 2020.

The article only has five references, and of those five only one article is actually about me. There is also an "external link" to a site called InfluenceWatch that doesn't seem to be encyclopedic.

Given the above, I have a question that I'm hoping one of you can answer: Is it possible to ask for an article about yourself to be deleted? I'm flattered that Wikipedia thinks I'm important enough for a page, but given that the information on the page is incorrect and the sourcing is so thin, I have a hard time believing such an entry should exist. Any information you can provide (or resources you can point me to) would be greatly appreciated. Are there any other forums where biographical issues like this are discussed? EJKessler (talk) 18:30, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Your best bet it to likely go to the talk page and point out the errors (with sources backing your point, or pointing out how the current refs don't back the claims made in the article), and that things need to be updated. I've removed the InfluenceWatch link as obvious political nonsense. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:41, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Go to Wikipedia:Edit Request Wizard and use it to propose changes. However, given the dearth of significant coverage about you, the Eric Kessler article could also be nominated for deletion. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:15, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

You can also nominate the article for deletion - taking a quick look at the available sourcing, it looks like it probably doesn't meet our guidelines for notability and should be merged into the Arabella Advisors article, though you'd want to do a more careful search before nominating. (As a general rule, we look for 2-3 reliable independent sources primarily about the subject, and interviews do not count here). The process is described at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_nominate_a_single_page_for_deletion, or I can do it on your behalf. Rusalkii (talk) 19:15, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I did a search on Google News and found a few obituaries for people with the same name, and this article, but that's all. I think it qualifies for WP:AFD. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:17, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

there are a lot of Eric Kesslers 69.181.17.113 (talk) 18:25, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, so why are you listing sources about all of them on the article talk page? Providing no analysis? That isn't helpful. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:42, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I have nominated the article for deletion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Kessler. Anyone is welcome to comment there. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you all for removing InfluenceWatch and nominating the article for deletion. As Anarchonist noted, there is very little existing coverage of me which is why I was so amazed that I had my own Wikipedia article. Would it be appropriate for me to comment on the deletion discussion? EJKessler (talk) 20:55, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

You are certainly allowed to comment, but in general it may be wiser to leave it alone if it is going your way. Wikipedians can react unpredictably to comments from article subjects, particularly on anything related to politics. MrOllie (talk) 21:00, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Just so you're aware of the process, a deletion discussion generally lasts for one week, after which the end date is either extended if there has been no participation, or the discussion is closed and the article is kept or deleted. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:17, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

@EJKessler: as an expert on Eric Kessler, can you show us some WP:RS and third party URLs that have biographical information about you? For example Early life, Education, Family ? So, were you involved trying to ban Coors Brewing Company at a college? Most of the top of the search results that I can see are from conservative or Republican websites. 69.181.17.113 (talk) 17:08, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Um, if you read this discussion, it is clear that he prefers deletion of the article about him. Therefore he has no obligation to find sources. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:18, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the thoughtful responses and your input about the deletion process. I will stay out of the deletion discussion. I see that there are suddenly a lot of links being shared on my article’s Talk page, more than I can keep up with and many seem insubstantial or don’t even mention me. Under the list of Chicago resources especially, these links include quite a few that are not about me at all and focus on family members, including people who have passed. The whole thing honestly feels unsettling. EJKessler (talk) 20:15, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

your family is "early life" and where you came from. they are all related to you, found by searching your name and facts known about you. it seems you are a very wealthy person who prefers privacy, yet is involved in democratic politics facing vigorous republican opposition. 69.181.17.113 (talk) 20:48, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

it really should not feel that unsettling, all these links are already PUBLICLY AVAILABLE. you even had publicity in High School. ...69.181.17.113 (talk) 20:57, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Personally if someone dug up every bit of information publicly available about me and my family I would feel pretty unsettled, even if no one was doing anything wrong. Please try to avoid dumping dozens of tangentially related sources without any commentary on why they contribute to notability. Rusalkii (talk) 19:52, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

It appears that somebody googled "Kessler" and made a list of every link that showed up, but the only one that actually talks about you is already in the article Mrfoogles (talk) 08:29, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

How can we save our work without updating?

How can we save our work while continuing to edit, without refreshing or updating the entire page, especially when translating a page from English to Turkish? (Because I can't finish my translation sometimes and need to continue later on.) Thank you in advance for your help. DemirWikiTR34 (talk) 22:40, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, DemirWikiTR34, when you are working on a draft, you can hit the blue "Publish changes" button as frequently as you want. Cullen328 (talk) 22:47, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Cullen328 for your advises. I will follow them. DemirWikiTR34 (talk) 10:35, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

@DemirWikiTR34: Welcome to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1236. As Cullen328 noted; the Publish changes button should be understood to mean "save and publish changes". —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:07, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

What I will typically do if I'm working on a longer section that would take multiple sessions to complete is copy the text over to my sandbox (see H:SAND) and just publish changes there until it's ready to be published on the actual page I'm editing. Not sure if that's common practice, though. Spookyaki (talk) 01:22, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, Spookyaki, that is common practice and you can have multiple sandboxes for various topics if you want. Cullen328 (talk) 01:26, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Spookyaki. That's a very good idea. I'll apply it. DemirWikiTR34 (talk) 10:36, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Also, if you're using the WP:CXT tool, this will automatically save your changes, but not publish them anywhere until you're actually done. -- asilvering (talk) 02:57, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, DemirWikiTR34. I work on article drafts and major changes by using an offline document kept on my laptop. When I'm done I copy and paste my changes onto the Wikipedia article I'm editing. Karenthewriter (talk) 03:23, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Karethewriter. All your advices are really helpful for me. DemirWikiTR34 (talk) 10:37, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

drafting your articles first help keep them in check, also like Everyone has suggested. Make use of publish button to save recent changes, in case you would have to finish up later. Tesleemah (talk) 05:32, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

So, it appears that the options include a) working in Draft space and b) working in an offline (non-WP) document. To my knowledge there is not a 'save to draft' for main-space pages. This would be something dependent upon the wikimedia platform model that Wikipedia is working on, and it is possible that such a capability is being considered, but certainly not for a near-term release. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:54, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

The above suggestions are all sensible. You can also directly publish to main space, even if incomplete, as long as all current statements are verifiable thus far, with citations. Whether it is one or two lines long doesn't matter. There's a template {{Under construction}} to indicate you're actively working on it. I usually find it more motivating to force myself to "put it out there" instead if letting it collect dust in my drafts but will make a draft when I am not sure I have enough sources/time. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 10:39, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Template:Under construction/doc tells us "In general, this template should not be used for new articles with little or no content." -- Hoary (talk) 11:03, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Question about copyright and images

Guten morgen. I apologise if this is not the right place, but I come here to ask about images about copyrighted characters. I notice that in the English Wikipedia, fair use is used much more liberally than in other languages--for instance, see the image used for Homer Simpson on here, vs the image used on Spanish Wikipedia [Homer Simpson]. That is to say, I want to know how copyright would work on Wikipedia regarding [1]this image I've made (Image description: Construction paper cutout of Kenny from South Park). I was hoping to upload it as an alternative, much like how Spanish Wikipedia uses graffiti images to represent characters, but I'm not sure how it would all go down. I saw one guideline against fan art of copyrighted characters, and the entire point of the fair use images here is to represent ideas where no free use alternative exists, but considering how Spanish Wikipedia has their graffiti images I want to know about how it works. Thank you. WeInTheUSA (talk) 05:02, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

WeInTheUSA, your question actually raises a number of questions. One is of the copyright status of the Homer Simpson photo you point to. Its uploader says that it's their "own work", but it's not clear from this whether the painting too is their own work. (I think that we can assume that the comic character the painting is based on is not their own work.) "Common sense" may say that we don't have to worry about such niceties because the photo's hosting at Commons (and its use in articles) demonstrates that its copyright status is OK. Wrong, as files hosted by Commons are often removed because of belatedly realized copyright problems. Maybe it's OK on Commons (imaginably it's a freedom-of-panorama matter), maybe not; the best place to ask is c:Commons:Village pump/Copyright. Let's suppose for a moment that there are no copyright concerns (and for reasons other than freedom of panorama). We could infer that your picture of Kenny from South Park would also raise no copyright concerns. Then a question would be: Does en:Wikipedia want comic characters to be illustrated by people's imitations of authentic representations of those characters? (I have no idea.) -- Hoary (talk) 07:23, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

To clarify, if you made something and took a picture of it yourself, then you can release it under a free license on the Commons upload page; this lets it be used in any language Wikipedia without constraints. However, I don't know whether people would use it. Fair use basically does say "when there's no free alternative", but I think that "for the purpose of having the authentic representation rather than graffiti/paper cutout" counts as a "having no alternative justification." The image page always has a fair use justification. Mrfoogles (talk) 08:39, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

@WeInTheUSA: The fanart, the cutout, and the grafitti would each be considered a derivative work in the United States. Sometimes, commons will host things in error, even for years. For example, check out the DC Comics v. Mark Towle article. That's a court case where the court found that Batman's Batmobile "is the property of DC Comics and is entitled to copyright protection". And the lead image is a photograph of the exact thing it's saying would infringe on DC's copyright with the caption, "1960s batmobile similar to the one in this case". If you click through the image, it takes you to the Commons where it's in a category with a hundred or so other Batmobile photos, all of which also presumably infringe. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 14:13, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

What name for an article should I use?

Hello! I'm thinking about making articles for all administrative districts of municipalities with extended powers in Czechia (link to the list here). I already know how to make a pretty decent article, but the problem is here that the name for these administrative divisions is VERY long. For example, "Administrative district of the municipality with extended powers of Karlovy Vary" has about 80 characters, but the version with the official abbreviated form "AD MEP Karlovy Vary" also kind of doesn't sit well with me. What do you think? GreenWolfyVillager (talk) 14:15, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

@GreenWolfyVillager Welcome to the Teahouse. Would putting a qualifier in brackets after the keyword(s) be the best approach. E.g.: Karlovy Vary (administrative district) or perhaps Karlovy Vary (administrative district from 2003) sound like it would be appropriate and not easily confused with anything else?

I note there is already Karlovy Vary Region and a Karlovy Vary District, and I'm not sure I can appreciate the distinction at a quick glance, though.

However you approach this, it will be important to provide clarity in the lead of each article to exactly what unit type and date period this refers to. It can be incredibly easy to get bogged down trying to unravel the past and present administrative districts of many countries. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:32, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes there is a district of the city already, but the districts (okresy in Czech) were abolished as 2nd level administrative divisions in 2003, since then the AD MEP (Administrative districts of municipalities with extended powers) were established and now serve as the 2nd level administrative divisions. Both have the word "district" so I understand the confusion though. Thank you! GreenWolfyVillager (talk) 15:16, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

@GreenWolfyVillager What does extended powers mean? The current Wikipedia article and enclosed citation do not make that clear. The larger article could be shortened to Administrative districts of municipalities with extended powers in the Czech Republic (removing List of). But I am unclear why you'd want subdivision lists without first showing they are notable in of themselves. Currently this article does not satisfy WP:LIST specifically WP:NOTDATABASE. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 14:34, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Should this instead be an article ABOUT how Czech local political divisions were changed in 2003? TooManyFingers (talk) 16:01, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Fixing a malformed move request

With humility, I acknowledge that my technical side expertise is much less than my policy and subject matter expertise so I appreciate patience with what should be an ordinary matter.

I have malformed a move request here. How do I fix it so I can properly initiate the request? I am trying to edit in visual, as I am not so good at the formatting in source. Is visual the issue? JArthur1984 (talk) 15:41, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

No need to respond, as I have learned from another editor that my problem was the failure to remove nowiki. JArthur1984 (talk) 16:11, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Why was my additions removed?

The Wiggles I understand why their not constructive in my defense I was just simply correcting some of the information on them because it didn't reflect the current members and former members of this year Drward2022 (talk) 16:53, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

You failed to provide a reliable source for your changes. Please see WP:RS. Shantavira|^{feed me} 17:00, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Deleting an inactive WikiProject

I'd like to know if it's possible to completely delete a WikiProject from the site. I've noticed an inactive WikiProject, WikiProject Aramea that was made as a copy of WikiProject Assyria back in 2015. Very few edits were made to the WikiProject and many of its members were blocked indefinitely due to abusing multiple accounts or otherwise. Any answers or solutions are very much appreciated! Surayeproject3 (talk) 16:02, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

What problem would it solve to not have it anymore? TooManyFingers (talk) 16:16, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

@Surayeproject3, for things that don't fit into the other deletion/discussion processes, we use WP:MFD. Normally we don't delete old wikiprojects, but one that was a strange fork populated by socks may well be the sort of thing that MfD would vote to delete. -- asilvering (talk) 17:10, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

@Asilvering Thank you, I've just nominated it through MfD! Because this is my first time involved in the process, how long would discussions normally take before a consensus is reached on whether to delete or keep a page tagged MfD? Surayeproject3 (talk) 18:11, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

They'll run for at least 7 days. Then, if the discussion doesn't come to a clear consensus, it might get relisted a couple of times more. -- asilvering (talk) 18:16, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution

Beginning with this diff, two editors have added a term ("white-supremacist") to a page's short description without citing a source.

Talk page discussion is here.

What's the best way to proceed?

ClifV (talk) 20:15, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

ClifV, the best way to proceed is to stop objecting to a white supremacist group being called white supremacist. It's that simple. Cullen328 (talk) 21:05, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not objecting to anyone calling anything by any term, but am under the impression that WP:BURDEN applies as much to that page (the short description, in this case) as it does to any other.

ClifV (talk) 21:23, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

@ClifV There are literally FOUR citations in the first sentence of the article supporting that statement!

What more do you expect?

(We don't add citations to short descriptions - that's why they're called 'short descriptions') Nick Moyes (talk) 21:09, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

I've reviewed those sources, as you can see on the talk page, and none of them describe MDE as white supremacist. The lede of the article also does not use the term*.
EDIT: *as applied to the subject
ClifV (talk) 21:19, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

@ClifV In that case (and I've not looked at the citations given, or others used in that article), your issue is less with the short description than the wording of the lead. I suggest you focus on that, as you do indeed appear to be doing. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:38, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

I think the lead is accurate--"Indeed, the relationship between MDE and its community is a major reason for the cancellation campaign." (Buzzfeednews). If you're referring to the is/was distinction, I found MrSchimpf's reasoning to be reasonable from an article writing standpoint if not an aligns-with-reality one.

Given that the short description is part of the article and subject to the normal rules on content, I'm just looking for a single editor (preferably one of the ones who added the content, but that's looking like a longshot) to write "This source explicitly states the conclusion that Million Dollar Extreme is white-supremacist: [insert relevant source here]".

ClifV (talk) 14:32, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Part of the situation (and therefore necessarily part of the article) is MDE's abuse of plausible deniability. When someone's words and actions don't match, we cannot report only their words, we have to report their actions too. A duck who complains that he has never represented himself as a duck, is still a duck. TooManyFingers (talk) 15:56, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

@ClifV: More simply, what subjects say about themselves is never trustworthy, and MDE are even less trustworthy because deceiving people is a funny part of their schtick AND they also intend to deceive for real. TooManyFingers (talk) 19:56, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Factual errors in citing

It is important that we do not have lies in Wikipedia. The article There's a Small Hotel asserts that a cited book contains a particular statement. It does not. This is easily confirmed by searching the book on line. I removed the lie and substituted a different citation that gives a sensible explanation of the story. Someone has reverted the text to what it was before, apparently failing to notice what I said in the Edit Summary. What can be done? It would be unseemly for this to be changed back and forth ad infinitum.Roryjohnston (talk) 06:44, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

You can contact them on their talk page to point this out, perhaps they didn't see the error you are trying to correct. Tesleemah (talk) 06:55, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Roryjohnston. This is probably something you should discuss on the article's talk page. The editor who reverted you has provided a quote from the source in support of the content they restored. The source might be wrong, but that's something to at least first try to resolve through article talk page discussion. Finally, it might be a good idea to consider the reversion of your edit as having been made in good faith, and refrain from referring to the content in question as a "lie". It's not uncommon for reliable sources to provide conflicting information on the same subject. Whether that's the case here is something to figure out through talk page discussion. Using the word "lie" runs the risk of starting the discussion off on the wrong foot and creating an atmosphere not conducive to friendly discussion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:03, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for yours. There is confusion that needs to be cleared up. This has nothing to do with two sources disagreeing with each other. It’s about correctly interpreting what a source says. The quotation from Nolan does not establish that Richard Rodgers went to Stockton. I have posted my reasoning on the article’s Talk page.Roryjohnston (talk) 19:41, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Roryjohnston, your "someone" is Pdebee. As Marchjuly suggests, you and Pdebee should discuss this on Talk:There's a Small Hotel. It's been 16 years since anyone discussed a proposed or actual edit there. -- Hoary (talk) 08:07, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

To: Roryjohnston

Copy: Tesleemah, Marchjuly, Hoary

Dear Colleague,
Thank you for your interest in "There's a Small Hotel" and in aiming to get it right. As Marchjuly suggested, I am happy to work with you in a collaborative way, per WP:DISPUTED. In the past, when I came across similar situations while creating articles myself, I opted to write a footnote to indicate that the fact in question is disputed across the sources, as I did in the first entry, here (see "i"). This way, we demonstrate to the reader that various sources themselves are in conflict about the fact, without us having to do any more than simply point this out. With this in mind, I will now continue this discussion at the article's talk page later today, and I invite you to join me in this constructive effort. Thank you.
With kind regards for now;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(become old-fashioned!)} 11:37, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for yours. I have figured out that this has nothing to do with two sources disagreeing. I have posted my reasoning on the article’s Talk page.Roryjohnston (talk) 19:37, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Rory; I have replied to your entry at the article's talk page and will now apply your suggested correction. Thank you for following up on this and please accept my apologies for my part in this confusion.
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(become old-fashioned!)} 07:53, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

A Good step! Tesleemah (talk) 04:50, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Merging content from a sandbox into a main article

I am doing a major re-write (really upgrade) of an existing article. As it is so extensive, I have had to do it in my sandbox. When I am finished, do I just "paste" my sandbox content into the existing article in one go, or, am I expected to do some kind of "history merge" of my sandbox into the existing article. Or does it matter? thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 12:41, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

@Aszx5000 You can paste right in. Attribution from draft does not matter, since you're the sole author of your sandbox attributions. You don't legally need to attribute yourself. If you were merging two main-space articles, that's a different story. Then you should use {{merged from}} and {{merged to}} which are notices on talk page. Only in rare cases, do you need to request an admin to merge histories. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 13:11, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Great - thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 13:13, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

@Aszx5000 Before you rush to replace an entire article with your own sandbox re-write, I would strongly urge you to discuss your proposal on the relevant talk page, linking to your sandbox revision, and then wait a suitable time for feedback. This will avoid the inevitable frustration when your entire copy/paste action is reverted because someone takes exception to one particular section of your re-write, or to an issue such as lack of citations in one or more areas. Normally, I might suggest working on replacing one section at a time, but there are times in a rewrite where that simply isn't appropriate or practical.

I assume User:Aszx5000/sandbox2 is intended to replace the pretty expansive Rock climbing page? At this stage it looks pretty good, though I would have a number of issues with it as it stands. (I can comment on a few of those should you wish me to, though the original article's talk page - or your sandbox's own talk page - would be the best places to keep all feedback together in one place. ). Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:12, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes it is Nick Moyes. Please do comment on the original article talk page (maybe best to keep a record of it). I still have a bit to go in terms of filling out the references and doing a final re-write, but I think the structure is there, and hopefully will be an improvement on what is an important article in climbing. thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 14:21, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

I would also recommend replacing one paragraph/section at a time, to allow other editors to also see what changed/fix/catch any mistakes and make improvements. It's a delicate balance between WP:BEBOLD and finding WP:Consensus. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 14:28, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

@Aszx5000 OK - happy to do that. And another Teahouse host (Cullen328) might also be interested to comment as they also have a climbing background. Might I suggest you do put that invitation to comment on the talk page of Rock climbing and then ping me in. I would hate to constructively criticise content which I know the author is already planning to change. But, as a quick fly-past, here are some brief observations.

Moved to Talk:Rock climbing § Rewrite of this article (moved discussion)

 – Aszx5000 (talk) 09:05, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:CATSPACING

Is there a policy concerning spacing of categories at the bottom of an article, similar to WP:STUBSPACING? Tule-hog (talk) 02:51, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't know of such as up to 200 categories can be added to an article, you can also check here for further reading WP:Category Tesleemah (talk) 04:59, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Unlike templates or text, the Categories remain linked at the bottom of the page (unless it is a manual Help:Interlanguage links), no matter where you place the categories. Still Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Layout#Standard_appendices_and_footers has guidelines where to place them, but nothing related to spacing. Happy editing ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 09:16, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

BEFORE search

Greetings! I have come across plenty of Wikipedia talks using the term "BEFORE search." There seems to be no Wikipedia guideline associated with it, and I'm asking here what that means. Thanks! Pygos (talk) 08:51, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Welcome! To make your question clearer, instead of naming a search tool, what is the actual information you want to find? TooManyFingers (talk) 09:06, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:BEFORE. Cabayi (talk) 09:14, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

That. Basically, BEFORE nominating an article for deletion, one should make an effort to look for sources. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:16, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Contacted by editor

How do I know if a Wikipedia editor who reached out is real? His name is peter agahchi Ka.ol.cle (talk) 10:39, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

@Ka.ol.cle if he offered to provide editing, it is almost most likely a WP:SCAM. All editing activity here is public and communication should happen over Wikipedia from the same accounts you are interacting with. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 10:40, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the response!

Before he reached out I was already thinking about getting a page created. How will I then find an editor that can do that? Ka.ol.cle (talk) 11:10, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

@Ka.ol.cle We are not a promotion platform that creates articles because people pay for them. See WP:VOLUNTEERS. If you are interested in collaborating, you can check out WP:TUTORIAL ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 11:14, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

The page a wanted to create is for a public figure, I’m he’s manager and fiancé. I read that if you have a relationship with the person the page is about, you can’t create it yourself. So I would have to find someone to do so and work with them. How do I find someone who can create the page with me? Ka.ol.cle (talk) 11:19, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

@Ka.ol.cle There is no bar to your creating a draft article about someone where you have a conflict of interest. As that link explains, we expect editors with a COI to declare that on their userpage and submit a draft using the articles for creation process. If accepted, COI editors are expected to subsequently make update requests on the Talk Page, with a few exceptions mentioned at WP:ASFAQ. The issue is not so much your COI as your inexperience in writing biographies of living people, which have very stringent citation requirements. If you name the person you want to write about here in this thread and give what you consider are the best sources meeting the golden rules for sources, we can provide further advice. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:30, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

The person I’m talking about is creative explained (Armen Adamjan) maybe you know him. Here’s a link to an interview he did with reader’s digest.

[2]https://www.thehealthy.com/mental-health/happiness/creative-explained-interview-exclusive/ Ka.ol.cle (talk) 17:36, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Also on he’s website he has a few links to news and articles he’s been featured in, but he hasn’t updated it so there’s a lot more out there.[3]https://www.creativeexplained.com/pages/news-press Ka.ol.cle (talk) 17:37, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Mike Turnbull linked you WP:42 for a reason; following those basic rules is necessary to create content on Wikipedia. You're trying to establish notability here, but an important fact is that sources here have to be independent, which explicitly notes that books and articles written by the subject are unsuitable, including interviews. If you want to write an article about Adamjan, you need to establish notability through reliable sources that are unconnected with him. Many of the links on his site are unsuitable for this purpose as they're interviews and coverage of a "hack" about reviving dead plants with hair don't really constitute significant coverage about him. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 21:19, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

I get what you’re saying, but how will you be sure that a source is reliable and the facts are true if it hasn’t been confirmed by the person himself? Like how can a source that never met him know the basic facts like his height, where he was born or name of his daughter if they didn’t get that from him? Wouldn’t it then just be guessing? I understand that overall a lot of things can be bias when it comes from the person themselves, but there’s certain things that can’t be bias because it’s just facts. I’m just curious to fully understand the different aspects of this. Ka.ol.cle (talk) 11:05, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Primary sources can be used in certain circumstances, but never to establish notability. As to how independent reliable sources know their information, they perform research and fact checking.

Height isn't usually in an article unless it is relevant to the person's career(like an athlete), and in those cases it's usually documented somewhere(usually by the team). The names of minor children should not be in articles about their parents unless the children themselves merit articles. 331dot (talk) 11:16, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I quite easily found two articles in the online version of The Indian Express, which is a newspaper considered a reliable source for Wikipedia. The first would be great, in theory, as it is certainly independent of Adamjan and is a secondary source: in fact it debunks one of his hacks. Unfortunately, it barely mentions him as a person, so would not meet the test of significant coverage. Similarly the second, which again is a simple mention of him as being responsible for a hack. My conclusion is that there simply isn't enough published about him yet to show wikinotability, given that interviews (of which there are several including a BBC one) don't count. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:52, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I get that! A lot of the articles written about him is focused on something related to he’s work, mostly talking about a specific hack because that’s what he’s known for, not like an actor being part of a movie project and showing their personal work-life as content that would be written about in articles.

So I can see why it might be more challenging writing a page about him. Ka.ol.cle (talk) 13:01, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Ka.ol.cle, and welcome to the Teahouse.

When a person comes here with the primary purpose of writing an article about somebody (especially somebody they are connected with) it is usually the case that their purpose is what Wikipedia calls promotion, and they don't realise that Wikipedia forbids promotion of any sort.

If there is an article about your client - whoever writes it - the article will not belong to your client or you, will not be controlled by either of you, will not necessarily say what you want it to, and should be based almost 100% on what people wholly unconnected with your client have said about them, not on what you or your client say or want to say. Please see WP:PROUD. ColinFine (talk) 17:50, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Ka.ol.cle, neither "Peter_Agahchi" nor "peter_agahchi" even exists. (Click either of those links and read what you get.) Incidentally, "reaching out" always sounds to me like what happens in the few seconds (at most) before pickpocketing (or groping) starts. Beware! -- Hoary (talk) 11:01, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, happy I went here to ask before responding! Ka.ol.cle (talk) 11:11, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

There is no user account called Special:CentralAuth/Peter agahchi or Special:CentralAuth/Peter Agahchi. If he claims he can help you with a Wikipedia article then it's probably a scammer looking for money. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:01, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Ka.ol.cle (talk) 11:11, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

For completeness' sake, there's also no Special:CentralAuth/PeterAgahchi or Special:CentralAuth/Peteragahchi. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:20, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

@Ka.ol.cle: as my other colleagues have pointed out, you were most likely contacted by a scammer. See this warning on similar scam operations. I guess that you were contacted by email? In that case, I advise you to forward the emails you received to paid-en-wpwikipedia.org. JavaHurricane 12:31, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Inline Citation

Hello, kindly, I need help in working on the inline citation of my article, like I recently published my article and I cannot seem to understand where I went wrong with the citations. I have read the wikipedia citation page but I cannot seem to understand a couple of things. I will appreciate the guidance I get Mercy Mungai (talk) 11:48, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi!

You added some citation from external sources as if they are wiki links, see this and this. They should be added as a reference instead (I don't know how reliable they are yet as I didn't check deeply), but I see that's the main issue the reviewer pointed out. Tesleemah (talk) 12:42, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

oh wow this is so nice and an eye opener. Okay let me ask, so where do I put wiki links and where do I put it as a reference? Mercy Mungai (talk) 13:51, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

@Mercy Mungai: Please see Easy referencing for beginners. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:00, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

okay thank you very much Mercy Mungai (talk) 14:27, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

@Mercy Mungai A wikilink is one that points users to another Wikipedia page. So your draft might have had a link to Cardior Pharmaceuticals but that would appear in red since there is no such article. Instead you used an external link to their website. That's wrong on two counts. First, we don't normally use such external links in the body text of an article. that's explained at WP:EL. Many articles do have relevant external links in a separate section at the very end of the article. Secondly, your use of a simple link to the homepage of the Cardior website as a reference (#8 at present) is itself no use since it doesn't verify that Thum was indeed the founder of that company. You must cite a specific webpage (or other source) that makes that point explicitly. Your draft has many other problems. For example you say Prof. Thum is recognized for pioneering oligonucleotide-based therapies.... but the only citation is to his own publication. Who said it was "pioneering"? Our neutral point of view policy means we can only call something "pioneering" if we cite a direct quote to that effect. There is also no need to repeat the "Prof." in that sentence: just use his surname. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:45, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

@Michael D. Turnbull and @Tenryuu already provided sufficient guideline moving forward. Tesleemah (talk) 15:00, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I removed all the "Prof." You need to delete the hyperlinks in the text. David notMD (talk) 17:02, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

To delete, stub, or draftify Naftali Herz Halevy

I'm looking for opinions and policies that will help me understand how to approach a tricky article.

I've been trying to reverse the damage cause by a Wiki user who has been banned for creating AI-generated articles and using sock puppets to create and maintain articles on topics that they seem highly invested in. One such article that they created is Naftali Herz Halevy.

A review of the sources shows that they are largely fabricated (e.g. pointing to a general library website while claiming to provide information on the article's subject) and I highly highly suspect that the whole article is AI-generated (if any users have tips on how to verify this, I would be deeply grateful).

I would nominate the article for deletion based on the fact that it seems to be fabricated whole-cloth, but I think there is an argument to be made that this person meets WP:GNG. A majority of this user's articles have been draftified, but I don't know if that is something that any wiki user can do for a newer article or if it requires certain privileges. I am also loathe to let the article remain given that this user and their socks seem to be actively harming Wikipedia by creating dozens of articles like this.

Vegantics (talk) 19:13, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Just to clarify, based on your last sentence: Are they still creating more articles, or do they seem to be gone? TooManyFingers (talk) 19:28, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

They have active sock puppet investigations open (full disclosure, I opened one of them) so it is suspected that this person is still creating articles but the main account is gone.

Vegantics (talk) 19:35, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Vegantics, I too suspect that this person is notable but I agree with you that the referencing is very poor. I think that it would take an experienced editor fluent in Modern Hebrew to sort it out. I suggest that you explain your concerns at Talk:Naftali Herz Halevy. Cullen328 (talk) 21:24, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Discerning reliable sources

I was under the impression upon my first submission that there were indeed enough reliable sources to the standard of Wikipedia, mainly baring on the "significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject" portion of the rejection for my submission. I have added more third-party sources in an attempt to properly cover this. Many of my original links however showed that the person has been cited numerous times outside of her own publications. I am wondering if what is there now, that I have added to it, is more so of what was being asked by the requirement for reliable sources.

Draft:Susan L. Epstein NBmua (talk) 02:42, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that I'm not an expert on this, but your reference list is absolutely packed with items where "Susan Epstein" is an author.

I think it's fair to say that you've got the categories wrong. What we need is articles from reliable sources where "Susan Epstein" is the TITLE, not the author. We need articles about her, not articles by her. I need to add that anything sourced from her employers or her publishers doesn't count as reliable in terms of her notability. TooManyFingers (talk) 02:54, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

It appears to me that this type of conflict, "presenting the person by means of their published and influential work" vs. "presenting the person as a noted individual in society" is natural among academics, because being influential in their field is a major factor in how academics compete for jobs. They're so accustomed to (and skilled at) demonstrating job qualifications that they tend to do so even in situations that aren't about getting a job (viz. "When the only tool you have is a hammer ...). TooManyFingers (talk) 18:33, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

@NBmua: Welcome to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1236. In addition to what TooManyFingers has said, I would remove any use of reference 13 as of this revision because the source is a wiki. User-generated content does nothing to establish wikinotability of a subject. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:17, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

@NBmua: There may also be useful information about this at WP:NACADEMIC, if it applies. TooManyFingers (talk) 03:24, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Small note: Your draft was Declined, which is not as severe as Rejected. David notMD (talk) 08:42, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Articles about academics often have a "Selected publications" section. This provides a place for journal articles, book chapters, etc. However, the publications do not usually contribute to establishing notability. As mentioned above, the draft needs refs for what people have written about Epstein; also, per WP:ACADEMIC, the types of university positions, journal boards, significant science awards, etc. that contribute to notability. David notMD (talk) 11:38, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

The "chair" positions mentioned in the lead may be sufficient, although they aren't "named chairs" (which I have always found to be an objectionable criterion when universities can name a chair to memorialize someone otherwise non-notable who happens to give a big donation). ~Anachronist (talk) 21:27, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Whenever I requests for page protection edit permission the form never submits

Title. Trying to edit a page as a noticed a small problem. A section was removed but not all information in it was distributed across the replacement section despite it probably should've been. AnonyHelper (talk) 00:36, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't know the exact rule, but I think you might be too new and inexperienced on Wikipedia to be allowed to do that yet. TooManyFingers (talk) 01:46, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

right, im not trying to actually edit the article just submit the form to request perms AnonyHelper (talk) 01:50, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused. What's the name of this form? TooManyFingers (talk) 02:03, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I certainly don't want to appear disrespectful, but it seems to me that keeping brand-new editors out of there is exactly the reason that the page was protected. Why not write something on the article's Talk page instead? TooManyFingers (talk) 02:14, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I tried to! It said I dont have permission to talk in the talk page but maybe i was doing it wrong lol

also no worries no disrespect. this is the page:

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Edit/Form AnonyHelper (talk) 02:25, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

@AnonyHelper: Welcome to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1236. Your account is likely too new to get past a page's protection. You may wish to submit an edit request on the relevant article's talk page. Generally special permissions aren't given to editors for particular pages. You should be autoconfirmed in about 3 or so days. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:19, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Understood i can wait three days. I was just confused because when I tried to post on the talkpage it said i couldnlt AnonyHelper (talk) 02:26, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Which talk page? Some talk pages on contentious subjects (such as Talk:Zionism for example) are extended-confirmed protected, and you cannot comment on them even if you wait a few more days, you need to have 500 edits and 30 days. There should be an icon at the upper right saying what kind of protection it has. You can also make a request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Edit, which is where people often go to request an edit to an article when they can't edit a talk page. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:31, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

@AnonyHelper Hello TyphoonAmpil. Wait 3 days will make autoconfirmed, date is September 26. Thanks! †TyphoonAmpil† (💬 - 📝 - 🌀 - Tools) 09:04, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Provide Article

Hi you all,

i tried to improve my article about a living musician.

Seems like an admin was not happy with the sources.

I tried to adjust these.

In my opinion, these are all prime sources. All of the TV appearances are documented with videos that the TV stations themselves have published on YouTube (and these are the largest media stations in Germany). As well as Hintermüller's activity as an author. Any statements made are also backed up by newspaper articles. The AGO (America's largest trade journal for church music) and Musica Sacra (the largest trade journal for church music in Germany) are very reputable sources. All magazine sources come directly from the publishers.

In addition, there is the fact that the special visa categeory in the USA requires an extensive examination. Accordingly, there is also relevant evidence here that Hintermuller is an important church musician of our time and that he performed internationally and not just locally. Thus he also has a strong relevance in the music scene (notability). He is present in reliable sources.

I would be happy to receive feedback on how I can improve the article and the references to make everything better.  Draft talk:Christoph Hintermüller JPreisler1987 (talk) 22:53, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! Creating a new article from scratch is extremely challenging, and new editors are strongly recommended to spend a few months learning how Wikipedia works, by making improvements to some of our existing seven million articles before trying it. When you do decide to have a go at a new article, you are highly encouraged to read WP:Your first article. If you haven't already also check out WP:TUTORIAL; it's a lot of fun! Happy editing!

Your article was not rejected, rather it was declined so you can continue to make improvements. From a policy point of view, can you state which exact criteria article subject qualifies under Wikipedia:Notability (music)? I would highly recommend reading the links I shared, because some of your understandings of primary/secondary sources would benefit from this. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 23:19, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

hi @Shushugah Thank you that are helpful advices. I will directly read through it! JPreisler1987 (talk) 01:51, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

JPreisler1987, your draft is strewn with boldface. Most articles need a grand total of one use of boldface: at the very start. This draft is no exception. As for verifiability, when you write for In October 2023, Hintermüller was granted the rare O1-B visa by the United States, awarded to artists with extraordinary abilities in the national interest of the USA you provide evidence for the second half of this but not for the first half. -- Hoary (talk) 00:42, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks that is helpful! I removed the boldface!

Ok I believe the artist has published a photo of the visa with the visa number blacked out on his website or social media. Such a photo would count as proof, right? JPreisler1987 (talk) 01:51, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Got finally the visa and included it. I hope this provides the requested evidence! JPreisler1987 (talk) 03:04, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Not really. We're looking for published sources that say this. If it's not published, it's probably not something we want in a wikipedia article in the first place. I do think it would be very strange to mention someone's visa status in their encyclopedia article. -- asilvering (talk) 18:24, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I think in this case the visa status is being offered as evidence of their talent, akin to an award. That would only be valid if independent sources discuss this, an image of the visa(probably unwise to have even with details redacted) wouldn't work. 331dot (talk) 18:41, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't know for sure, but it seems to me that the act of getting that visa, and the photo of it, are only important in one person's life. (Similarly, every time I go to the dentist IS a major event in my life, but no one else thinks so.) I think the more significant thing is the fact of getting the job itself, plus showing that a special visa is always required in such cases. TooManyFingers (talk) 19:00, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

As I understand it, the crucial point is that the artistic expertise is proven and that the person is relevant in their field. The American authorities check precisely this very meticulously and only grant this visa to people who are outstanding and relevant in their field of art/music. These art visas are always tied to the job. The authorities also only grant these visas if it is an outstanding position in the field. This is all described in detail on the Wikipedia page on the O1 visa. But in general, this is just one point. There are countless articles, concert reviews and TV reports about him from independent and TV stations and national newspapers. That just proves once again what the visa says, or am I seeing it wrong? JPreisler1987 (talk) 19:29, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, what we want are those articles, concert reviews, and so on, not the visa. -- asilvering (talk) 19:50, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I will happily strike my reply if it turns out I'm incorrect, but I don't believe Hoary brought up the visa because it was some key to notability, but because it was a factual statement in the draft that didn't have a cite at the time, and those things have to be substantiated. The government wasn't acting as the custodian of an encyclopedia in this context, but simply evaluating Hintermüller's legal status. What mostly matters is the underlying information that would lead one to the conclusion that Hintermüller qualifies under WP:NMUSIC, not the government's evaluation of artistic merit. I see no reason in policy to think we've outsourced notability of artists to the government. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 21:29, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I See! I will work on that! Thanks for all your ideas and help! JPreisler1987 (talk) 21:49, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Books

When creating a draft for books, what do we write? The contents of the book? The reason why it was written? The notability of the book? The author's notability? Some parts of the book? I have a great knowledge (talk) 15:01, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

@I have a great knowledge strict anti-copyright violation would prevent repeating passages of the book but some examples you mentioned make sense. A book could also have influence on other books/fields of literature. See WP:NBOOKS for what books are considered notable under Wikipedia's special criteria. While WP:Other stuff exists warns against using other articles as proof of what is allowed, you can get a taste from reading other wiki articles covering books. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 15:24, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

The crazy thing is, the book that I wanted to write about did not get any award, but the author(James Dokhuma) got a title because of the book. So is the book still considered notable? The book is Ṭawng Un Hrilhfiahna. However, there is another book also written by him called Irrawaddy Lui Kamah(on the river banks of Irrawaddy) that talks about WW-II and the experiences of the author and the Mizos about the Japanese invasion. It is used as a textbook for Class IX in Mizoram. Which one has better chances? I have a great knowledge (talk) 16:11, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

@I have a great knowledge: To understand the chances for the books, compare them with everything that it says at WP:NBOOKS. Doing all the reading so that you understand every detail on that page will really save you a lot of time and stress. TooManyFingers (talk) 19:04, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:NBOOKS is important, because if the book doesn't pass that, there shouldn't even be an article. So I recommend you start by carefully comparing your book with that; then if it doesn't pass, you won't waste time on a rejected article, and you can work on something else instead. TooManyFingers (talk) 15:36, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

To get an article, a book has to be notable by itself. If it's not notable enough for a book article, it may still deserve to be mentioned in the author's article (but only if the author is notable and already has an article). TooManyFingers (talk) 15:40, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

I will also suggest that you look for secondary sources that discuss the impact of the text, as that will help establish its notability in a direct way.

Book reviews' discussion of the summary will help avoid the PRIMARY SOURCE problem. JArthur1984 (talk) 16:15, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Neither sounds Wikipedia-notable, and your current version of Draft:James Dokhuma is not ready to submit. It needs references that are about him. David notMD (talk) 17:19, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

I might add to the end of David notMD's response: It needs references that are about him, and not from him. TooManyFingers (talk) 18:58, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

they are not from him. I have a great knowledge (talk) 12:45, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Note that it's often the case that a book is notable (because it has been reviewed and otherwise discussed by others) even when its author isn't notable (because not enough has been independently published about them as a writer and/or a person).

However, being a notable book doesn't in itself make the author notable; equally, being a notable person doesn't automatically make a book by that person notable.

It might be possible to write an article about the author, or one about the book, but it shouldn't try to be about both equally. Hope this helps. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.171.3 (talk) 22:07, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

When I said "not from him" I was thinking specifically of his book. None of the references in the James Dokhuma article should come from his book. (Except in a little section of the article that's literally talking about the book.) TooManyFingers (talk) 23:31, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

copyright rule question

Should I rephrase this article due to the copyright alert? Or is the duplication just from references, so not a problem? Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 23:36, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Jean Ensminger Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 23:36, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

What did the alert say? What part did it complain about? TooManyFingers (talk) 01:33, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Potential copyright violation log b 13:45 CopyPatrolBot talk contribs marked revision 1247033714 on Draft:Jean Ensminger as a potential copyright violation ‎ Tag: PageTriage Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 09:24, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand it. I looked at the log of changes you made today, and I saw filters three times complaining that you had used someone's blog as a reference - those are normally no good - but either I don't know how to find the copyright violation message or it doesn't exist.

I hope someone smarter than me sees this. TooManyFingers (talk) 09:58, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

@Allthemilescombined1, don't worry about this. What it means is that your edit has been referred to Copypatrol by a bot, not that there was any infringement. If there was infringement, someone at copypatrol will request WP:REVDEL of the offending text. (if that happens, take this as a lesson that your edit was a problem!) If there was no infringement, it will simply be marked as a false positive and nothing further will happen. -- asilvering (talk) 18:22, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 22:04, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

@Allthemilescombined1: It may help to know that what you put into an article can't be even close-ish to the way the source says it. You have to completely rewrite every bit of everything so that there's no trace of their wording or phrasing. I would guess that a different method might help this problem; try not using the Copy or Paste commands at all. Instead, treat the source material as "look but don't touch", and type by hand every single word of your own completely independent version, to give people a similar idea while using almost none of the same words. TooManyFingers (talk) 23:11, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, great points. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 23:21, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Is that something you're willing to really do? I don't know you well, and sometimes when people say "great points" they mean "... but no way am I doing that". I'm sure you've known someone who talks that way. TooManyFingers (talk) 23:41, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

@TooManyFingersI'm truly in need of advice when it comes to copyright violations, given my history. I do not plagiarize. It's a bit of a fine line between "no original research" and "no copying", right? So it's truly helpful to understand that I can't experiment with the wording in the space. I've also had my 'original research' removed, which is, of course, frustrating. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 00:01, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Uploading images

Hi, had a quick question on how to upload images to a page I have edited. I am relatively new to wikipedia

List of mosques in the United States Chirpingsparrow (talk) 22:28, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

@Chirpingsparrow Do you have the right to upload the images you wish to upload? 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:31, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Chirpingsparrow, I imagine that these are photographs. Was it you who took each of the photographs? (If not, please explain.) -- Hoary (talk) 22:45, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

It is pictures that I found on google images - assuming it breaks the copyright policy. Chirpingsparrow (talk) 23:32, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

That is indeed a good assumption. Please do not attempt to upload any of them to Wikimedia Commons, English-language Wikipedia, or the Wikipedia of any other language, until you are prepared to point to clear, public evidence that a particular image either is in the public domain or is copyleft according to an acceptable license. See "What licenses to the files I want to upload have to use?". Note that "in the public domain" does not mean something like "already easily available to the public"; it means instead "free of any kind of copyright". -- Hoary (talk) 00:18, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for you prompt replies Chirpingsparrow (talk) 01:43, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Requesting help on adding Season 16 episodes of Cook's Country

Hi everyone,

I heard PBS aired Season 16 of Cook's Country and I need some help adding 15 episodes of the 16th season on List of Cook's Country episodes. Do you think you can help me out? Janlanuzo (talk) 21:17, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

What do you need help with? Tesleemah (talk) 21:52, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

@Janlanuzo I'm afraid the only help I can offer would be to suggest that the entire List article be deleted for non-notability, and that simply adding the few urls used to create it to the Cook's Country article would suffice. After all, every single citation in that List article is to the Cook's Country website, so any users could very easily find the same information there. But that's probably not what you want to hear! Nick Moyes (talk) 23:36, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

@Janlanuzo Can help you on Cook's Country. the 16th season on List of Cook's Country episodes. is Missing. Thanks †TyphoonAmpil† (💬 - 📝 - 🌀 - Tools) 04:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Request for Review: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Md_Zillul_Karim,"

Hello,

I hope you’re well. I am currently participating in the editing of the article "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Md_Zillul_Karim," collaborating with other editors, including Keith D. We’ve made several improvements based on feedback, and we’re eager to see if the article is now ready for approval.

Could someone please review it for us? Your guidance would be greatly appreciated!

Thank you! 103.178.95.3 (talk) 23:14, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to Teahouse! You have submitted Draft:Md Zillul Karim 5 times and it has been reviewed four times. It will be reviewed a fifth time. We are all WP:VOLUNTEERS and not in a WP:RUSH to meet deadlines. There are no shortcuts, if you want to increase your skills, improving any of our existing 6 million articles is your best bet. Happy editing and patience! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 23:23, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I appreciate the work that goes into the review process. I’ll continue to be patient and look forward to any updates on the draft.

Thank you! 103.178.95.3 (talk) 23:28, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, IP editor. Your draft says this person is notable because they are a Social Entrepreneur along with unnecessary capitalization. My immediate response is that phrase is promptionalism devoid of serious content. If we say that a person is a physician or a photographer or an astronomer or an architect or a plumber, we immediately have a very good idea of what the person actually does to earn a living. But what the heck is a "social entrepeneur"? Well, we actually have an article Social entrepreneurship which says The concept of social entrepreneurship emerged in the 1980s and since then has been gaining more momentum. Despite this, after decades of efforts to find a common ground to define the concept, no consensus has been reached. The dynamic nature of the object and the multiplicity of the conceptual lens used by researchers has made it impossible to capture it, to such an extent that scholars have compared it with a mythological beast. That is not at all a reassuring tool for assessing the notability of a person whose actual role is so vague and poorly defined. We later learn that he gained recognition as a successful young social entrepreneur through his work in education and parenting support. He began his entrepreneurial journey as a co-founder of Light of Hope. That is overtly promotional content that belongs in a fundraising brochure, not a neutrally written encyclopedia article. "Entrepreneurial journey"? Give me a break. Nobody writes that way unless they are trying to promote something, and promotional content is not permitted on Wikipedia. And then we have the almost obligatory name dropping of the world famous Muhammad Yunus. Working on something alongside Muhammad Yunus does not confer notability, and such mentions tend to irritate AFC reviewers. In my view, this draft needs a total rewrite from top to bottom to bring it into compliance with Verifiability and the Neutral point of view, which are two of our three core content policies. Without such a rewrite, your draft violates No original research, our third core content policy. Three out of three is bad in this context. Cullen328 (talk) 09:31, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Dear Cullen328

Thank you for your insightful feedback on the draft regarding Zillul Karim. I have taken your comments seriously and made some adjustments, including the removal of Dr. Muhammad Yunus's name from the article.

I also want to acknowledge that David (notMD), a highly experienced Wikipedia editor, has contributed to the article, and his edits have taken a step in the right direction.

I value your perspective and would greatly appreciate it if you could take a moment to review the updated draft when you have the time. Your suggestions would be invaluable as I strive to meet Wikipedia's guidelines.

Thank you for your assistance! 103.178.95.3 (talk) 23:46, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

The tone of the draft is improved, so thank you for that. However, when I look at your references, I find that some of them do not mention Karim, and are therefore of no value in establishing his notability. Others are interviews of Karim or mention him only because they are quoting him as a spokesperson. Those are not independent sources and do not establish his notability. What are required are references to sources that meet three standards: They must be reliable. They must be independent of Karim. They must devote significant coverage to Karim. Which of your references meet that three part standard? Cullen328 (talk) 00:20, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Here's a revised response that includes all the news links you've provided:

----

Thank you for your feedback regarding the draft. I appreciate your acknowledgment of the improved tone. However, I would like to clarify that the references I provided include independent coverage of Zillul Karim's achievements, not solely interviews where he is quoted as a spokesperson.

For instance, the following articles directly mention Zillul Karim and provide substantial independent coverage of his contributions:

1. Channel I: ToguMogu Parenting App National ICT Award 2022 - This article notes that the award was presented to Zillul Karim alongside Dr. Nazmul Arefin.
2. Daily Observer: ToguMogu Wins BASIS ICT Award - This article mentions Zillul Karim's involvement in receiving the BASIS National ICT Award.
3. Call for Nation: 1st Runner-up Award - This page includes information about the award and Zillul Karim's project video link.
4. The Daily Star: ToguMogu App - Hacking Your Way to Better Parenting - This article features Zillul Karim discussing the app's development and goals.
5. Daily Sun: Daily Sun Article - This article mentions Zillul Karim, albeit with a spelling mistake.
6. BBF Digital: Collaboration to Solve Malnutrition - This piece mentions Zillul Karim with a spelling mistake.
7. Daily Asian Age: Zillul Karim's Efforts - This article discusses Zillul Karim's contributions to enhancing children's development.

These references come from reliable and independent sources, offering substantial coverage of Zillul Karim’s achievements and contributions. I hope this helps clarify the notability aspect. I would greatly appreciate any further review or assistance you could provide regarding this article. Thank you for your time and consideration! 103.178.95.3 (talk) 01:03, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

OK, let's go through those sources:

1. I cannot read this source but your summary does not sound like significant coverage.

2. This source is a passing mention and is not significant coverage.

3. A link to a video of Karim speaking is neither independent nor significant coverage.

4. A quote from Karim is neither independent nor significant coverage.

5. A passing mention is not significant coverage.

6. A passing mention is not significant coverage.

7. The Asian Age source says more about Karim, but has the hallmarks of being generated by a press release and/or an interview.

Your sources are exceptionally weak. It seems that you for not understand what significant coverage means. Cullen328 (talk) 02:15, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Dear Cullen328,

Thank you once again for your detailed review and feedback. I sincerely appreciate your continued guidance as I work to bring the draft into alignment with Wikipedia’s policies. I fully understand your concerns regarding the significance and independence of the sources, and I recognize the importance of ensuring they meet Wikipedia's rigorous standards for notability.

Based on your feedback, I will focus on identifying and including references that provide substantial, independent, and reliable coverage of Zillul Karim. I now have a clearer understanding of what constitutes "significant coverage" and will re-evaluate the current sources to ensure they align with that standard.

In the meantime, I will continue refining the article to ensure neutrality and compliance with Wikipedia's core content policies. I deeply value the time and effort you have put into assisting me with this draft and would greatly appreciate your review once I’ve made the necessary revisions.

Thank you again for your patience and support. 103.178.95.3 (talk) 09:04, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Редактирование статьи Leonard Riggio

Здравствуйте! Почему отменили мое редактирование статьи Leonard Riggio? GrandeHermano (talk) 15:20, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

@GrandeHermano: If you have a suggestion for the article Leonard_Riggio you can start a discussion in English on that article's talk page.

If you need help with the Russian wikipedia, ask at ru:Википедия:Форум/Вопросы RudolfRed (talk) 15:47, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I reverted your edits. As you did not have the courtesy to leave an edit summary I could read, I could not be bothered to translate it. As said above, this Wikipedia operates in English. That said, I couldn't see what you were trying to do anyway (and you didn't tell us!) – all I could see is that you changed his date of death from 27 August to today, 24 September. The article contains links to news of his death that is dated in August. So either you know something that other people don't, and you need to explain it in English and give a reliable source for it, or you will get reverted. If you have got other data then great, please bring it on. I would not revert you if I understood what you were doing and it had a good source. DBaK (talk) 16:12, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Warning users about vandalism/violating neutral POV?

I'd just like to know if users (especially like me, with a not-too-high edit count) are allowed to warn other users about violating WP's neutral point of view with, for example, templates like Uw-npov2? Thanks! ~eticangaaa (talk) 06:48, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes. But do try hard not to misdiagnose what you see, and try hard to choose the most appropriate warning template. (The templates are conveniently listed in Wikipedia:Template index/User talk namespace.) Remember that damage to an article isn't necessarily a matter of vandalism, and presenting a point of view doesn't necessarily violate neutrality. -- Hoary (talk) 07:03, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

@Eticangaaa Many editors like to use TWINKLE to help them automate and speed up the process of leaving the most appropriate level of warning to other editors. Nick Moyes (talk) 08:15, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree with all of the above. You probably can remember the positive/negative interactions you had in the past when someone on Wikipedia slapped a template on your article or user page versus proactively improving/proving gentle feedback. Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers is an excellent essay. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 10:21, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

@Eticangaaa NPOV (listed on Wikipedia:Template index/User talk namespace). Do not bite newcomers. Please Assume good faith. Thanks. †TyphoonAmpil† (💬 - 📝 - 🌀 - Tools) 14:02, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Good faith does not preclude people from leaving warnings. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:23, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Music charts on articles

Hello there! How do I add music chart data on articles about artists? is there a template, a guide to follow, how is it done? Thanks in advance - feni (tellmehi) 16:54, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Are you looking for Template:Single chart and Template:Album chart? NotAGenious (talk) 17:06, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I need help on making a reference.

so I don't know how to reference myself,help me on Draft:Zhwe with breve so I can reference,please help 86.98.181.137 (talk) 18:23, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I just checked the article now, you are only attaching an image, please see citing sources but I can give you a breakdown here:

To Cite an article, you need a reliable independent (This means you can't cite from subject's book or their website) sources like newspapers, magazines, journals and books that have major coverage of the subject.

To cite, make use of the " double quote like this on top of your page after clicking on edit pen, you can add automatically or manual if the option is not available. I would have help with the first one if you have a reliable reference at hand. I like that you are starting with draft too, this makes your work easier and not get your article deleted (As it is, that article can't stand on the main page).

Do let me know if you have further question. Tesleemah (talk) 18:46, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

@Tesleemah I presume you meant to write: This means you can't cite from a self-published author's book or their website)? Nick Moyes (talk) 19:20, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

yes please, did I give impression of another thing entirely? Tesleemah (talk) 19:27, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

@Tesleemah Well, for those experienced editors "in the know", I think we would could interpret exactly what you meant. But I really wanted to clarify your wording for the IP's sake, as it was perhaps a little ambiguous.

For new editors, the distinction between reliably published sources and others (such as blogs, self-published websites with no editorial scrutiny or vanity publications) can sometimes be a little hard to appreciate. But don't let that put you off being one of our newest Hosts here. It's really great to have both the IP user asking good questions and you willing to answer them - so a warm Teahouse welcome to both of you! Kind regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 19:52, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! This is warm to hear. I hope to adapt more better sooner. Tesleemah (talk) 20:00, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

How should I move Draft:Childhood dementia to the mainspace?

Hello. I created a draft for Childhood dementia (a devastating yet under-recognised group of diseases) 14 days ago, and have progressively improved it. I've now been trying to make sure it meets Wikipedia's policies well enough to move on to the article space , especially the core policies (WP:NPOV, V, and NOR). From my understanding reading the policies, I *think* it's in a state where it can be moved to the mainspace. But it's possible I'm mistaken.

While I am auto-confirmed, since Childhood dementia is currently a redirect {{r with possibilities}}, trying to publish the draft through the normal path fails.

How should I proceed? Should I make a request at WP:RM? Does the article need more work before being published? Or should I proceed with a different option?

Thank you in advance for your time. Irina Rainbow (talk) 18:18, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've notified WikiProject Medicine of this discussion to see if anyone has suggestions for improvement. Moving over a redirect merely requires a technical move request, but a page mover may hesitate to fufill such a request if the draft appears unready. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 18:35, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

There's that big blue button that says "submit the draft for review". Click that and follow the process.

Though I will say with empty sections, it's doubtful people will accept it as ready for prime time. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:35, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

• It's certainly a viable topic with some decent sourcing available/used. Bon courage (talk) 18:38, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Ah, thank you Rotideypoc41352, Headbomb, and Bon courage.

To Headbomb: I've thought about submitting it for review, but since I heard it can take some weeks to months for an article to be, and this is still a fairly unknown yet very important topic, I thought it'd be better to put in work to make it ready relatively quickly and publish it directly.

Important note: I do want to make it clear that the reason I made this article *is* to raise awareness (so advocacy in a way. I did make sure to read WP:NOTADVOCACY and WP:ADVOCACY) but I will try my darnest to respect wikipedia's rules and help make the article encyclopedic. Irina Rainbow (talk) 18:59, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Weeks/months tend to be for articles that are less well written (e.g. missing sections), or for topics no one cares about (random tech investor). The better written an article is, the easier (and more interesting) it is to review. Make sure to tag the talk page with relevant wikiproject banners (here, {{WP Medicine}} and {{WP Disability}} come to mind, Talk:Dementia might have more), so they get notified when the article is submitted for review. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:05, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Ah I see. I'll try to work on fleshing out the placeholder sections, which should help.

Also, I see I've already heeded your advice! Tagging the talk page with relevant wikiprojects (including {{WP Medicine}}, {{WP Disability}} and others) was one of the first things I did after creating the draft, since I saw it recommended in "Improving your odds of a speedy review" on the AfC submission template. Irina Rainbow (talk) 20:22, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I can't speak for everyone, but to me, the way you've described your advocacy point of view sounds like it ought to be fine: as long as the article has no elements of advocacy in it, you are who you are. It may be uncomfortable to have to avoid adding things such as advice, treatments that aren't well recognized yet, or unofficial symptoms to the article. TooManyFingers (talk) 19:24, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

This type of situation requires admin help, which can be requested here: Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests It's possible that dropping a simple sentence in each of the empty sections – though theoretically not required – would reassure the admin that it's really an uncontroversial move.

I like the variety of sources that you've used. The one about psychosocial impact would probably be useful for putting something in the ==Society and culture== section (e.g., anything about school and friendship). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:16, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Haha. I think the variety is mostly an accident, since I just couldn't find all that many sources on it, which is to be expected. Though, before I found some of the other sources, I did add verywellhealth.com for a bit but quickly realized its blocked and considered unreliable, or at least inconsistent. Wouldn't be a good look for the article to use it instead of higher quality sources. Irina Rainbow (talk) 20:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I recommend you submit Draft:Childhood dementia to AfC rather than move it to mainspace. The AfC backlog is not a queue, so it may be reviewed sooner than your think. If to mainspace, in time the New Pages Patrol could move it back to draft. Also either remove or fill in the now-blank sections. What you have is typical for diseases, but there may not be available refs for those sections. Otherwise, interesting topic. David notMD (talk) 06:17, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I've nominated the redirect for deletion and can review the AFC once that happens. Sincerely, Dilettante 18:59, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

The draft has been accepted into article space. McClenon mobile (talk) 17:49, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh, the notifications let me know first, but thank you nonetheless for making sure the message reached me! Irina Rainbow (talk) 20:43, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Bare URL references

Can there be / should there be sanctions (possibly leading to a block) of editors who refuse to desist from posting bare URL references? Not pointing the finger at anyone in particular, but I'm aware of editors who have done this for a long time and despite talk page requests from more than one fellow editor, they continue to post bare URL references. I consider it bad practice, even bad manners (as I'm a Brit) because it means another editor has to go in and clean up afterwards. Just asking a question, or looking for pointers to relevant policy / essays / established consensus. Thank you. 10mmsocket (talk) 17:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps a message on their talk page will help, I'm not sure block can be applied except they have been persistently warned on their talk page. Tesleemah (talk) 18:21, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Warned for what though? Is it actually against any policy to continually post bare URL references? 10mmsocket (talk) 21:20, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

It's not ideal, but it's not prohibited. You can, if you want, post a friendly message on their user talk page advising them of things like WP:CITEHOW, WP:PLRT, WP:BareURLs, etc.; however, I don't think any stronger action will be taken unless adding the bare URLs is associated with some other type of more serious disruption (e.g. WP:SPAMLINK). -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:39, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Remind them that bare URLs are much more vulnerable to link rot. Metadata facilitates their recovery. DS (talk) 04:13, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Death of Jacques Breuer

Hello! I just read on dewiki that Jacques Breuer has died on 5 September 2024. I don't know how to implement the German ref/template to the english article. So I copied it to the article talkpage. Maybe someone can help with the apropriate template. Thank you! Maresa63 ^Talk 16:38, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

 Done, you may want to check if everything looks fine now. NotAGenious (talk) 17:16, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Looks fine! Thank you very much! 👍 Maresa63 ^Talk 17:54, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

@Maresa63 and NotAGenious:, next time, save yourself the trouble and just paste the German citation directly into the English article. For example, the death date is cited in the German article de:Jacques Breuer (Schauspieler) in note 1 like this:

<ref name="focus.de 24. September 2024">{{Internetquelle |url=https://www.focus.de/kultur/stars/mit-67-jahren-trauer-um-tatort-star-jacques-breuer-ueberraschend-gestorben_id_260338564.html |titel=Trauer um „Tatort“-Star: Jacques Breuer überraschend gestorben |werk=[[focus.de]] |datum=2024-09-24 |abruf=2024-09-24}}</ref>

Just copy that directly into the English article as is, and our ref translator will pick it up after a little while, and substitute the proper English citation for the German one; {{cite web}} in this case. This trick works for about 10 to 16 languages, depending exactly which citation template is being used in the foreign wikipedia; see the link for documentation. It would be helpful if you could add parameter |trans-title= to the citation as well, after copying it over. Mathglot (talk) 05:27, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

For the record, this also works perfectly well in Visual Editor - just open the de-wiki article in edit mode, click on the footnote, and copy-paste it into the article here. -- asilvering (talk) 05:30, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Is there Ctrl+H option in editing an article?

Hi, I use the visual editor in editing an article. I can't use the code-based editor. When I want to replace a word which mentioned in several places in the article, I do one by one. Is there a command like Ctrl+H in Microsoft Word? Thank you. DemirWikiTR34 (talk) 21:45, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I copy such an article into a text editor on my "hard drive" (SSD), edit it there, and copy it back. (I do not recommend that you use a word processor such as Word. The editor I use is Geany, but several alternatives are just as good.) -- Hoary (talk) 21:54, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Hoary, it's a very good idea. DemirWikiTR34 (talk) 22:01, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

@DemirWikiTR34: You can use Ctrl+F in VisualEditor. It may already be a shortcut for a search feature in your browser but VisualEditor should override that. You can also click the hamburger menu icon ☰ at the top right and select "Find and replace". PrimeHunter (talk) 22:18, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

You are very right. I have just seen it. That's what I was looking for. Thank you PrimeHunter. DemirWikiTR34 (talk) 07:03, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

ask for protection

Why is the Java article not protected? I want the information article about Java Island to be protected because the article has been targeted by vandals who have deleted the entire contents of the article. OriginalFixed (talk) 12:28, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Page protection may be requested at WP:RFPP. 331dot (talk) 12:36, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Last week, one idiot tried it, twice, within a two-hour period. They don't seem to have tried again. DS (talk) 04:16, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I hope so too because it's very annoying. OriginalFixed (talk) 07:10, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

My Own Wikipedia Page

How do I submit a page about me and my band's history. I released tracks on EP and compilation album formats which had radio and TV success in the '80s with my band based in Glasgow, Scotland :'The No Entry Band' and worked with other known musicians. I am releasing an album on vinyl and CD this October/November 2024 and wanted to submit a page for approval about my band's history and current work. Please advise. Thank you. Ilona Wewiorski (talk) 14:08, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Writing about yourself is very, very strongly discouraged; if you did so, you would need to make certain declarations for the sake of transparency, and the article would be unlikely to be approved because almost everyone has a hard time writing about themselves in the objective, neutral way that Wikipedia articles should be written. AntiDionysius (talk) 14:12, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

@Ilona Wewiorski What Anti said, but also upon doing a quick search for sources on The No Entry Band, I was unable to find any. I'm assuming that there might be some on a newspaper somewhere, and I'll have a quick poke around, but you need to have reliable, secondary sources talking about your band to start creating an article about it. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 14:15, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I'll second this, you mentioned TV success, we need reliable sources for either you or your band, you mentioned TV success, can you elaborate that? if say, perhaps whatever your music was in has its own article, that might help establish notablity. Akaibu (talk) 15:18, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

It's not encouraged to write a Wikipedia article about yourself and even for those close to you, you will need to disclose your relationship with them. Tesleemah (talk) 18:16, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Ilona Wewiorski, I agree with what's come before, I just wanted to chime in with a couple of links for you to read up on: WP:Conflict of interest, and WP:DISCLOSE. Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 07:54, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Is the page I created publish or still need to be reviewed

Hello,

I created a page around a Medieval Castle in my village https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ch%C3%A2teau_des_Marbais_(Vieux_Ch%C3%A2telet)

I am not sure if the page is already published. I suppose so as I can find it via a google research.

The page also show a banner with "La mise en forme de cet article est à améliorer (septembre 2024). La mise en forme du texte ne suit pas les recommandations de Wikipédia : il faut le « wikifier »". I am not sure what I are the next steps I should undertake.

Thank you very much for the help :-).

Best regards,

Tanguy Tanguy.th (talk) 19:19, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Tanguy.th. This is the English Wikipedia. You will have to ask your qurstion at the French Wikipedia, which is a separate project. Cullen328 (talk) 19:25, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Ok thank you very much for the redirection. Tanguy.th (talk) 19:27, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello Tanguy.th, and welcome to the Teahouse. Whilst we would normally say that we cannot advise on the policies of other language versions of Wikipedia, it is immediately clear to me that your article lacks inline citations for eleven of its paragraphs - some of them quite lengthy, and grouped in completely uncited sub-sections.

I assume French Wikipedia is just as concerned about the ability to WP:VERIFY factual statements as we are over here. This is something you could immediately address. I would also expect the inline citations to come immediately after the end punctuation, not before it.

But don't be disheartened: it is very common - almost 'de rigeur' - for brand new articles to be tagged by other editors for improvement, as even the most experienced editor can forget certain things, or make slips, in their keenness to make their article available. But yes, Cullen is right to recommend you seek help at fr.wiki and not here. Their version of the Teahouse can be found here. Alternatively, look at the version history of the article to see who added the template and drop them a note to ask for their help. We love to assist keen newcomers, and I'm sure they'll give you some additional feedback relevant to the French Wiki.

Ah - I've just checked when the 'formatting' template was added! I see it was inserted extremely early in page creation process, when - to be frank - it was a complete mess with just subheading titles but no content. See HERE. So it might simply be a 'hangover' from that point, and could reasonably be removed once you've fixed the little things I've mentioned above. But do ask over there for genuine advice, as all Wikipedia versions have their own guidelines and rules that they follow, and few of us know what they are, except for our own language(s). Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 19:40, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello Nick Moyes,

Thank you very much for your lengthy answer on a non English page. It brings already quite some answers. I have launched my question on the French Forum as well for further follow up.

I will start to improve the page already based on your advise.

I wish you a good evening.

Best regards,

Tanguy Tanguy.th (talk) 19:50, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Nick Moyes, just to correct a couple of misconceptions:

1. I assume French Wikipedia is just as concerned about the ability to WP:VERIFY factual statements as we are over here.
2. I would also expect the inline citations to come immediately after the end punctuation, not before it.

As someone who has done a fair number of translations from fr-wiki, and seen a whole lot more, #2 is the other way round (punct must come after the ref); as for #1, it's complicated. In theory, yes: their equivalent is at fr:Wikipédia:Vérifiabilité and says some of the same things as WP:V, but in practice, I don't see a whole lot of reaction there to ignoring it, so it often is. Or all the refs are primary, and all the content is OR. That's anecdotal, of course, based on my own experience. And fr:WP:N is in a similar situation, and I regularly see articles at fr-wiki that are completely unacceptable at en-wiki on notability grounds, and I have moved more than one translation of such an article from fr-wiki to Draft, where I presume they linger, and age, and finally end up at the great encyclopedia in the sky. Mathglot (talk) 05:08, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

@Mathglot Thank you for that clarification- really interesting to know about this. Pinging @Tanguy.th so they’re aware of my misunderstanding about the order of punctuation. Nick Moyes (talk) 06:50, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Nick, the whole field is actually kind of fascinating. I should write an essay on WP:EthnoWikipediology one of these days, although I feel like I'm only scratching the surface, so far. Did you know that although 144 Wikipedias support {{sfn}}-style short footnotes, German Wikipedia does not ? Or that {{interlanguage link}} is an extremely popular template, used across nearly 100 Wikipedias, but when I was astonished to find nl-wiki didn't have it and I ported it there, I nearly caused a meltdown (nl:Overleg sjabloon:Interlanguage link, several discussions)? (It is now grudgingly accepted for non-mainspace use at nl-wiki.) Or that Spanish Wikipedia, while it listed and linked the policy about copying from other Wikipedias, there was no real way to advise a user about it, and it caused a splash after an unattributed translation template was introduced there ? I have learned to tread very carefully at other Wikipedias as their cultures are so different, and my efforts to improve something may be seen as interference. This is just the tip of the WikiBerg. Among my efforts to deal with some of this cross-wiki stuff, is this template (incomplete; just proof of concept). Mathglot (talk) 07:57, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

@Mathglot Fascinating! I think your idea of an essay (with tables) on the key differences between how various Wikipedias approach key matters would be of great interest, and some help for those of us not knowing the key differences between our various projects. Quite surprising to see the reaction against the 'ill' template but, then again, we are a very conservative lot over here on en-wiki, hating to see new things come in without lots of consideration, discussion and plenty of huffing and puffing. Nick Moyes (talk) 08:43, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

2006 article hijack?

Hello, I found Manuel Rendon and it looks like it was initially a page, which then got blanked and redirected to Manuel Rendón Seminario, then got replaced with the current engineer(which may be unfocused or promotional imo but that's not what I bring up here), my question is, is this an "Article Hijack"/should history be merged as appropriate? Akaibu (talk) 14:07, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm inclined to say no to a histmerge per WP:PARALLEL. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 11:11, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

@Akaibu Looking a the full edit history, the page was a redirect from 2006 to 2015 having started as a duplicate article which was redirected on the same day as it had been created in 2006. So I agree with Rotideypoc41352. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:15, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Most of the source links to Manuel Rendon are intended for Manuel Rendón Seminario, so disambiguation is needed. DuncanHill (talk) 11:18, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Actually it's a bit more complicated. There is a currect redirect from Manuel Rendón to Manuel Rendón Seminario and both are listed at Rendon (surname). With only two people having names which can be confused, a hatnote is probably the best solution. I'll try to fix the linking: there are not many of them. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:29, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I think the primary usage for Manuel Rendon is Manuel Rendón Seminario, so move Manuel Rendon to Manuel Rendon (meaningful disambiguator) and redirect Manuel Rendon to Manuel Rendón Seminario. DuncanHill (talk) 11:35, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

@DuncanHill I've made the changes implied by what's above, including the incoming links. If you want to do the "primary usage" stuff, go ahead. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:07, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

An article/page for an Organization and individual on wikipedia

Can I get people/editors here to write an article about an organization and an individual? TransformationAgent (talk) 13:58, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Not really. There is Requested Articles, where you can add ideas for articles, but it's mostly inactive and was never an on-demand service anyway. AntiDionysius (talk) 14:03, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, TransformationAgent, and welcome to the Teahouse. The fact that you're asking that question suggests that you believe that such an article would benefit the organisation and the individual in question. It might do - but it might not: see an article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. Wikipedia does not care in the slightest whether an article is of benefiy or detriment to the subject, as long as it conforms with Wikipedia's policies. ColinFine (talk) 15:56, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi AntiDionysius, I know about the policies and guidelines but I have not seen any unfavourable thing about the organization and individual in question. TransformationAgent (talk) 16:26, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

TransformationAgent, I see that you have enabled email. So it's quite likely that somebody reading your question/request here will email you saying that yes, they may be able to do this for you (for a price). Do not agree to do this, because it's likely that the "writer"/"editor" will disappear with your money or will turn out to be incompetent. (See Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Solicitations_by_paid_editors.) It's better not to reply to any such mail. -- Hoary (talk) 01:41, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. 110.141.4.90 (talk) 12:40, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Double account / 2 languages

Hi,

I have edited two pages, one French and one English. As result, it seems that I have two different Wikipedia account but with the same username ?

Every time I'm reading an article and switch it to the French version, my account switch as well and my modifications to the French page is not showed to my main account and vice versa for the English modifications.

Is it normal and if not, how can I fix it ?

Thanks in advance Cataaliinaa (talk) 08:13, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Accounts are global, meaning that they may be used on any Wikimedia Foundation project(such as different language Wikipedias). I don't believe changes to your account (like its user page) on one Wikipedia carry over to another, though. 331dot (talk) 08:25, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer, but i'm not talking about changes to my account but changes to an active pages. This is my "French contributions" [4] and my "English contributions" Special:Contributions/Cataaliinaa .

They both have the same name, but not the same contributions or even monitored pages. Cataaliinaa (talk) 08:44, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Edits you make to the English Wikipedia are on your English list, and edits you make to the French Wikipedia are on your French list - what is so surprising about that? - Arjayay (talk) 09:01, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, actually explained like this, it makes sense ! Cataaliinaa (talk) 09:37, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

@Cataaliinaa If you navigate to the bottom of the page Special:Contributions, you'll see a link that is called Global: contributions. Clicking that will take you to a toolforge page, which for you is this one. That lists any contributions, up to 20 per wiki, including to Wikimedia Commons, for example. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:48, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

@Cataaliinaa: Each Wikimedia wiki has separate logs and watchlists. Wikipedia languages count as separate wikis. The top of Special:Contributions/Cataaliinaa has a "global account" link to Special:CentralAuth/Cataaliinaa which shows where your account exists and how many edits it has. Clicking the count shows your contributions at that wiki. A local account is automatically created at a wiki if you view any page while logged in. There is no global watchlist. You have to view the watchlist at each wiki you are interested in. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:54, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

How to insert a template

Evening everyone If anyone don't mind helping me, how do I insert a template onto my talk page, because I want to insert a language template and more, if that's possible. How do I type it in too? Thank you😊 Nontombie (talk) 00:58, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

{{Template name}} Moxy🍁 01:31, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Nontombie, not sure which kind of language template you meant; are you talking about a language proficiency template, to list the foreign languages you are familiar with? If so, see {{Babel}}. Mathglot (talk) 02:42, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Nontombie (talk) 11:26, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Afternoon, I meant in language and more. Thank you Nontombie (talk) 11:29, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

@Nontombie To insert Template put {{Name of Template}}. for language put {{Babel}}. Thanks †TyphoonAmpil† (💬 - 📝 - 🌀 - Tools) 04:08, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Nontombie (talk) 11:27, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Nontombie Thanks! to adding template. †TyphoonAmpil† (💬 - 📝 - 🌀 - Tools) 11:39, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you soooo much. You can now look at my User page p, I am now able to do what I've always wanted to do, contribute to Wikipedia. Thank you 😊 Nontombie (talk) 14:33, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Priva

I wish I understood the jargon here. All I know is that a page about me was removed and cannot be found. Is there an expert one can hire to navigate all this? Priva (talk) 20:33, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Priva, please read WP:SCAM and be very cautious. Cullen328 (talk) 21:27, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

The whole page Peter Riva is gone. My brother, Michael Riva and my mother Maria Riva's pages are there... Priva (talk) 20:24, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

There used to be a page that was mostly accurate about me, but it has disappeared. Why? And can I get it back? Frankly, it was very useful to have a quick look at my 50+ year career. Priva (talk) 20:23, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

You can find the discussion of why it was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Riva. However, you cannot make edits to articles in which you have a conflict of interest (See WP:COI). You need to stop editing articles where you have a personal relationship to the subject.

Vegantics (talk) 20:28, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I never edited my own page. There were gaps in "proof" which I supplied or gave links to (for example testimony before the Congress).... is that considered "editing?"

I do spend time editing my grandmother's page which is full of BS half the time (Marlene Dietrich). Priva (talk) 20:36, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

If you modified the article at all, that is considered editing. If you want to make changes to an article where you have a personal connection, you should go to the "Talk" page (such as Talk:Marlene Dietrich), identify your personal connection, and request the change you want to have made. You can find more information at Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide.

Vegantics (talk) 20:52, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

To summarize the discussion of why the article about you was deleted, Wikipedia has guidelines to establish that a public figure is notable enough to merit having a Wikipedia article about them. The article about you did not meet these criteria and had a demonstrated history of being edited by either you or someone close to you.

You cannot have the article about you restored or recreated because you have a conflict of interest. Hiring someone to help you to do so would be unethical. While you have referred to that article as "your page," from Wikipedia's perspective it is not yours. It is meant to be an objective record as created by a neutral third party and so you may actually prefer for there to not be an article, rather than one that you cannot control the tone of.

Vegantics (talk) 21:00, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Having a record of your own career is a purely personal matter, not the job of an encyclopedia. I'm sure you've used a (paper) encyclopedia before, and I'm sure it didn't occur to you to look for an entry about yourself in there, because that's not how encyclopedias work.

You can certainly get yourself a private website or blog (completely unrelated to Wikipedia) which would be yours to do with as you please; what you can't do is self-declare that you (or your friends or relatives) merit Wikipedia articles. The public is not interested in you at all, and it doesn't make sense for you to tell them they ought to be. TooManyFingers (talk) 22:15, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

"The public is not interested in you at all" is rather harsh; some would even say rude. Then again, even if it were justified, well, the public (as normally understood) is very little interested in a pile of subjects that rightly have articles in en:WP. (Can you interest the man on the Clapham omnibus in, say, the Lebesgue measure?) -- Hoary (talk) 01:39, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

A different take: while Wikipedia frowns on attempts at autobiography, it is not forbidden. Using WP:YFA as a guide, you could create a referenced draft and then submit it for review. David notMD (talk) 01:39, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

From info at the deletion notice (above) you can contact the Administrator at User talk:Explicit and ask to have the deleted article restored as a draft. You should also indicate on your User page that you have a conflict of interest (WP:COI). Work on adding as references what people have published about you. David notMD (talk) 01:43, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Years ago, you edited the articles about your brother, mother and grandmother (Marlene Dietrich). Please don't do that anymore, as the same COI rules apply. David notMD (talk) 01:46, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Please note that those "rules" [sic] do not prohibit all editing. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:36, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

@Priva: As already noted, you can read about the deletion of the article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Riva. The page is jargon-heavy, but read the linked pages, and ask here if anything is not clear. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:40, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

WORMS References

Is there a way to automatically insert modernised WORMS references? Using the built-in automatic citation generator, it simply cites the webpage, but it doesn't seem possible to automatically insert the proper reference (See here for an example of a modernised ref and here for the automatically inserted ref).

Regards, SirBrahms (talk) 07:04, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I modified the latter ref, so permalink for the hosts: Special:Permalink/1247201960#cite ref-4. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 10:32, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, but the problem wasn't really that one reference, and more the fact that automatically inserting a citation with WORMS creates a technically wrong reference. I was wondering if there was a way to change the automatic citation tool (in the visual editor) so that it inserts the correctly formatted ref. - SirBrahms (talk) 11:23, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

@SirBrahms: For something this specialist, it is probably best to ask on Template talk:Cite WoRMS. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:06, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! I will go ask there - SirBrahms (talk) 18:06, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Article about separate company rejected

Hello,

I submitted an article about Steptoe & Johnson PLLC and was told it was rejected because an article exists already about the topic and referred me to this Wikipedia article: Steptoe LLP. However, the company I wrote about is a separate entity from what the reviewer shared. Steptoe & Johnson PLLC website is here https://www.steptoe-johnson.com/ and Steptoe LLP website is here https://www.steptoe.com/en/.

Does anyone have any advice or recommendations how I could resubmit and get it re-considered? Please reply to VisualEditor.

Thanks! Catwurst (talk) 16:56, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

You could disambiguate it. The original article already existed so your new one would need to have a tag on it.

Also, I do not understand what you meant by Please reply to VisualEditor. ShowierData9978 (talk) 17:20, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

According to this announcement, "Steptoe and Johnson LLP" changed its name to "Steptoe LLP" in December 2023. Fabrickator (talk) 17:35, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it's a bit confusing. The original law firm is called, Steptoe & Johnson PLLC. It split in to two law firms in the 1980s - one retained the name, "Steptoe & Johnson PLLC" (HQ is in Bridgeport, WV) and the other changed their name to "Steptoe & Johnson LLP" (HW is in Washington DC). The only difference in name was the suffix. At the end of last year (the announcement you shared) "Steptoe & Johnson LLP" changed its name officially to "Steptoe LLP".

But Steptoe & Johnson PLLC has existed under its original name and has been a separate law firm from Steptoe LLP since the 1980's. Catwurst (talk) 18:31, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for this suggestion, but not sure disambiguate would work well for this instance.

It's a bit confusing. The original law firm is called, Steptoe & Johnson PLLC. It split in to two law firms in the 1980s - one retained the name, "Steptoe & Johnson PLLC" (HQ is in Bridgeport, WV) and the other changed their name to "Steptoe & Johnson LLP" (HQ is in Washington DC). The only difference in name was the suffix but they were/are separate entities. At the end of last year "Steptoe & Johnson LLP" changed its name officially to "Steptoe LLP".

But Steptoe & Johnson PLLC has existed under its original name and has been a separate law firm from Steptoe LLP since the 1980's. Catwurst (talk) 18:34, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Please do not delete my talk

Vandalism-only account, now blocked

How to write "reverted 10 edits from [user name]"? And how to block someone on Wikipedia? TASALT (talk) 04:46, 25 September 2024 (UTC) @TASALT, only admins can block people. This isn't a social media platform. -- asilvering (talk) 04:54, 25 September 2024 (UTC) And if you put stuff like this [5] on your talk page it certainly will be deleted. Meters (talk) 04:56, 25 September 2024 (UTC) How can i be an admin? Please: Can you demonstrate how to be an admin? TASALT (talk) 04:58, 25 September 2024 (UTC) The instructions are at WP:RFA. I don't recommend it. -- asilvering (talk) 05:06, 25 September 2024 (UTC) TASALT, accumulate many thousands of indisputably productive edits over several years including writing many new articles of high quality. Do your best to be unfailingly friendly and helpful to other editors. Consistently demonstrate an excellent understanding of Wikipedia's Policies and guidelines. Be a productive contributor to the behind-the-scenes administrative functions. That should get you started. Cullen328 (talk) 07:51, 25 September 2024 (UTC) Also, TASALT, if you want to be an administrator, never engage in profane personal attacks against other editors, like you did against Binksternet, a highly experienced and widely respected editor. That was not cool. Cullen328 (talk) 08:36, 25 September 2024 (UTC) @TASALT, to become an admin, you may need to read User:Clovermoss/RfA. The essay is a written experience of one of our administrator, hence it may help you keep a good track record. Cheers! Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 12:19, 25 September 2024 (UTC) Given what you've written above, you appear to want to be an admin to win a dispute. That's not how to become an admin. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:09, 25 September 2024 (UTC) OP indef'ed by user: HJ Mitchell Meters (talk) 18:50, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

How to get the requested move banner and talk page notification for an expanded RM

Hi all, I relisted and then formatted the RM to include and specificity all moves per WP:EXPLICIT but I've been waiting for the banner to appear on the current dab page but no dice. Anyone know what I missed? Thanks, Bobby Cohn (talk) 18:21, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

You've listed Danny Cohen (media executive) as both the current1 and the new1 title. Also, Danny Cohen is a redirect to Daniel Cohen; I'm unsure whether the bot will place the banner on the redirect, its target, or neither. I recommend asking at WT:RM, where editors who understand the innards of {{requested move/dated}} and RMCD bot are more likely to see your question. jlwoodwa (talk) 18:56, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

New cat breed

Hi! I want to write about a cat breed that is in the process of being recognised - the Transylvanian cat. Currently I don't think it's notable enough for its own article, so I thought about listing it in the List of experimental cat breeds, but it seems like it doesn't fit there either. Should I just wait until the breed gets officially recognised? Kogti (talk) 21:04, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

@Kogti Welcome to the Teahouse. Yes, I think it would be appropriate to wait until there are some reliably published articles or news items about this topic. Without more sources, there is nothing really to say at this stage. With more sources it might fit into the list article, although really even the entries there should be notable and have articles of their own before being included in a List. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:05, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

You can start working on an article draft using an offline document outside of Wikipedia, collecting good references, and starting to write sections that can be reliably cited. I usually have a half-dozen “collecting info” files for upcoming Wikipedia projects that I work on periodically. When the time is right to create a complete article much of the work has already been done. Best wishes on your Transylvanian cat project. Karenthewriter (talk) 13:49, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Kogti, I did a search, and after you exclude self-published sources like social media from your search, there is almost nothing left. Based on the lack of sources, don't think this is yet a notable topic. Maybe an entry in a list article, as Nick Moyes mentioned. Mathglot (talk) 19:08, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Fringe sources

Just a question about WP:FRINGE. It looks like it applies to fringe topics. Does this extend to fringe sources somehow, i.e. how to present work done by a figure like Richard Lynn? Is Lynn's reputation enough to discredit the work? ShinyAlbatross (talk) 18:10, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean; Wikipedia:Fringe theories § Sourcing does discuss sources. Could you give a more specific example of a situation where you're not sure how WP:FRINGE would apply? jlwoodwa (talk) 18:46, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Sure; I noticed that the article Religiosity and intelligence contains claims by several controversial researchers including Lynn, who openly described himself as a "scientific racist". The article doesn't do enough to describe the fringe nature of their views, and I'm uncertain how to best deal with it. ShinyAlbatross (talk) 18:57, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

ShinyAlbatross, a better place to raise that issue would be at Talk:Religiosity and intelligence. Lynn's work is only cited once in that article, in section § Studies comparing religious belief and IQ, and most of the next paragraph is occupied with pointing out the flaws in his methodology. As the article has 52 sources, mentioning him once, immediately followed by criticism, doesn't seem like a major concern to me. But if it does to you, I would start by raising a discussion at the Talk page.

We don't generally use the word fringe to refer to a source. Rather, we say it is reliable or unreliable, with various gradations in between, and sometimes qualified as a source that "is reliable for a particular topic", but not for others. A particular author may have hateful or questionable opinions in one area, and still be able to have papers accepted for publication in a reliable, peer-reviewed journal in another. If you have questions about the reliability of a particular source, try bringing your question to the WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Does this help? Mathglot (talk) 19:44, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes that does actually help. Particularly, answers my question about whether to define a source as fringe. Thank you. ShinyAlbatross (talk) 20:02, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Erm

Erm, how is there no mention of the, you know, on this page? 72.27.26.133 (talk) 18:17, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

If you have suggestions to improve an article, start a discussion about it on that article's talk page and don't be coy about what you are suggesting. RudolfRed (talk) 20:09, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Help With Translating Page

Hello everyone,

As a polyglot, I was thinking about starting to translating pages. But unfortunately, it seems I’m not able to publish translations yet.

I recently began translating Chomori, but it looks like I’ve only created a draft. Could someone please help me publish it so I can continue working on it?

IlEssere (talk) 21:33, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I've moved it to Draft:Chomori. But at this stage, please pause and think. Template:Cite journal should only be used for journal articles. (There are plenty of "Cite XYZ" templates for other purposes.) If you do use "Cite journal", you must specify the title of the journal. I clicked on one of your somewhat dubious-looking uses of "cite journal". 404. I clicked on another. 404. Please look for a new address for each of these files, or look for the original in the Wayback Machine. And you'd better check all the other cited sources as well. -- Hoary (talk) 21:51, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Got it! Thanks! IlEssere (talk) 21:54, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Also, IlEssere, I quote Template:Cite web/doc: "website: Title of website (when the website has a clear name, use that rather than the domain name)". (And Template:Citation Style 1 serves as a quick reminder of which Cite template is for which kind of source.) -- Hoary (talk) 22:12, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean? Could you please give an example? IlEssere (talk) 15:52, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

IlEssere, The term "domain name" refers to the part of a url after the scheme and before the first slash. If you cite the Smithsonian Magazine (a very reliable source, by the way), the website name is "Smithsonian Magazine" but the domain name is smithsonianmag.com. So, if you use template {{cite web}} to cite it, then your citation should include |website=Smithsonian Magazine, not |website=smithsonianmag.com. The "website" is whatever they call themself in the big header usually found at the top of their home page. Mathglot (talk) 20:14, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification! IlEssere (talk) 20:21, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Steps to Get Started with Page Translation: What Do I Need?

Hello everyone,

I've translated a page and had another Wikipedian help draft it, but I'm having trouble publishing. What steps do I need to follow to make it live? How can I get started with page translations? IlEssere (talk) 20:19, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

IlEssere, Please see feedback to this question above, at § Help With Translating Page. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 20:22, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Too long?

Hello longtime editor first time tea drinker! When List of slave traders of the United States started it had seven names. It now has...more. I've heard tell of such a thing as too many templates or too many sources and I'd like to deal w it before it breaks something. Or maybe I should leave it alone and direct my anxiety elsewhere? Do we have any official advice on when and how to break down long lists, etc? TIA jengod (talk) 18:50, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I hope you enjoy your tea. :)

WP:SPLITLIST may be what you're thinking of. TooManyFingers (talk) 19:11, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

OK that works for me. And the tea was lovely. Cheers.

Resolved

jengod (talk) 20:18, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Jengod, I wonder why that list exists. Wikipedia doesn't have lists of horse traders, real estate dealers, grain dealers, etc. If it's to be retained, it should be reduced to a list of notable (in WP's sense) slave traders. Maproom (talk) 07:04, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Maybe there are less slave traders? The slave trade might have been a bigger operation than just buying grain one place and taking it to another. But given how many are listed, you might be right. Mrfoogles (talk) 21:25, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Ip user

Hi. I created a disambiguation page EKCO (disambiguation) which was reviewed by a new page reviewer as OK. An IP editor, who I assume is the same user, as the IP address keeps changing, keeps deleting and tagging parts of the page based on MOS:DABNOMENTION. I have pointed out this was not noted by the new page reviewer, and as my latest in the talk page, there is mention elsewhere in an article. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 14:36, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

This should be at WT:DAB, but to avoid forking I'll refrain from putting anything there for now. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:B8CC:8F1:A6EA:1C6D (talk) 14:43, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

New page review only checks whether an article obviously should be deleted. It by no means gives special approval to any version of the article. You've been edit warring during an ongoing discussion. The Teahouse will not help you "win". Please read Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for how to proceed when there is a disagreement on content. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 19:13, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

The fact that a page has been accepted for mainspace doesn't imply that it's incapable of further improvement. Disambiguation pages should disambiguate among articles. You have been adding non-articles to the list, and the IP user has been justifiably removing them. Maproom (talk) 21:36, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Inquiry regarding notability criteria for Music artists.

To Whom It May Concern, I am reaching out to you due to the inquiry regarding notability criteria for Music Artists. How the notability will be evaluated? I would like to have a conversation with an expert in this regard, please! Looking forward to hear from you Best Regards, Marjan Hamidia Marjan Hamidia (talk) 16:45, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

See WP:NMUSICIAN for the criteria. Theroadislong (talk) 16:48, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

@Marjan Hamidia: You can read WP:NMUSICIAN for Music Artists, and the general notability guidelines for every subject WP:GNG. GrabUp - Talk 16:48, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

@Marjan Hamidia...and our Notability Criteria for people in general should also interest you. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:55, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Total number of categories

Is it possible to know the total number of categories on Wikipedia? Batrachoseps (talk) 01:31, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Batrachoseps, this search timed out (as I expected) but returned 1,054,119 categories, so there are at least that many. You may get a higher number (or lower) if you repeat the query. Mathglot (talk) 02:40, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

@Batrachoseps and Mathglot: the category namespace has 2,390,615 pages as of 00:13, 24 September 2024 (UTC) of which 39 are redirects. Wikipedia:Database reports/Page count by namespace and its page history give the number of pages in the Category namespace since 16 November 2008. I think the nature of the ~39 redirects (are they true synonyms? redirects to or from subtopics?) complicate matters. That said, there are only 39 redirects, so you could—if you had a very slow afternoon—do such an analysis manually by going through a list of results from searching insource:redirect or something in the Category namespace. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 11:05, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Batrachoseps (talk) 15:44, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

39 seems a surprisingly small number. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:26, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't include Category:Wikipedia soft redirected categories (there's 119,125 of them). Category redirects are generally made into soft redirects by RussBot. Batrachoseps (talk) 23:58, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

i want you to help me to post an article

321 Aleksandro Derstila (talk) 19:56, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Aleksandro Derstila, and what article might that be? Have you written it yet? Please see our tutorial Help:Your first article – it may answer most of your questions. Mathglot (talk) 20:18, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Presumably User:Aleksandro Derstila/sandbox, rejected as "contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:57, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

@Aleksandro Derstila why sandbox rejected. can help you to make article. Thanks. †TyphoonAmpil† (💬 - 📝 - 🌀 - Tools) 02:16, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Bibliography of works on labor unions in the United States

Came across this, and I can't help but think this isn't a page we should have, it looks like a great resource on the topic, but from what I understand we don't really do pages that are just references like this, so I'm wondering if this should be moved out of mainspace or something, merged somewhere more relevant, or deleted if nothing else. Akaibu (talk) 02:12, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Akaibu. Wikipedia contains many bibliographies. Please read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists of works and Category:Wikipedia bibliographies and its many subcategories. Cullen328 (talk) 04:09, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Not related to questions - Wikipedia will be write read-only for a short while

Now done

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse#c-Nontombie-20240925112700-TyphoonAmpil-20240925040800 Sorry for unrelated content, please share this to everyone. Thank you Nontombie (talk) 14:42, 25 September 2024 (UTC) Read this message in another language • Please help translate to your language The Wikimedia Foundation will switch the traffic between its data centers. This will make sure that Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia wikis can stay online even after a disaster. All traffic will switch on 25 September. The switch will start at 15:00 UTC. Unfortunately, because of some limitations in MediaWiki, all editing must stop while the switch is made. We apologize for this disruption, and we are working to minimize it in the future. A banner will be displayed on all wikis 30 minutes before this operation happens. This banner will remain visible until the end of the operation. You will be able to read, but not edit, all wikis for a short period of time. You will not be able to edit for up to an hour on Wednesday 25 September 2024. If you try to edit or save during these times, you will see an error message. We hope that no edits will be lost during these minutes, but we can't guarantee it. If you see the error message, then please wait until everything is back to normal. Then you should be able to save your edit. But, we recommend that you make a copy of your changes first, just in case. Other effects: Background jobs will be slower and some may be dropped. Red links might not be updated as quickly as normal. If you create an article that is already linked somewhere else, the link will stay red longer than usual. Some long-running scripts will have to be stopped. We expect the code deployments to happen as any other week. However, some case-by-case code freezes could punctually happen if the operation require them afterwards. GitLab will be unavailable for about 90 minutes. This project may be postponed if necessary. You can read the schedule at wikitech.wikimedia.org. Any changes will be announced in the schedule. Please share this information with your community. User:Trizek (WMF) (talk) Sorry that was the wrong link Nontombie (talk) 14:45, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

You meant, "read-only" in the heading. Fixed. Mathglot (talk) 19:50, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Nontombie (talk) 07:13, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

javascript in article

Details (magazine) edits by Special:Contributions/2409:408D:1E8D:44D9:0:0:5E0A:A207 ... 69.181.17.113 (talk) 05:09, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

JavaScript is not run when it's added to articles. The code is just displayed like any other text added to the page. The IP made some confused edits 17 April. They were quickly reverted and after several warnings the IP was blocked for 31 hours and hasn't edited since. PrimeHunter (talk) 06:20, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

thanks .... 69.181.17.113 (talk) 07:16, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Stars of the Grand Ole Opry can't be assessed.

Hello, I was looking through Wikipedia:Database reports/Untagged stubs and noticed this page, and tried to remedy its placement in the report by assessing it as disambiguation, however,Talk:Stars of the Grand Ole Opry redirects automatically to Talk:Stars of the Grand Ole Opry (Jan Howard album), preventing that from happening, which I assume may have been an oversight from a page move or what have you. Akaibu (talk) 07:56, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

 Fixed @Akaibu Welcome to the Teahouse. There was a WP:REDIRECT on that page which I have just removed. The talk page can now be used for that disambiguation page, if necessary. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:08, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Edit blocked on semi-protected article

I have just edited the Liverpool article twice without problems, but seeing a minor gaffe in a separate sub-section, I found myself blocked.

It relates to the Visual Arts sub-section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liverpool#Visual_arts

The image caption reads;

"Nelson Monument at Exchange Flags. The other British hero of the Napoleonic Wars is commemorated in Wellington's Column.

This implies that Nelson and Wellington are the ONLY two heroes of this era. That is a bit of a slap in the face for everyone else who took part. Indeed, is 'hero' the correct term for these two men anyway? It needs to say something like "Another British hero commander is commemorated...", or "The other significant British hero figure is..."

Either way, I cannot edit this section. Over to somebody else.

WendlingCrusader (talk) 00:50, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Strange, you shouldn't be blocked. Your account is extended confirmed already, which is a level higher allowed for semi protection. What's the exact alert message given when you tried saving the edit? – robertsky (talk) 01:00, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Something about no dice / semi-protected, with an invitation to bring it here to the Teahouse. Sorry, I have closed that window now and lost the exact message.

I will go back to it presently, but before that perhaps you would be kind enough to offer an opinion on my suggested edit. WendlingCrusader (talk) 01:24, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I suspect that the message that you saw was "Note: This page is semi-protected so that only autoconfirmed users can edit it. If you need help getting started with editing, please visit the Teahouse." This is just an informational message, which is seen by everyone. It does not mean that you are not able to edit the page, if you are auto confirmed. CodeTalker (talk) 03:53, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you - I obviously misunderstood the message. I have just re-visited the section and completed my edits. Stand by for the riots (joking!)

WendlingCrusader (talk) 11:56, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Translating to Hebrew

I have started translating a page to Hebrew. How do I change the text direction to be right to left? also should I set the language to Hebrew somehow and if so how? Is it possible my account is just for the English Wikipedia? because it doesn't let me log in When looking at Hebrew pages. EncyclopediaEditorXIV (talk) 09:23, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

@EncyclopediaEditorXIV This is not a full answer for you, but usernames should all be global, and it does not look like there are any blocks preventing you from logging on to any other language Wikipedias (see HERE). Have might like to try switching and editing on, say, French or German Wikipedia with the same character set to see what happens there. You should see a userpage there with the same name that you are editing with on English Wikipedia. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:03, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

when I enter a page in any language it keeps me logged in but the moment I enter a Hebrew page I'm logged out and can't log in until I change the language EncyclopediaEditorXIV (talk) 10:37, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

@EncyclopediaEditorXIV: You might need to clear cookies (any from any wikimedia or wikipedia domain). If that does not help, ask at WP:VPT. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:46, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

@EncyclopediaEditorXIV I think Andy's advice is sensible. I had wondered if Hebrew Wikipedia might have required you to change your keyboard character set in some way. But, using my Chrome browser on a desktop) I've just visited for the first time (I believe) and was automatically logged in and can immediately see my userpage there. I presume you get the same results with other browsers? Nick Moyes (talk) 11:41, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

@EncyclopediaEditorXIV Mixing left to right and right to left in same line of HTML can be tricky. A simple tip is to edit on new lines for each and combine it together when read. See mw:Directionality support for technical background of the HTML. Nothing to do with your settings or account. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 14:31, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

SCOTUS cases vs. USA State Supreme court cases

Is it common or acceptable for there to be articles for the cases of STATE-based supreme courts? There are SCOTUS cases that have their own article often or in many cases, but what about state-level supreme court cases? Are there examples of any of those being important/notable enough to have their own articles? Iljhgtn (talk) 15:20, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Check out Category:United States state case law. There isn't a subject-specific notability guideline, so you would apply the general notability guideline. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 15:40, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

The Scopes trial would be an obvious, almost-trivial example. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:43, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

How to match WP:ENCORP for my article?

Hi everybody,

Maybe you can give me a few tips regarding the publication of my article Draft:Hokushin_Seiki.

The dilemma is the following: unlike in the German Wikipedia, my article does not fulfill the relevance criteria "WP:ENCORP" in the English Wikipedia. As Japan's largest manufacturer of airbrushes and ODM for countless companies, this manufacturer is, in my opinion, absolutely notable for the airbrush sector. However, since the supply of ODM products to customers (not consumers) takes place exclusively within Japan, with the exception of one company, no documentation is publicly available and could be used as a reference. Therefore, I have referred to some technical details that refer to the manufacturer by comparing technical drawings (in operating manuals of the distributing companies) and the patent registration of these technical details as a "reference". Only the company Anest Iwata-Medea, Inc., headquartered in the USA, can be verified via websites such as https://www.importgenius.com/suppliers/hokushin-seiki-co-ltd as a customer of Hokushin Seiki for airbrushes (the HS code is unambiguous)...

I appreciate any advice on how my article can fulfill the relevance criteria here. Thank you very much. Zaubertinte (talk) 11:52, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. If no public independent reliable sources discuss this company and show how it is notable, it would not merit an article on the English Wikipedia. If it is acceptable on the German Wikipedia, you should concentrate your efforts there. 331dot (talk) 12:20, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

@Zaubertinte Sources do not have to be in English: see WP:FOREIGNSOURCES. If there aren't even sources in Japanese, that would be the end of the matter for en:Wikipedia. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:50, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

According to Google Translate, the German wikipedia notability policy says this:

"

Companies that:

• have at least 1000 full-time employees or
• have an annual turnover of more than 100 million euros (conversion), or
• on a German stock exchange on the regulated market, on the Vienna Stock Exchange in the market segments prime market or standard market or in an equivalent stock exchange segment in other countries, or
• at least 20 plants within the meaning of Art. 5 OECD-MA DBA (online version, pdf, 237 kB) own (so that includes its own branches, production sites, branches, retail stores, but not independent sales agents or sales partners) and (as a whole) correspond to at least one large (for example within the meaning , )
• have a dominant position or innovative pioneering role in a relevant product group or service (independent source required) or
• one of these criteria historically met.

The information on full-time employees and annual turnover must be documented by suitable publications in public registers (such as the German company register) and comparable publications.

"

This is very different from the English Wikipedia notability policy: the German Wikipedia says that companies deserve an article if they are, essentially, big enough or have an important position. The English Wikipedia says:

"

A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.

"

The English Wikipedia essentially does not care about how big or relevant the company is, but only whether there are multiple reliable secondary sources (in any language) describing it. Mrfoogles (talk) 21:37, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello @331dot, @Michael D. Turnbull and @Mrfoogles,

Thank you very much for your answers, which in summary show me that my article in the English Wikipedia cannot take place in this way.

Since my sources meet the German Wikipedia notability policies by proving that this company plays both a dominant position and an innovative pioneering role in a relevant product group; but, if I understand Mrfoogles correctly, this is not as relevant for the English Wikipedia as several reliable secondary sources that prove this, my article (the draft) can probably be deleted here.

Because as I have already said, it is not possible - and I think this is understandable in business terms - to provide written proof of the domestic supply of ODM products to well-known airbrush companies.

No research in airbrush blogs, such as airbrushforum or britmodeller with photos of operating instructions, on which the company is clearly stated as the manufacturer IMG will help this out, right?

So again: if all this is not enough for the English Wikipedia, then please delete my draft.

Was worth a try. ;-) Thanks. Zaubertinte (talk) 09:12, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

@Zaubertinte Thanks for taking on board the differences between de: and en: Wikipedias. To ask for the draft to be deleted you should add the template {{Db-author}} at the top and an admin will do the deleetion. Or you can do nothing and it will be deleted by a bot in six months. That would be sensible if you think some suitable sources might emerge over time, allowing you to return to the draft. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:52, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

@Mike, I added the Db-author template. :-) Thanks again. Zaubertinte (talk) 17:40, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Yep im back and i need someone to find me a source AGAIN

i need someone to get me a source about the eastcotts abolishment because im trying to update the cardington page. 94.194.31.200 (talk) 15:16, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, IP user. You may need this, but that doesn't mean that anybody needs to help you. How would you react if you were in a public place and a stranger suddenly stood up and said "I need somebody to do a job for me"?

No guarantees, but you're more likely to find somebody willing to help you if you ask people politely rather than asserting that you "need" it; if you talk about it in a way that might engage people's interest; and if you address people who are likely to have an interest in the subject (for example, on the article's talk page, or at a relevant WikiProject, if there is one).

(I'm not offering, because I haven't the slightest idea what "the eastcotts abolishment" is, and you haven't attracted my interest enough to go and look). ColinFine (talk) 17:38, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Two hours later, IP OP asked the same question at Wikipedia:Help desk § I need someone to find me a source cus i cant find any and has since received some answers there. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 17:57, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

And also re-asked on the Humanities Ref desk, where I have already noted the Help Desk posting. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.6.86.81 (talk) 18:32, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

94.194.31.200, please ask questions only on one forum (whichever is most appropriate). Asking on multiple fora just wastes the time of us responders, who are all volunteers, and can lead to confusion if answers on different fora, through misunderstandings, lead to contradictory replies. Thank you. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.6.86.81 (talk) 18:32, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Promotional content

One user added many promotional edit with this edit https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lulu_International_Shopping_Mall,_Kozhikode&diff=prev&oldid=1247436506

I'm unable to make any changes. How to fix this. 2409:40F3:C:A762:E401:37FF:FE6B:2CC4 (talk) 16:59, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I recommend creating an account. You have to revert manually. Ahri Boy (talk) 17:03, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I blocked the promotional editor and reverted to the last neutral version. Cullen328 (talk) 19:23, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Proposed Additions: English Translations by Andrei Malaev-Babel and Demidov Association

Hello everyone,

I am kimon fioretos and I would like to propose some additions to the Nikolai Vasilievich Demidov article. I am affiliated with the Demidov Association, which is dedicated to preserving and promoting Demidov's acting school. I believe these additions will enhance the article by providing valuable information about the availability of Demidov's work in English and the ongoing efforts to sustain his legacy.

References:

1. Demidov, Nikolai; Malaev-Babel, Andrei; Laskina, Natalia. Nikolai Demidov: Becoming an Actor-Creator. Routledge, 2021. ISBN 978-0367737009.
2. "About the Demidov Association." Demidov Association official website. Accessed September 26, 2024.

Rationale and Disclosure:

Due to my affiliation with the Demidov Association, I'm proposing these changes here for transparency and to comply with Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines.I am also proposing for someone esle to do this additions if they are approved. I believe these additions (especially the publication of the book in the English language) provide valuable context and information for readers interested in Demidov's work and its impact on modern acting techniques globaly.

Why These Additions Are Important:

• Significant Contributions: Andrei Malaev-Babel's translations have been instrumental in introducing Demidov's methodologies to a global audience, filling a gap in theatre education. More over Andrei Malaev Babel is the only person in the world that collaborated with Laskina herself on this work
• Educational Impact: These works are used in academic settings and professional actor training programs, highlighting their influence.
• Relevance to the Article: Including this information provides a more comprehensive understanding of Demidov's legacy and ongoing relevance.

I welcome any feedback or suggestions and hope that another editor can review and consider adding this information to the article.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Best regards,

Kimon Fioretos Kimon fioretos (talk) 19:31, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

@Kimon fioretos Welcome to the Teahouse, and thank you for your understanding of our policies about Conflict of Interest. The Hosts here are always happy to help and advise on the best ways to edit Wikipedia though, to be frank, we don't usually get involved directly in making specific edits on behalf of editors (unless one of us is suddenly so -motivated).

It would be best if you would get these and any future changes via the article Talk Page, made by following the instructions at WP:EDITREQUEST to draw the attention of an editor willing to make these changes. As one addition seems most appropriate for the 'Published works' section, and the second is really an 'External link', I doubt there will be any worries adding these - especially as you have provided (and will no doubt repeat) such a clear rationale. Kind regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:56, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Do you have a place in tanzania

to do editing and add ons 181.188.1.5 (talk) 17:33, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello IP editor. Welcome to the Teahouse. I'm not quite sure what you are asking us. You are, however, welcome to make constructive contributions to the article in English on Tanzania without having to register for a free account (though there are many benefits in doing so). You can make edits at Swahili Wikipedia HERE. I will leave a helpful welcome message on your user talk page to help you understand how to start editing and to make useful contributions here. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:05, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Quality or timeliness

I've seen many BLP articles where there is an older photograph used, while there become a more recent one but is often of lower quality. In such situations should the older but more quality image be used, or the newer but lower quality? Zinderboff(talk) 19:22, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Zinderboff, there is no one-size-fits-all answer. In general, we prefer to use a high quality photo of the person when they were at the top of their game at the beginning of the article. Other photos can be used elsewhere in the body of the article. Very low quality photos should not be used if better photos are available. This is a matter of good editorial judgment and consensus among the editors interested in the specific article. Cullen328 (talk) 19:30, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Sometimes you'll see a talk page with the lead image discussed, and eventually a consensus is reached about which is best. As Cullen328 said, sometimes it's a high-quality photo of the person at their peak of fame. Often, however, I see the lead image being a photo of how the person looks now. The community errs on the side of quality, I think. Between an older and newer photo, generally the highest quality one is chosen. If they're the same quality, the new one is chosen. If the subject of the article has a preferred photograph and donates it, we tend to use that. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:41, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

write article

Hello

is there anyone who can write a page about my website to get approved? Cfcplay (talk) 21:45, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

This isn't really the place to request authors to write for you. If the sources do not exist, there can't be an article about your website, no matter who writes it. 331dot (talk) 21:48, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Cfcplay. The short answer is, No.

If several somebodies who have no connection with you, and who have not been prompted or fed information on your behalf, choose to write in some depth about your website in places with a reputation for editorial control (such as major newspapers or magazines, or books from reputable publishers), then there could be a Wikipedia article about your website, based on what those sources say (and not at all on what you say or want to say).

If sources of that description do not exist, then no article is possible, and anybody who spends any time trying to will be wasting their time. ColinFine (talk) 21:59, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

ok thank you for the info i will contact some newspapers and tv channels for interview and reviews Cfcplay (talk) 22:09, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Cfcplay, reports of interviews won't help, as they won't be independent sources. Reviews could help. Maproom (talk) 22:15, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

ok how many reviews is required? Cfcplay (talk) 22:18, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

@Cfcplay, when @TyphoonAmpilsays "won't help you", they mean "will help you", as I and Maproom have already said.

As for the reviews: it isn't really the number (though a mininum of three indepedent sources is usually required): it's about the depth of coverage. The question is, "is there enough material in the reviews to base an encyclopaedia article on?" Some reviews of things talk in depth about the subject. Others are superficial, and simply describe it, and maybe give their own opinions about it. Only in-depth reviews will be useful as sources for an article. See significant coverage. ColinFine (talk) 10:14, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

@Cfcplay To write article create article. Verifiability, Reliable sources, and independent sources. won't help you. Thanks. †TyphoonAmpil† (💬 - 📝 - 🌀 - 🏮) 04:46, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Meaning of pickles

Are pickels actually good for you or not 210.84.6.89 (talk) 12:45, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello. This board is to ask questions about using Wikipedia, and is not a general help desk. You can learn more about pickles by reading the article about pickles. 331dot (talk) 12:53, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Article on Organizations

There are several organizations without a page on Wiki. Can I write articles or create profiles for organizations? Effie92 (talk) 12:27, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Effie92 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Are there particular organizations that you want to write about? Your use of the word "profile" suggests to me that you want to use Wikipedia to tell the world about certain organizations- Wikipedia articles do more than that, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own(not based on materials from the organization like its website, staff interviews, or announcements of its routine activities) to say about the organiazation, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization.

Writing a new article is challenging, and it is highly recommended that you first gain experience and knowledge as to how Wikipedia operates by first editing existing articles in areas that interest you, to get a feel for the process. Using the new user tutorial is a good idea as well. If you really want to start writing a new article now, you may use the article wizard.

If you are associated with the organizations you want to write about, please see conflict of interest and paid editing. 331dot (talk) 12:33, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

@Effie92 There was an interesting recent discussion about how the German-language version of Wikipedia differs from the English one regarding the notability of organisations. Please read WP:Teahouse#How to match WP:ENCORP for my article? Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:14, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

How to get started

Is there a quick-start guide to help edit or refine content in our area of expertise? Sarakmo (talk) 21:15, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

For a quick summary on participating, see contributing to Wikipedia, and for a friendly tutorial, see our introduction. For a listing of introductions and tutorials by topic, see getting started.Moxy🍁 21:21, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

@Sarakmo, if you are interested in editing a perticular topic, you might be interested in WikiProjects. These are groups of editors contributing to a specific area, and might find one that interests you. win8x (talking | spying) 14:34, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

plagiarism and unsubstantiated claims...

I found this article and it seems largely unsubstantiated without citations, fails a plagiarism test, and has a lot of 'opinions rather than fact. How are these kind of articles reported? Geraldine Aino (talk) 13:50, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

@Geraldine Aino Probably best to use the Talk Page at Talk:Haris Alexiou. Please read our policy on biographies of living people, which says you can immediately delete any statement not backed up by an inline citation to a reliable source. The article only has 31 page watchers, so you might want to alert one of the Projects that are interested in it to your concerns, via the relevant Project's Talk Page. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:50, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

How to do a sandbox

My name is RAPGOD500, and i'm a Wikipedia editor specialized on hip hop music, and how can i do a progressive sandbox? RAPGOD500 (talk) 10:31, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

@RAPGOD500 You have a personal sandbox in your user account, access is via your User or your User Talk page. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:33, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, RAPGOD500, and welcome to the Teahouse.

I see that in User:RAPGOD500/sandbox, you have created an infobox and nothing else. Assuming this is intended to become an article, you have started totally BACKWARDS. This is like painting the windows of your house before you have built the walls, or the foundations, or even surveyed the site to check it is fit to build on: it will likely lead to frustration and disappointment, and probably a lot of wasted effort.

Absolutely the first thing to do in creating an article is to look for suitable reliable independent sources to establish that the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability. This is first because if you cannot find the sources you will know that no article is possible, and any further effort you spend on it will be effort wasted. (It is extremely unlikely that an album to be released in 2025 will meet those criteria).

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft.

One more thing: are you connected with this album? If you are, please familiarise yourself with Wikipedia's recommendations on editing with a conflict of interest. ColinFine (talk) 15:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Content removed by another editor for being contentious and biased even though based on real events

Hi! I am talking about the recent edit I made on the Bhavish Aggarwal page about the comments that they made publicly based on reliable news sources (according to me, I think). But it was removed by another editor. What can I do to make it less biased when the comments made are as real as they get. Without getting into the fight.

Thanks! NerdboiIndia (talk) 23:17, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

@NerdboiIndia: See WP:BRD. You made an edit, another editor reverted. Next step is to discuss it on the article's talk page. RudolfRed (talk) 23:56, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

@RudolfRed: hi! Thanks for your reply. I have tried to engage the same editor on the same page (by chance) previously too, but they didn't reply. I undid the revision last time and they left it as it is. So, I repeated I the same thing and undid their revision. I am not sure if that was a good idea. What do you think? NerdboiIndia (talk) 00:05, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

@NerdboiIndia: I don't see any discussion at Talk:Bhavish_Aggarwal. Edit summaries are not discussion. Don't engage in an edit war RudolfRed (talk) 00:38, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

@RudolfRed You are right. I added it to the talk page of the editor this time and previously too. User talk:Ilikeyoutoo yay - Wikipedia when I add it to the talk page of the subject instead, is it a good idea to tag the editor there? Also, which way is preferred. Thanks. NerdboiIndia (talk) 00:44, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Discussion of article content is best discussed at the article talk page, so that other interested editors can contribute. Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:44, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

@Shantavira thanks for your suggestion. I have added this to the talk page of the subject. Please feel free to weigh in. Thanks! NerdboiIndia (talk) 18:00, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

How to deal with someone who seems to remove relatively negative coverage of Indian business owners

Hi! I have made some recent edits on Bhavish Aggarwal and an editor removed them for being sensationalized even when inline citations support all claims. The same editor also seemed to have removed well-cited edits (not done by me) from Ritesh Agarwal which were negative in some sense. I have seen edits by the same editor that have toned down the negative headings on Bombay Stock Exchange and there can be more if searched extensively. How do I deal with this? Is there a way to report for suspecting paid edits or a way to involve the administrators? NerdboiIndia (talk) 17:47, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

You were advised on this above. If discussion with the other editor has failed to resolve the dispute, you should use dispute resolution channels to work through this dispute. If you suspect a conflict of interest, that should be discussed at WP:COIN. If you have evidence of undisclosed paid editing, see WP:PAID for how you can present that evidence(especially if the evidence is off-wiki evidence, as you cannot out users on wiki). 331dot (talk) 18:12, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

How to mass assess articles for a WikiProject?

On many WikiProjects there's a section that has a listing of articles ranked based on their quality and importance. I'm hoping to request assessments for articles that fall into the category of my particular project, but I don't know how to start doing so. Any advice would be greatly appreciated! Surayeproject3 (talk) 00:52, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Surayeproject3 and welcome to the Teahouse. I have a reasonable amount of experience doing this for WP:WikiProject Alps and WP:WikiProject Derbyshire, and have reassessed hundreds and hundreds of articles displayed in their Quality Assessment table. It does takes time, but is well worth doing.

Before going into details, it would help if you could answer three things:

• What WikiProject do you want to work on?
• Are you already familiar with making individual quality assessments, and are now simply seeking advice in completing the process as rapidly as possible for an entire project, or
• Are you seeking advice on how the Quality Assessment process actually works for a single article?

You might find this essay on Quality Assessment worth reading through before you respond: Wikipedia:Assessing articles. I'll then be happy to help answer any further questions.

(Please make sure you Ping me so that I can respond as quickly as possible to you) Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:22, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes Thank you for your response! I primarily work on WikiProject Assyria, which although is inactive besides myself and a few other users, I'm hoping to use the quality assessments as a marker for future work on Assyrian-related articles. I've never been involved in the Quality Assessment process for any articles, but I am seeking advice on completing the process for many articles for the WikiProject. When I get the chance, I'll read over the individual page on Assessing articles, but I am hoping to know where is the best place to start from. Surayeproject3 (talk) 15:54, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

@Surayeproject3 OK. It sounds as though you're bringing the WikiProject back into activity, which is very laudable.

Using article Quality Assessment to focus attention on the easy things to fix, and identifying priorities for work is an excellent idea,too. I suggest you add a post to the Project's talk page to explain your plans, and seek ideas and input from others. By keeping on posting updates to that talk page you show to others that there is activity going on, and it can help stimulate further interest. Doing nothing, means the Project will appear, and probably stay, moribund. I advise you work carefully through that Project, page by page, as much of its key information is outdated (though I see you've already started on that process).

I do think it's important first to understand the principles behind Quality Assessment before delving into the process of reviewing them. Apart from Good Articles and Featured Articles, it is all very subjective. So you shouldn't have too much difficulty. But failing to understand the basics of the process isn't much help if you intend to use those quality assessments for focussing your or other people's attention. So, don't rush into assessing articles without reading what our grading system actually is, and how it works!

Personally, I'm very happy to allocate a grade for Stub, Start and C - grade articles. All these mean that the article is pretty incomplete in one or more ways, and the differences between them are very easy to spot.

Topics that appear to give a fairly reasonable coverage of all aspects of that topic would then be eligible to be assessed as maybe B or A grade. Once we get higher than that (WP:GA and WP:FA - FA beig the very highest quality in all respects) we are into the realms of submitting an article for review by a group of critical editors who give feedback and eventually decide whether or not a given article is correctly formatted, well-structured and properly cited, without any significant errors or omissions in style and content. They then allocate the GA or FA grade - it's not something for a single editor to decide.

I have now decided to continued my reply directly on your Talk Page HERE, as I think you'll find it helpful to discuss issues in detail without clogging up the Teahouse or losing the thread when it gets archived. So, regards from the UK, and see you over there! Nick Moyes (talk) 22:06, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback#User:TyphoonAmpil

Why declined request. i'be revert vandalism again? is least a month of experience patrolling Special:RecentChanges. my experience is High 170 reverts. Thanks. †TyphoonAmpil† (💬 - 📝 - 🌀 - 🏮) 12:19, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

@TyphoonAmpil You were informed as to why it was declined yesterday, "I asked you to spend a month gaining experience. It's been ~2 weeks since I declined your previous request. Sorry, but that's just not enough experience for me to determine whether you'll be able to use the tool appropriately." CommissarDoggo^Talk? 12:42, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

@CommissarDoggo why ping me? can spend next month again. Courtesy ping: Fastily make ~1 month? almost least 160 reverts. Thanks. †TyphoonAmpil† (💬 - 📝 - 🌀 - 🏮) 12:48, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

To be frank, I do not think you are ready for advanced permissions like rollback. You have had this account for just over a month which is nowhere near long enough for other editors to evaluate you (as Fastily said). When your first request was declined, you were advised to spend at least another month gaining experience and demonstrating your understanding of Wikipedia's guidelines, yet you made another request just two weeks later with no explanation. At the very least, the community would want to see whether an editor of one month's standing is able to understand and follow the clear guidance given to you by an experienced administrator. — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 13:03, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Rollback

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.

---

Hello I'm revert vandalism, August 28, 2024. I'be use WP:AntiVandal. I'm spend last month. give me Fastily. Thanks. †TyphoonAmpil† (💬 - 📝 - 🌀 - 🏮) 04:01, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

@TyphoonAmpil: This is not the place to request permissions, go to WP:PERM/R to request Rollback request. GrabUp - Talk 04:04, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

@GrabUp Thanks. I'm go to WP:PERM/R. no reply. †TyphoonAmpil† (💬 - 📝 - 🌀 - 🏮) 04:07, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Already requested and denied twice and previously asked here. TyphoonAmpil: I really do appreciate your anti-vandalism efforts but if you can't follow the clear instructions you are not likely to get more permissions. — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 04:11, 28 September 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.

Remove a page

Hello

There is a wiki page for my old boss which is half fake - he is around 80 years old so does not use a computer.

I have edited it for him, to remove the lie part but someone keeps putting it back. Its malicious. He does not want the page anyway so please can some one help me remove his profile.

Thankyou Wells Report (talk) 07:00, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Wells Report, what you have twice removed from the article Alan Holyoake is referenced. Perhaps it's referenced inadequately. Perhaps the references were good but the paragraph you removed misrepresented them. Perhaps the references, or at least one or two of them, say things which, citing reliable sources, you can demonstrate are disputed or plain wrong. Whichever, in order to get rid of the paragraph (let alone the whole article), you're going to have to give a reason that's a lot clearer than "it" is "fake", or a "lie". The best place to post this would be not here but instead WP:BLPN. Specify the article -- again, Alan Holyoake -- and don't call it an article "for" him; rather, an article about him. -- Hoary (talk) 07:21, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Thankyou for your help.

I can do as you suggest but means I need to take the time to research and disprove what someone it writing.

Is there no method just to remove him completely from wiki. Wells Report (talk) 07:27, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

@Wells Report, no, there is no method to remove him completely from Wikipedia. You or him don't own the page, see WP:Ownership of content. win8x (talking | spying) 14:30, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

There is a method, which is deletion, as explained at WP:BLPDELETE. However, Holyoake appears to meet Wikipedia's inclusion ("notability") criteria, Wells Report, so I doubt that a deletion nomination would succeed. Improving the article based on reliable sources is probably the best approach, and you can make suggestions for how that can be done by following the instructions at Wikipedia:Simple conflict of interest edit request. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:12, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I have to say that the sourcing looks rather insufficient for the claims being made in this article. We have claims such as "His own research published in The London Philatelist failed to substantiate his claims" that aren't referenced to anything other than the primary source. This looks to be a WP:BLP violation and a WP:NOR one too. Pinging Maproom and Indigobeam, who've recently reverted content removal. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:43, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I've removed the paragraph concerned, pending further discussion. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:49, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Contributions

How do I get people to thank me for my helpful contributions? I feel like my service not on anyone's radar and I don't really feel appreciated. Wasabi-The-LoreMaster (talk) 19:48, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

You've only made 39 edits, including several to your user page and talk page. Don't worry about getting accolades, just focus on improving the encyclopedia. RudolfRed (talk) 20:10, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Wasabi-The-LoreMaster, I just thanked you for this Teahouse question. See how it works? Mathglot (talk) 20:21, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

thanks Wasabi-The-LoreMaster (talk) 21:04, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Pfft!

When you have made close to a thousand contributions, mostly substantial edits to actual articles (as opposed to fluff & nonsense like this Teahouse comment), and you're still waiting, then you should worry! On the other hand, maybe I'm just a really bad person? <laughs><cries><sobs uncontrollably>

WendlingCrusader (talk) 10:55, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOSHARE and DID

Regarding WP:NOSHARE, how does wikipedia treat people with dissociative identity disorder, given that they may act like multiple people sharing one account? I feel like a change at least to the wording of the policy might be in order but I don't know how to initiate that or know if it's needed. Just`Existing 03:55, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Just`Existing, people with various types of mental disorders are welcome to edit Wikipedia as long as their problems do not prevent them from complying with Wikipedia's Policies and guidelines. If Editor A gets criticized and then says, "That was actually Editor B who was editing at that time, who happens to be a different persona in my brain", I would not expect that excuse to gain much traction. I do not think that there would be much support for a special carve out for this condition. The general principle is that anyone can edit when they are in control, but nobody should edit when they are out of control. Cullen328 (talk) 09:03, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Just`Existing: you might be interested in reading User:Tamzin/Plurality and multiplicity FAQ. — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 12:31, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Requesting some handholding support

Hello Wikipedia contributors, I would like to write an article on Wikipedia. Can you please help me draft and submit the article with handholding support? I can donate a cup of coffee to you. Vinsa (talk) 03:00, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello Vinsa. I’m not very good at giving handholding help but, if you haven’t already done so, I’d recommend you studying Help:Your first article Best wishes on your writing project. Be sure to take all the time you need and, if things begin to feel a little overwhelming, just take a break from the work and come back after you’ve rested. Karenthewriter (talk) 03:24, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

@Vinsa24 Read Help:Your first article to submit the draft. the draft named Draft:Varun Porwal. Thanks. †TyphoonAmpil† (💬 - 📝 - 🌀 - 🏮) 04:02, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Vinsa, and welcome to the Teahouse. This may not be what you want to hear, but: My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. ColinFine (talk) 16:13, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Looking for Writing Help While Researching Dimitrios Papacharalambous

Hello everyone,

I hope you're all doing well! I’m currently working on a new page and could really use your help. I’m in the process of gathering more sources and additional details about Dimitrios Papacharalambous.

While I'm focusing on research, I want to ensure that the page adheres to Wikipedia’s writing style and guidelines, particularly regarding neutrality, tone, and structure. I could really use some assistance in refining the content to meet these standards. If anyone with experience in crafting Wikipedia pages could lend a hand, I’d greatly appreciate it! IlEssere (talk) 15:11, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi @IlEssere. Another editor has added an information box at the top of the page highlighting several problems, with links to more information. Phrases such as His business acumen turned that small basement into one of the largest flower shops in America are not only non-neutral but unreferenced. In addition, the article is full of trivia such as At the time, it was customary for Americans to buy a bouquet for their wives on their way home from work. The "philanthropy" section is pure WP:PEACOCK and needs to be toned down. You also need to find more WP:Reliable sources. Shantavira|^{feed me} 16:12, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

All the aforementioned details are referenced in "Δημήτριος Παπαχαραλάμπους: Ο μεγάλος ευεργέτης της Ναυπάκτου". www.npress.gr. Retrieved 2024-09-25.

I will work on addressing these in the article. IlEssere (talk) 16:16, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

How to delete an article?

Hello, today I created an article for the first time and published it. Now I want to delete it for some reasons Ruthen Pagan (talk) 13:37, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

@Ruthen Pagan I assume you mean User:Ruthen Pagan/sandbox. That's in your own personal area and although "published" is not part of the main encyclopaedia. You can simply WP:BLANK it or overwrite it with new content when you are ready: that area is entirely within your control. Technically, admins will deleted pages marked with the template {{Db-author}} if, for example, you had created a draft article as sole author but that would be a waste of their time in this case. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:53, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Ruthen Pagan. Since you were the only author of that page, you are allowed to simply delete it, as Mike Turnbull says. But note that every time any of us posts to Wikipedia we are agreeing to "irrevocably release your text under the CC BY-SA 4.0 License and GFDL" (I've copied that text from the message that is currently on my screen under the editing window).

This means that in general, while anybody may delete any text as part of editing, any other editor may disagree and restore it. The text you added is effectively no longer yours, and you cannot insist it be deleted (or insist it be kept). ColinFine (talk) 16:21, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Difference between revisions

I made an edit to "Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad" and then I see that another entity did something. I went to the site to see what was done but the previous and present look identical. I did this to other situations and see the same. At some point previously I recall seeing previous and present [maybe called current] clearly shown. How do I see "Difference between revisions" ? I want to be able to see what my edit was and then what the subsequent edit was. MarkWHowe (talk) 02:30, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

MarkWHowe, while looking at Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad, click "View history". Two little circles will be colored in. If you wish, click alternatives to one or both of these as "before" (left) and "after" (right) states respectively. Then click "Compare selected revisions". -- Hoary (talk) 02:59, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

@MarkWHowe: For a single edit it's easier to click "prev" at the edit. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:33, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I tried both ways and see what you mean. The 'line 76' edit must be so trivial I can't see it in the text. Thanks! MarkWHowe (talk) 15:29, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, MarkWHowe, and welcome to the Teahouse. Assuming you're looking at the edit by @Central Corridor, they didn't actually change line 76 at all; : they inserted the line

{{main|Rock Island District}}

after it. It's an artifact of the comparison software that it reports line 76 as changed. ColinFine (talk) 16:11, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

@MarkWHowe: {{main|Rock Island District}} produces this line at the top of Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad#Chicago commuter service:

Main article: Rock Island District

It's annoying that a diff doesn't have a link from a change to the corresponding place in the rendered article. In this case [6] it was a section edit so the section heading "Chicago commuter service" is shown in grey in the edit summary and clicking it jumps to the top of the section. I often copy-paste some text from a diff and use a browser search (Ctrl+f in Windows browsers) to find the location in the page. It only works if the copied text is rendered so avoid things like template names and syntax. "Rock Island District" works here but it also occurs elsewhere on the page. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:56, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Most of these people are banning me are European

This is not really a question but a suggestion. Hello, I am a Kikuyu and you have to tell Kenyans about their history. You don’t use western media, I asked other Kenyans if we won the rebellion they said yes. So if I keep editing Kenyan victory please hear me out!! Infowritere (talk) 18:06, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Mau Mau Rebillion Infowritere (talk) 18:07, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

You guys need to fix this asap because other people will look for the wrong information!! Infowritere (talk) 18:07, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

All things need to be reliably sourced to sources that the community has come to a consensus on for having a reputation for reliability, independence, fact-checking, and accuracy. Your edit was reverted as you did not provide reliable sources that indicate a different outcome in the the Mau Mau rebellion sufficient to form a consensus that it is what the article should say. Your opinion is not a reliable source, nor is the general public opinion of Kenyan citizens or British citizens. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 18:37, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

If you'd like to make changes to these pages, you're going to have to take a drastically different approach. Since your previous block for adding unsourced information last month, you've had more than two dozen unsourced edits reverted by different editors, and a warning message about unsourced edits. You need to follow WP:RS because if you continue down this road, you are likely find yourself blocked for increasingly longer durations. And being blocked would prevent you from having any say in the content that appears on articles that are important to you. Constructing editing is crucial to keeping Wikipedia a useful project. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 18:41, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is that the leader of the rebellion, Dedan Kimathi, was captured by the British colonial government and hung. Over 1000 rebels were executed. It is true that many Kenyans today consider these rebels from the 1950s to be national heroes, but in practical terms, the rebellion failed. Cullen328 (talk) 18:55, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Font size reduction in Publish Changes

Lately, when you enter the Publish Changes dialog the font size is much reduced from the viewing size in the page you're editing. This makes it hard for me to read and I'd like an option to get back the old behaviour. Is such an option already there? I can't find it. -- Dough34 (talk) 19:18, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Bare URLs that become dead links

I'm trying to go through the backlog of wikis with bare URLs, and a lot of them have become dead links already, although they're still tagged as bare URLs. Should I change the tag on them, and if so, is there any other info I need to add other than just changing the tag? ChainmailSweater (talk) 18:45, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, ChainmailSweater. You can find practical advice at Wikipedia:Link rot. The handy shortcut is WP:LINKROT. Cullen328 (talk) 19:43, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I can't find sources for a citation

On List of Latter Day Saints#Sports figures, quite a few names on the list need citations, but I'm having a lot of difficulty finding sources outside of a couple of blogs or at all, and I'm not sure what my next course of action should be. Do I remove the names from the list, leave it as is, or is there something else I should be doing? RustyDigitalis (talk) 21:23, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, RustyDigitalis. Either remove the information, or mark it with {{citation needed}}. Some would say that tagging it and not removing it is cowardly, but I certainly do that sometimes, especially if I believe the information is correct. ColinFine (talk) 23:20, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

About knowing if a topic is relevant to Wikipedia or not

So, i live in a small city in Brazil, with probably 200k people living on it, and there is a well known order over here that focus on teaching people, mostly young adults, about scientific and religious matters. It's big around here and the order has a amazing story that is only written in old books, everyone knows about it over here, but it's a small city after all, i would like to know if this qualifies for a new Wikipedia article. Anderson Von (talk) 23:33, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

@Anderson Von Welcome to the Teahouse. Could you clarify: are you asking if the city with 200k people is Notable, or whether the religious 'order' is WP:Notable? If the former - it's highly likely that a city of that size is, indeed, notable. If the latter: it depends upon the quality of the sources. We can accept independently published books that aren't in English, and it doesn't matter how old they are, of whether or not they're available online. They might well support an article being written about that Order. But we cannot advise further without more information. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:07, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

"Identifies as nonbinary" vs "Is nonbinary"

I stumbled across an IP who had edited the articles of several nonbinary individuals, changing the sentence "x is nonbinary and uses they/them pronouns." to "x identifies as nonbinary and uses they/them pronouns." This phrasing makes me uncomfortable as a nonbinary person(I don't "identify" as anything, I am nonbinary) but I wasn't able to find anything in WP:LGBT or the MOS to find justification to change it back. I'd rather not make an edit for my own comfort if it's ultimately pointless, so is there a WP page I might be able to look to about this? LaffyTaffer (talk) 16:47, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm specifically bothered by the deliberate and pointless change to "identifies as". The word "is" worked just fine, and is possibly preferred by some of the people whose articles were edited. LaffyTaffer (talk) 17:27, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi LaffyTaffer. You don't need to find your justification in some WP: or MOS: page. If a revert improves the article, go for it. That said, you might find your reason in the spirit of WP:VOICE, part of WP:NPOV, which says "Avoid stating facts as opinions." Also MOS:DOUBT. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:32, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Understood. Thank you very much :) LaffyTaffer (talk) 17:35, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

On Portal:Transgender, near the beginning of the second major paragraph, the phrase "identify as" is used, non-disapprovingly and in the author's voice. However, it's being used in a somewhat different context there. If its appearance in that paragraph "proves" anything, it would be "A person exists who doesn't mind this phrase, and there has apparently not been a long-term agreement to avoid it".

But ... I consider myself near enough to being binary, and the context of where and how those additions to articles were made is making ME uncomfortable. I hope this is resolved without any worse stuff. TooManyFingers (talk) 17:54, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm a nonbinary person who identifies as a lot of things, including nonbinary. I'd probably prefer that use of language generally because it comes from the person's own voice, and it's the easiest way I've found to explain what it feels like to cis people; I do/don't identify with certain genders. Without any more information, if someone told me they don't identify as anything in the context of gender, I'd take that to mean they're agender. For Wikipedia's purposes, it's probably best to just go with what the sources say, unless there is a guideline that advises otherwise. Do the sources explicitly say they "identify" as anything or do they just describe the subject as such? HerrWaus (talk) 20:18, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I personally dislike the term since it can come with an implication that we're just "playing pretend", but I acknowledge that the phrasing still has its uses and that some prefer it. I've been sure not to touch articles where the main source on the subject's gender identity explicitly uses the phrase. If I've been over-eager in making those changes though, I recognize that this can boil down to a personal gripe, and I have no issue with the edits being reverted. LaffyTaffer (talk) 20:36, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @LaffyTaffer, TooManyFingers, and HerrWaus: – this is a worthy topic, and you can see the multiplicity of views here about it already. At this point, it has, imho, exceeded the purpose for which the Teahouse was designed, as it is getting into nuanced areas of guidelines, and opinions by different editors. If you would like to say more about this topic, that would be welcome, and I think a continuation at WT:LGBT would be the right venue for an extended discussion about it. You may also get additional responses there from other interested parties not aware of this discussion. If you wish to go that route, just open a new discussion there, starting off with template {{Discussion moved from}}, and add a {{Discussion moved to}} template below. If you feel this has about run it's course here already, that's fine, too, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia! Adding Firefangledfeathers. Mathglot (talk) 07:10, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I think I prefer "Identifies as" on the basis that it implies it's the individual rather than a third party assigning the identity to that individual.

I'm not sure if it's really that large of a problem of people assigning identities to say historical figures, but it does imply that the individual has at some point declared that as how they see/feel/exist as themself.

In the end, either is accurate with proper citation, and the individual has the ability to change the semantics from/to "identifies as" to suit their own preference to how others refer to them.

136.26.125.98 (talk) 07:55, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

As a genderfluid individual, I often encounter this discussion. Personally, I prefer the phrasing "identifies as," as it gives me a sense of autonomy in how I am described. However, I understand that some people interpret this phrasing as implying, "You're not really nonbinary or 'X'; you just identify that way." I can see the validity of that argument as well.

When deciding between the two, I consider the subject's own preferences. If they say they "identify as X," I use that. If they state they "are X," I use that. When the context is ambiguous, I usually default to "are/am X," as it tends to carry the fewest connotations. DMBradbury 00:33, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

humor project

Is there a WikiProject specifically for humor? I know there are several categories such as Category:Humorous Wikipedia essays. Is there a list of editors who are interested in collaborating on funny articles? Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 00:10, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

@Allthemilescombined1, I'm guessing its this one: Wikipedia:Department of Fun. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 00:28, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Yep! Thank you! Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 00:42, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Allthemilescombined1 Welcome to the Teahouse! Please bear in mind that this is a serious project to build an encyclopaedia. We aren't here for the bants. So 'funny articles' is not something we focus on. That said, you might find that WP:WikiProject Comedy focusses on topics close to your heart. Whilst the articles themselves are not funny, they should all relate to comedy and to comedians in some way. There are 38,604 articles covered by this WikiProject, of which 12,874 are mere Stub articles. The pages in the Category you link to are not actual articles, so I doubt there will be any WikiProjects relevant to them, though I note that the response prior to mine may give you a useful link to the most relevant WikProject. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:32, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I'll look, thanks. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 00:43, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

All the images are blocked

My school has blocked Wikimedia Commons for as long as I can remember, but up until yesterday I could still view images on Commons on enwiki. Yesterday, that changed, and literally every single image on Wikipedia is replaced by a green avoid sign on a dark gray background. Is there any way I could get around the block? I already submitted a tech ticket to the school's IT department, but haven't got a response. BombCraft8 ^{(talk) (contributions)} 14:44, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

@BombCraft8: The school likely blocked upload.wikimedia.org. You'll need to contact your school's IT dept, this isn't on the Wikipedia or WMF end. – dudhhr ^talk_contribs^she_her 21:09, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I did.

"The Wikimedia domain has always been blocked due to "controversial content". Wikipedia has a group of moderators who have to approve content before it gets posted publicly. Wikimedia allows anyone to post content without moderation."

-The IT guy BombCraft8 ^{(talk) (contributions)} 12:19, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Important to note:

Wikimedia Commons has been blocked for as long as I can remember, while metawiki and upload.wikimedia.org were recently blocked BombCraft8 ^{(talk) (contributions)} 12:20, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

@BombCraft8 Interesting comment from your IT department. It isn't true to say that moderators have to approve content here: very little would get updated if every edit was moderated. Perhaps best not to mention that to them, though! Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:32, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Ok BombCraft8 ^{(talk) (contributions)} 14:45, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

IT Guy is an idiot; Wikipedia has no such policy. Wikimedia Commons content is - exactly like Wikipedia's - retroactively moderated. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:31, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't call him an idiot, but you're correct. BombCraft8 ^{(talk) (contributions)} 02:41, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

What's up with Recent Activity Views on Edits/Recent Activity being inconsistent?

(This isn't a "how to" question, feel free to direct me to another place that's better to ask about it.)

I'm still relatively new and I like seeing the impact views on recent activity on my home page (and on the special:impact page). It's great to see that what I'm doing is helping, but also to direct me to edit more important/likely to be viewed articles - espeically as I'm starting to seek out WikiProjects and choose pages on my own to work on.

The weird thing is it's very inconsistent. As of writing, it says ~26,000 views, but pages that definitely have views seem to randomly disappear and reappear from the totals. Earlier today it showed me ~100 views, due to more viewed pages just not being listed. (But my user contributions are always correct, so not due to reverted edits or anything.)

Searching to see if this is a known thing has been fruitless for me so far. Is this a known issue and maybe not a priority to fix? I'm mostly just curious what's going on with it. Cyanochic (talk) 04:56, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I've only been here sixth months myself, so I am still learning (every single day), but here is my two cents.

The numbers of views list bounces around like a kangaroo on speed, possibly so that you get some variety in terms of feedback, otherwise it would (over time) revert to just listing the same nine articles, in order of views. In my case, the #1 most viewed article is something to do with football, one of my first edits. Unfortunately my edit was promptly reverted by the article's main author most likely because he didn't like a new editor messing with his 'baby'. It's not even a subject I give two hoots about, and my net contribution to the article is effectively zilch, but it will always be listed at #1 because thousands of people view it every day. That's just how the cookie crumbles sometimes. Although, like you say, there are days when the list drops these monsters and focusses on different aspects.

Have you investigated the list deeper? Hold your cursor on the numbers and it will offer you detailed page views. This takes you to a separate site that I have no specific explanation for, but it may answer some questions for you.

For example, [this link] is the detail you would get for Bacillaria_paxillifer

And this article will probably tell you a whole lot more.

That's me, I'm done here. Hopefully a real expert will chip in before too long.

WendlingCrusader (talk) 12:08, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

@Cyanochic Disclaimer: not an expert. The Special:Impact page should be seen as a bit of fun intended to encourage new editors to stay. It is clearly wrong in detail. So, in my case as a long-time editor, it gives different results every time I look at it. It often seems to focus on articles where I made a couple of minor edits but it is ignoring a major article I created on 4 August and which had a WP:DYK on the Main Page on 29 August when it achieved over 6,000 pageviews! I think that there are a few considerations. 1) It only considers the latest 60 days of your editing (for newcomers, this is in effect all their edits), 2) It doesn't account for the size of your edit, so ignores real "impact" on an article and 3) any edits you make to a well-trafficked article dominate: it seems to choose articles where the average recent readership is high. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:02, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you! I was mostly just curious as to why some pages wouldn't show up sometimes as it seems a bit buggy. I hadn't thought about it getting a bit boring with max viewed pages (though I am a bit competitive with my past self to keep getting higher numbers so I may not be the best use case :P) Cyanochic (talk) 02:46, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Content assessment question

Hi everyone. I've had a few articles accepted via AfC and seem to be hitting a C-Grade wall. I did a good bit of drafting/editing before the page Johnny Crowder was accepted and it's left me curious, what would I theoretically need to do to get that article in particular to a B-Grade? Reading the content assessment cheat sheet is giving me some concepts of this, but I think I need to hear some outside thoughts. In this instance, I was able to flesh out the article decently, so would better sourcing fix the issue? Do I need to improve my writing style? This is a request for some constructive criticism where the new found knowledge will go into the next article I attempt to write. Thanks! 30Four (talk) 22:15, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

30Four, keep in mind that almost nobody cares about the minor and subjective distinctions between a C-grade and a B-grade article. These ratings are the individual opinion of a single editor. The only ones of significance are Good article and Featured article. Cullen328 (talk) 23:11, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Cullen. While that alone is a fair assessment, I figured I should set my sights a bit lower than GA/FA when creating new articles. If I can create a better base for an article, it'd be a simpler (not easy!) task for the community at large to potentially edit it into a GA/FA later on. Besides, why not look at the next higher grade as a goal for improvement? Asking for criticism on an article is intended to help myself understand the nuances of higher-tier Wikipedia articles & how I can take steps to get to that point. 30Four (talk) 23:26, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

@30Four I tend to care about the 'accuracy' of Quality Assessments, despite the previous comment. No, your article definitely does not go beyond a C-class article. It is currently well-graded. The page is about a person, Johnny Crowder, and it completely fails to provide me with a full insight into this person's life. Yet, it gives me a good starting point to know who he is. Please read the descriptions of each grade at WP:Content assessment#Grades to appreciate why I say this.

Hitting a C-grade wall in new articles is quite common, and a really good achievement in itself. It means you've done a pretty good job in presenting the basics of a topic. Absolutely nothing to be ashamed of! To go further, you need to invest a lot of time and serious effort into researching all aspects of a subject - perhaps a person's life. If you can't find good quality, published sources to cite, then you're never going to be able to get beyond that grade. Don't be put off though. Most new articles rarely get beyond Stub or Start class. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:21, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Nick, I appreciate this! This is very helpful insight. I feel I should be clear in saying I don't feel this article deserves a higher grade, rather, I'm looking to see how to potentially improve in the future. Seeing that there wasn't complete, in-depth coverage of all aspects of the subject's life, this article will likely stay at the current classification until that sourcing exists. 30Four (talk) 03:29, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

@30Four, I don't know that I've ever given more than a handful of B-grade ratings to my AfC acceptances. C-class is a huge bin that covers a wide variety of articles. A B-class article is pretty much "looks like a GA but hasn't gone through review", or, very often, it's "this article is full of problems but it is very, very long" (see eg Napoleon III). I don't think it's writing style or sources that are the issue - just completeness. More information, and at least one image if you can. -- asilvering (talk) 01:42, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the insight, asilvering. Can definitely appreciate the need for completeness in an article, similar to what Nick Moyes responded with. Regarding the image, I've messed with the non-free logo side of things. If an image of the subject doesn't exist on Commons, what would be the best way in seeking one out? Does it just come down to someone seeking out the subject and creating the image themselves? 30Four (talk) 03:35, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Depends on the topic. For articles on living people, you can try sending them this: Wikipedia:A picture of you. -- asilvering (talk) 03:40, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I need a advice how to deal with an unreasonable deletionist

Please see our conversation here:

I made a minor change to this article: Inflection. More specifically, I added Russian language as an example of s highly inflectional language: I specifically wanted to add Russian there, because this list is missing Slavic languages completely, and because Russian is mostly widely spoken of the Slavic languages:

Languages that have some degree of inflection are synthetic languages. These can be highly inflected (such as Latin, Greek, Russian, Biblical Hebrew, and Sanskrit), or slightly inflected (such as English, Dutch, Persian). https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Inflection&oldid=prev&diff=1248062111&markasread=327526085&markasreadwiki=enwiki

User "Remsense" reverted my one-word edit in violation of 2 rules:

1. Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary
2. he did not cite a specific reason for his deletion as the wiki-rules require.

I said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Remsense&oldid=1248061064

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Inflection&oldid=1248038200

please read these rules : Besides violating the General Rules about Reverting, you did not cite a specific wiki-rule, that any revert requires. Walter Tau (talk) 12:35, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

He replied:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Inflection&oldid=prev&diff=1248062439 @Walter Tau, please stop adding clutter to the article. I'm not required to give a reason specifically rooted in policy just as you don't. But I did give a clear reason why I thought it should be removed, and you've made no case whatsoever for why it should be there. Stop re-adding contested material to the article, as that is an actual violation of actual site policy. Remsense ‥ 论 12:47, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

What do I do in this case. I feel that "Remsense" is unreasonable, violates wiki-rules, and he does it often with other editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walter Tau (talk • contribs) 15:03, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

User:Walter Tau, I'm not going to get into the details here but suggest this is something to be taken up on the Talk Page of the article. It seems to me a) that the sentence you are adding to has no source(s), so it might be better to focus on that and 2) this is the WP:LEAD section of the article, so should be a summary of what appears later. Although "Russian" is mentioned later in the article, I don't see why it should be in the lead. That, however, is debatable if you wish, on the Talk Page, where Remsense has already commented. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:44, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't mean to follow the OP around, but it is frustrating when I have mentioned that the document they are citing clearly states it is not "the rules of Wikipedia" several times, but they would rather keep pointing to it and calling it as such to support their indignation at getting reverted. I'm sorry, but that attitude is hard to work with: one's additions are not entitled to remain in the encyclopedia simply because they are additions. Remsense ‥ 论 14:53, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

>>Dear colleagues: thank you for your responses. Unfortunately, neither of you addressed any of the TWO questions, that I raised: User "Remsense" reverted my one-word edit in violation of 2 rules:

1. Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary
2. he did not cite a specific reason for his deletion as the wiki-rules require.

I would appreciate, if you provide a response to each of the two issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walter Tau (talk • contribs)

Walter Tau We don't really deal with user conduct issues here. If you have discussed this with the other user and that fails to resolve your concerns, go to WP:ANI- but be advised that your behavior will be examined as well. 331dot (talk) 15:00, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I know you have to be impartial in your advice here, but for goodness's sake I don't feel like fielding two simultaneous, specious ANI threads right now. Remsense ‥ 论 15:02, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Walter Tau I will note that "revert only when necessary" is not a rule or policy, but an essay. 331dot (talk) 15:08, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Walter Tau, the paragraph you edited gives a few examples of highly inflected languages. Four is enough. We don't want it become an ever-increasing list of such languages. Maproom (talk) 08:29, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

@ User:Walter Tau may be following would help you in updating the understanding the way Wikipedia works. You seem to be on Wikipedia since 2007(? Xtool) but with less number of edits. If you are looking for policy change in respect of WP:ONUS then discuss at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability but until any change takes place in the policy one is expected to follow the policies as they stand today.

1. Reverting is not best answer to somebody else is reverting so avoid any further reverting.
2. When contested/ reverted first and foremost you need to provide independent WP:RS. One Wikipedia article can not be considered as reliable source in another Wikipedia article. One can make their case stronger by providing as many academic -written by professors- sources from reliable publications as possible.
3. Generally WP:ONUS to achieve WP:Consensus is on the user who wish to add or retain certain content. (and not who is deleting. This where you need to update yourself the way Wikipedia works)
4. Further you need to join on article talk page discussion. If unresolved opt for WP:3O, still unresolved WP:DRN, still unresolved then WP:RFC

Bookku (talk) 09:34, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Bookku , thank you for your comment. Unfortunately, you missed the point of the discussion. The question is NOT about reliability, but "how many examples are enough". 1) Is there a wiki-policy about? 2) How do you find if Wikipedia has a policy about something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walter Tau (talk • contribs)

@Walter Tau: you can see a list at the bottom of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. You misunderstand the point of policy, though. It's not meant to cover everything, and many decisions are not explicitly based on any particular policy or guideline, including the WP:Manual of Style. For goodness's sake, it was a basic judgment I made myself based on my experience, and in order to work with other editors you have to be willing to listen when they tell you they don't think your edits made the article better. There's not some special status on additions versus removals: both need to be justified and not arbitrary to make articles better. Please relax a bit. Remsense ‥ 论 00:47, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

@Walter Tau, It took me time to realize you are experienced enough user, WP:Teahouse gets questions normally from new users, for such deep policy level questions as yours probably Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) could be better avenue at times. Bookku (talk) 05:28, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Physalia utriculus

So Wikipedia redirects Physalia utriculus Physalis physalis for some odd reason, even though they’re definitely different species. Please help. Atlas Þə Biologist (talk) 00:45, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Atlas Þə Biologist, and welcome to the Teahouse.

The article Portuguese man o' war says, under "Taxonomy":

The bluebottle, Pacific man o' war or Indo-Pacific Portuguese man o' war, distinguished by a smaller float and a single long fishing tentacle, was originally considered a separate species in the same genus (P. utriculus). The name was synonymized with P. physalis in 2007, and it is now considered a regional form of the same species.

So it sounds as if you may be relying on an older reference (there are two sources cited for that paragraph, though I haven't looked at them).

If you think that further discussion is required, Talk:Portuguese man o' war is the best place to start it. ColinFine (talk) 10:23, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

So P.utriculus is a subspecies? Atlas Þə Biologist (talk) 19:20, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

No. If you don't understand the explanation above, I'm not sure how you expect to work on taxonomic article. It's a synonym, not a subspecies. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:20, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

No, it's a taxonomic synonym. If you are not conversant with these basics and/or source interpretation, please do not fiddle with taxonomic articles. Your unfounded insistence at Talk:Physalia utriculus is a little concerning. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:33, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

@Atlas Þə Biologist: it is extremely bad form to revert other people's responses because you don't like them, as you did to my reponse above. This makes me think you are heading for trouble. Do not do this. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:35, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Deletion of a rejected draft

Hi, I tried to delete Draft:Pawandeep Rajan by using db-g7 as it has already been rejected but, it was declined. May I know what is the actual reason for this... and, what should I do to make a fair request again.? —𝐏𝐞𝐫𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨(𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔) 06:41, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I suggest that you ask the admin directly- but maybe they wanted to see an affirmative statement that you were requesting deletion. Usually I interpret the author placing the deletion request as the request, but we all think differently. 331dot (talk) 06:54, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Also note that drafts are deleted after six months of inactivity. 331dot (talk) 06:55, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Alright. Many thanks. —𝐏𝐞𝐫𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨(𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔) 07:07, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Any topic groups on Wikipedia?

Hi, I just signed up. I am interested in art and want to get involved in editing articles related to it. But the offers I receive are not exactly what I want to do. Please recommend if there are any art-related Wikipedia groups that I could edit. Thanks! Vtchjhn (talk) 08:08, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Vtchjhn: WikiProjects might be what you want – perhaps the visual arts project? — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 08:12, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the recommendation! This is just what I was looking for. Vtchjhn (talk) 08:16, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts (that other link redirects to the vital articles project). ObserveOwl (talk) 11:27, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

ObserveOwl: argh, thanks, I got my shortcuts mixed up. — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 11:35, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Vtchjhn (talk) 08:14, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Label numbering in an infobox

This is a question about numbering labels in an infobox. Having made a request to add a parameter to Infobox train on the template Talk page (Template talk:Infobox train#Request for an extra parameter), to which there has been no objection, I want to add it as a free-form label. Label 51 in the template (Template:Infobox train) shows a British term, "formation", and I want to add the U.S. term "consist" (which has the same definition). My question is: given that the list of parameters continues beyond label 51, and there are two sequences of numbers, what label number should I use for entering the parameter?Cheers, Simon – SCHolar44 🇦🇺 💬 at 09:20, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

U.S - Japan trade war

Should there be an article about the economic relations between the US and Japan during the 1980s where there were trade conflicts over high tech manufacturing like automobiles and semiconductors? This topic is especially relevant give the current trade relationship between the U.S and China. 64.114.211.93 (talk) 10:12, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If you have and can summarize independent reliable sources that discuss this topic, and not draw your own conclusions about it, you don't need anyone's permission, go ahead and write it. You may use the Article Wizard to create and submit a draft. You may want to first spend time editing existing articles to get a feel for what is being looked for. 331dot (talk) 10:20, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

There is some information here Japan–United States relations about that period. Knitsey (talk) 10:21, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Finding better sources

hello, I'm currently trying to find better sources so the Kyra Kupetsky article can be fixed (I tried editing it but idk if I did good or not) as well as backup the mascot section of the Daihatsu article I recently added. I included a link to an official Daihatsu site after a link to some ads and other sources didn't work out, any advice on finding better sources? Avienby (talk) 10:25, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Community engagement project

Hi everyone, I have a concept for a project to help different people find social groups, clubs or sports in the local area. I think the wiki format would be a very positive way to proceed, as it would remove a "gatekeeper" requirement for updating information. Would we able able to adjust your town entry to include clubs, sports and support in place and could we promote this to those clubs etc to add and update their own entries?

Examples would include the local squirrel/beaver/cub/scout groups, wargaming clubs, sports clubs etc. Would including meeting times, places and contact details (such as an email) contradict the Wikipedia rules?

Would it be better to proceed with a separate Wiki?

Please let me know.

Kind regards, Suneokun (talk) 08:51, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

@Suneokun it sounds useful, but would not fit Wikipedia's use as that would primarily be WP:PROMO and Primary material. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 09:08, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

@Suneokun: There are a number of ways you can set up your own wiki, using the same software that Wikipedia uses. See wikibooks:Starting and Running a Wiki Website/Hosted Wikis. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:33, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Age of History II

Draft:Age of History II

Hello, everyone. Delete or add information, please СтасС (talk) 11:41, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Upon searching the subject on the web, fails WP:GNG. Ahri Boy (talk) 12:00, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

How to make sure an article meets English Wikipedia standard

Hello All,

I have submitted this draft article: Draft:Urban Diary (Hong Kong)

which is actually a translation of the following article in Wikipedia Chinese: 城市日記

I wanted to just make a translated version of the page (translation is my specialty in Wikipedia Chinese) but Wikipedia English won't allow me to do so, and therefore I have to make a new stand alone page.

The content is basically a translation from Wikipedia Chinese. How do I make it meet the standard in Wikipedia English and what are the differences? This is the first time I foray into Wikipedia English so I am grateful for your advice!

Regards Arutoria Arutoria (talk) 06:39, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Arutoria, in order to describe the differences between the standards for en:WP and zh:WP, I'd need to have a good knowledge of the latter. I don't have this, and lack the time and effort to investigate. This, I imagine, makes me rather normal here. (There will, of course, also be some fortunately en+zh bilingual editors who'll be familiar with zh:WP.) Let's forget zh:WP for now. Are there reliable sources that -- in any language -- describe or comment on Urban Diary in some detail? These sources must be independent of Urban Diary (so that they must not be largely based on interviews with people in Urban Diary) and of each other. If so, please (here, in this thread) specify three of them. -- Hoary (talk) 07:06, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Hoary for the advice.

I have cleaned up the reference page and resubmitted.

Hopefully it can be accepted this time. Arutoria (talk) 12:54, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Am I blocked?

Because a user has blocked me,because he/she suspects that I use webhost,vpn or proxy when I dont. Please unblock,I can't edit for 2 yrs 2.49.60.209 (talk) 20:02, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

You appear to not be blocked. You can check your block log. ‹hamster717🐉› ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠)} 20:07, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

oh ok,because when I was trying to edit a page it showed that I was blocked 2.49.60.209 (talk) 13:02, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Maybe you were using a different IP address to the one you used to post here, and that was blocked? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:55, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps Wikipedia:Open proxies may be helpful. Cullen328 (talk) 21:34, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

How do I add a B-class checklist to a WikiProject banner?

I want to add a B-class checklist to a WP:MED banner at Talk:Cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome. I could not find instructions for adding a B-class checklist to a WP banner at WP:MED. (It's probably there somewhere ...)

In my experience, WP:MIL has some of the best documentation on Wikipedia, so I tried "adding the specified code to the template call" as shown at Template:WikiProject Military history/doc. I tried adding the code below to WP:MED within the WikiProject banner shell, and taking WP:MED out of the banner shell, but neither worked. This is what I tried:

{{WikiProject Medicine | class=C | importance=Mid <!-- B-Class 5-criteria checklist --> | b1 <!-- Referencing and citations --> = <yes/no> | b2 <!-- Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> | b3 <!-- Structure --> = <yes/no> | b4 <!-- Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> | b5 <!-- Supporting materials --> = <yes/no>}}

But when I previewed the page with my edits, I received five error messages, one for each of the checklist lines, like this:

Preview warning: Page using Template:WikiProject Medicine with unexpected parameter "b1"

I tried changing " = <yes/no> " to every variation I could think of, e.g., "=no", " = n ", " = yes", " = y ", etc., but no luck.

What am I doing wrong?

Thank you! - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 01:03, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi Mark D Worthen PsyD. There are only a few WikiProject templates which support a B-class checklist. {{WikiProject Medicine}} isn't one of them. The template source has no mention of b1, b2, b3, b4, b5, unlike {{WikiProject Military history}}. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:22, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Ah, that would explain it! And it makes me feel better since it was not actually something I could have figured out. Thank you very much for your help. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 14:28, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

suggested article

Yesterday I saw on the news a young boy called Nicolás Atanes who popularizes mathematics, and I asked why he doesn't have an article. He has appeared in El Mundo (https://www.elmundo.es/viajes/espana/2024/09/26/66f2fe7321efa0ae608b459a.html) and RTVE newscast (https://www.rtve.es/play/videos/telediario-1/comienzan-pruebas-oposiciones-servicio-publico-toda-espana/16265770/) recently. Googling, it seems that he has been with Pedro Sánchez, Mariya Gabriel, Terence Tao, but I don't see an article of him. 79.116.105.54 (talk) 17:20, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

The simple answer is that no-one has written it yet (at least in this English-language Wikipedia). All new articles are first created by a volunteer editor (which we all are), and someone needs to decide to do so. (Wikipedia itself has no paid 'staff', so nobody can be 'assigned' to do anything.)

The more complex answer is that he may, or may not, qualify as Notable (please read that linked Project page) in Wikipedia's special sense: i.e. that several (preferably at least three) independent pieces of substantial length have been written about him, by people unconnected to and unprompted by him or anyone directly connected to him, and published (in print or broadcast media) in what Wikipedia considers Reliable sources. Your two linked items may well qualify as suitable sources (although I do not read Spanish, so can't be sure).

If there are not sufficient Reliiable sources available, then given his age it may simply be a case of WP:Too soon.

It might occur to you to begin a Draft of an article yourself, using Wikipedia's Article wizard. You are welcome to do so, but be aware that creating a Draft that will comply with Wikipedia's extensive requirements (and be accepted as an article once submitted) is difficult, especially for a newcomer, and you would be better advised to first spend several months familiarising yourself with Wikipedia's policies, procedures, and contents & style customs. Hope this helps. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.6.86.81 (talk) 21:59, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I got it. The problem is that I tried to learn how to do this, an article and all that, but I can't create the article, and I don't know how to do then. 79.116.105.54 (talk) 06:33, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

It might help you to go to the Article wizard I linked above, click on the link that it has to "guide to your first article", and study the Help page it takes you to. Take your time, there is no urgency: we have a saying here that Wikipedia has no deadlines (read that linked essay too). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.6.86.81 (talk) 14:05, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

IP editor. He has been on Wikidata for some time. That link shows that he doesn't yet have an article in the Spanish-language version of Wikipedia, which is where I'd expect an article about him to appear first, given the sources. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:43, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Hurricane Helene 2024 Update

Hello,

I was involved in the Hurricane Helene storm this past week in South Carolina. I see that not much is said about what has happened but the midlands and upstate of SC got hit harder then Georgia and we are still 90% without power, trees down and this is the worst storm that has hit us since Hugo. How do you update this information? It also hit SC at a Category 1 storm to weaken to a tropical storm around 5:30am. https://www.wyff4.com/article/helene-recovery-updates-damage-south-carolina/62423781 24.182.89.101 (talk) 15:01, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

You can propose additional information on the talk page of Hurricane Helene but you must cite a reliable source. (I don't know what wyff4 is but your link does not work for me.) Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:23, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) IP editor: The Wikipedia Main Page today has a link to our article Hurricane Helene. If you want to suggest updates (from reliable sources) you can do so on its Talk Page. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:23, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

WYFF is a news station in SC it seems, looked it up myself. Stay safe out there OP Avienby (talk) 16:00, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Article published or not?

Hello, I have just published my first page/article... except that I am not sure whether it's been published or I accidentally submitted it twice! One version was a published sandbox which appeared with my username as the article title. Then I tried again, creating this page from a red link: Robert Clinch.

How do I know if it's been submitted properly and is in the revision queue? Thanks! JTCP85 (talk) 09:59, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Looks fine to me Avienby (talk) 10:04, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

thank you for checking JTCP85 (talk) 16:51, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

@JTCP85: Welcome to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1236. It appears you have it in two locations: one at Robert Clinch and the other in your sandbox. You have skipped the Articles for Creation process at this point, so if there are glaring issues, it will be given maintenance tags, sent to draftspace, or deleted in the worst-case scenario. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 10:33, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

thank you for checking! JTCP85 (talk) 16:51, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

@JTCP85 Your article looks pretty good to me (I'm not a new page reviewer) but you need to beware making statements like Well-suited to his meticulous style, tempera soon became his medium of choice,. Who said Clinch's style was "meticulous", for example? The citation at the end of that sentence doesn't do so. We have very strict requirements for citations in biographies of living people. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:58, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

thank you for reviewing, and for the very useful feedback! I'll review this and make sure the comment is supported JTCP85 (talk) 16:53, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Suggestions to bring in revenue funds

Could Wikipedia raise funds by doing the following:

• Publishing a magazine
• Launching a television programme a lá Jeopardy! or or a reality show following editors lifestyles or teaching children like in a PBS show
• Recruiting editors to created subtitles for film/TV media with sponsorships by consumer brands
• Putting on an annual awards show like the TIME100 Impact Awards honoring the most prolific editors
• Offering educational programs in educational institutions

70.26.38.100 (talk) 16:49, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I suppose it could but, quite frankly, Wikimedia (which runs the various Wikipedias) doesn't need to raise funds. See Wikipedia finances. Shantavira|^{feed me} 17:01, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Confusion regarding citations

Hello wiki people, I'm relatively a new participant here. Sometimes I see articles containing very little coverage or no coverage of citations/ references at all. That's as I read the guidelines against the wiki policy, yet they are there not being removed, although saying notices that it needs additional citations, help to improve it. Just that. But I tried to work on a biography that had quite notable web citations, wet not approved and says might be removed if not improved. Can anybody kindly explain this?

Thanks,

Sujon004 Sujon004 (talk) 13:33, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Your draft Emma Rozanski does indeed contain many good citations. To establish wp:notability however, references 'about the subject specifically' are usually what is asked for. One or two news articles specifically about her as a person/director or her work as a whole should do it.

Also, I invite you to read wp:other. JackTheSecond (talk) 14:30, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

@Sujon004 Welcome! I'll try to give you the general answer. Since WP:s creation about 20 years ago, the "rules" (WP:PAG) has become gradually stricter and more detailed. Also, anyone can start editing without checking the rules. However, rules changing doesn't automatically mean that content changes, someone has to decide to do something about it when they feel like it. en-WP-currently has 117,842 active editors (meaning they did at least 5 edits last 30 days) and 6,889,023 articles, so large parts of WP will go relatively untended a lot of the time. For example, I recently suggested an article for deletion [7], nobody objected, but it had been there for years. This is part of WP:s nature. Hope this helps some. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:30, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

On the specific subject Emma Rozanski, when you write a WP-article, it's not "Emma" in running text, it's "Rozanski". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:33, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Sujon004, when you wrote above yet they are there not being removed, that is incorrect. In the first 20 years of Wikipedia, over 500,000 poor quality articles were deleted through the Articles for Deletion process alone, and we also have Speedy deletion and Proposed deletion processes. Volunteers all over the world are working 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to either improve or delete poor quality articles. Please read Deletion of articles on Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 17:49, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Speculation

Does Wikipedia secretly teach you to type faster? TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 18:45, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

@TrademarkedTWOrantula I guess in some way or another Wikipedia can teach you how to type faster. As an example, I personally learned how to touchtype not through the program that primary school forced us to go through, but through the about a decade worth of gaming.

I'd imagine that if you didn't know how to touchtype beforehand and you seriously wanted to get into Wikipedia editing, it'd be a skill you'd pick up fairly quickly solely out of necessity when making larger articles/edits. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 18:55, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

How can earn money in Wikipedia

With you How I can Earn money on Wikipedia Myntrashopper (talk) 19:54, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

@Myntrashopper Paid editing is strongly discouraged. Editors for hire have an inherent conflict of interest with their employers, which they must disclose and which limits the editing they can do. —C.Fred (talk) 19:58, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Myntrashopper, and welcome to the Teahouse. The answer is that you can't: that's not what Wikipedia is for. ColinFine (talk) 20:52, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

"Kambodsja er fri!" - Norwegian Socialist Song About Khmer Rouge

Is this notable to make a new article on the encyclopedia? It ended up to be a bit ironic, because the Khmer Rouge was notable for human rights abuses and genocide. Lan Pee (talk) 18:56, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esjtvZiYSho Lan Pee (talk) 18:56, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

You should check is there are any refers to the song from reliable sources, such as newspapers or music sites. My check didn't show any such reports. Pallikari ap' ta Sfakia 19:08, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Lan Pee, and welcome to the Teahouse. While there are some special rules for certain types of subject, in most cases "notable" in Wikipedia is not about what the subject is, or does, or says, or creates, but about what has been published about the subject.

The question to answer, usually, is: "Has there been enough material about this subject published to base an article on?", remembering that Wikipedia is only interested in reliably published material (not user media, blogs, wikis, random websites, or user-generated sites like iMDB and Ancestry.com); and for this purpose, Wikipedia is not interested in anything that the subject or people associated with the subject say or want to say.

So in this purpose, you would need to find where people had written about the song, in some depth. ColinFine (talk) 19:59, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Lan Pee, the notability guideline for songs can be found at WP:NSONG. It is all about the depth of coverage of the song in reliable independent sources. Whether or not the song is controversial or "ironic" is irrelevant. Cullen328 (talk) 21:44, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Concurrent requested moves on the same page

There is currently a requested move on Trump International Golf Club (West Palm Beach); while I strongly oppose the current requested move to include the state name, I do think the page should be moved to remove parentheses (for various reasons that I won't mention here so as to not canvass). Is it allowed to have a second requested move on a page that currently has one going on? Unnamed anon (talk) 21:51, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

No, that will just add a lot of confusion. You can bring up the other question in the move discussion that's already ongoing - a bit messy, but this kind of thing happens all the time. -- asilvering (talk) 22:02, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Articles undeleted without notice

I noticed that the articles merged for Articles for deletion/Pilot (Helluva Boss) were reverted by the user Canadienne Comedienne to their pre-deletion state without any notice. All the articles were reverted with the following edit summary: "That discussion was in July 2023 for a less-detailed version of this page; it is May 2024 now, and article has been updated since then, no longer meeting deletion specs." How should this be handled? Treetop-64bit (talk) 06:33, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

@Treetop-64bit: CC is blocked as a sock. You may revert their edits if you think that is the best course of action. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:08, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

An admittedly politics - adjacent question

Hello Wikipedians. Ok, how much of the Wikipedia staff and editors have a left bias? This ratio might say something about the factuality of certain articles. - S L A Y T H E - (talk) 17:13, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I stay far away from editing any articles that are political or controversial in any way. On the articles I do work on I may occasionally give a short quote from a written opinion, and state that one reviewer had this to say on the topic (giving a good reference for the quote) but I strive to not let the world know my opinion on any given subject. (I don’t need added drama in my life.) All that is written is done by volunteers, so there isn’t any Wikipedia staff. I believe all the paid employees work to keep the website up and running. Karenthewriter (talk) 17:37, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Slaythe: Wikipedia editors (who, as Karen has noted, are volunteers) are not required to declare our political positions or lack thereof, so there cannot be a meaningful measure of how many editors have a particular "bias". If you are concerned about the neutrality or verifiability of Wikipedia as a whole, it's worth rereading the core principles. You may also find that your concerns have been raised by many others and summarised and addressed at Ideological bias on Wikipedia. — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 22:17, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

You know, as a side note, there are propaganda tools that left-biased journo's use to the left's advantage. One of those being "lying by omission", which bluntly means presenting infos you prefer over others, resulting in overreporting and underreporting on the respective infos. There also other techniques they use that are more subtle and powerful. - S L A Y T H E - (talk) 08:26, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Do you have any idea of how many editors there are at Wikipedia? That will give you an answer.

I don't have the actual numbers myself (and cba to dig them out), and related to that is the question as to exactly how many are 'active' editors as opposed to somebody who just chipped in with one obscure article two decades ago. Either way it will be a VERY LARGE NUMBER.

Consequently, from a pure maths perspective, Wikipedia editors are a sub-set of the world, and I would argue that any 'bias' at Wikipedia is going to be a simple reflection of the bias that exists across the entire population of the planet. Does that help?

Having said all that, the factuality of 'certain articles' may well be dependant on the subject in question. Articles with a political angle may well attract biased editors like moths to a flame, whereas editors like myself remember that fire is a dangerous thing, and stay as far away as possible. But bias creeps in to the most surprising places, such as an article about a military unit I am currently editing, where a deficiency in equipment levels was blamed on budget cutbacks during the Carter administration, for chrissake!.

LOL, I've just checked Carter's page to see if he's still with us, and if he survives the next three days, he will be exactly 100 years old. I wonder if he has ever considered standing again?

WendlingCrusader (talk) 10:43, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

For those who are curious, there are 117,842 Wikipedians who have made an edit in the last 30 days last time I checked. That doesn't even account for the IPs! TheWikiToby (talk) 01:15, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I'd say more than right-biased ones. Do note Wikipedia is definitely not the most left-biased it could be; Take the extreme, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; Wikipedia frames the government of Israel and its population as the same entity (contrary to, say, Iran). Some leftist-ier places (I am specifically talking about the Israeli Left here, but more exist) already consider Israel to be a dictatorship, and as such, do not use this framing. RatherQueerDebator (talk) 13:00, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

deleting text versus adding "citation needed"

A Task Center task took me to the BLP of a notable statistician. I took care of the task but noticed that almost all of the citations are to third-party SPSs (e.g., university webpages, professional organization webpages), contrary to WP:BLPSPS, while other parts of the article's text have no citations. I was able to find a couple of non-SPS sources and will try to reference some of the article's contents to one of those. My question: for article text that I'm unable to find a RS for, is there some policy guiding whether I should delete the text versus adding a "citation needed" tag? Thanks, FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:04, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:BLPRS, contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. The operative word here would be "contentious". Remsense ‥ 论 00:09, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I'd also add "likely to be private". We don't want, for example, people's date of birth to be in an article unless it's widely known. How can we tell it's widely known? Because (I'm simplifying here) there's a published source that contains that information. A birth date or the name of someone's kids isn't all that likely to be contentious, but that doesn't mean we should keep it around. -- asilvering (talk) 00:45, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense, @Asilvering, the contents doesn't strike me as contentious or private. It's almost all about his professional work. For example, it says "The Mardia Prize (founded by Kantilal Mardia) is awarded by the Royal Statistical Society. This award is given annually/biennially to support interdisciplinary workshops. The aim of these workshops is to bring together statisticians and other science communities who can help in developing new interdisciplinary area and maintain a sustained focus." That needs some copy editing, but the Royal Statistical Society's website confirms it; however, my understanding is that that's considered a SPS. One of the other sources I found confirms that there's a Royal Statistical Society prize called the Mardia prize, but it doesn't include the info about the prize having been founded by Mardia (rather than just named in his honor) or what the aim of the prize is. So that's the kind of thing I'm wondering about. FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:01, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Some users would still advocate straight-up removal per WP:BURDEN. Cremastra (talk) 01:03, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

That seems fine as far as contentiousness or privacy would go, which would narrow the question as to whether you feel the material can be verified in a reliable source. If you think it can be, tag it. If not, consider removing it. Remsense ‥ 论 01:03, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh, you can just use the self-published source for that, it's fine. They're the ones who would know what their own prize is for. -- asilvering (talk) 01:07, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

But BLPSPS says "Never use self-published sources ... as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article," and the Royal Statistical Society page wasn't written or published by Mardia, so I didn't think I could use it. FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:36, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I assure you this kind of reliable source for a simple fact like "won x award" is totally fine. The other information, ie "this award is for... the aim is..." is about the prize, not the person - so BLPSPS doesn't matter for that information. -- asilvering (talk) 01:43, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

@Asilvering, thank you for clarifying that. FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:56, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

This is far from the fist time I've seen people under that misapprehension. It leads, in some instances, to good content been removed; and new editors being bitten. We need to clarify WP:BLPRS accordingly; done here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:32, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

New to Wikipedia, how do I get better?

I've been fascinated by this site for a while now and after rewatching The Cryptids of Wikipedia for the fourth or fifth time now, alongside some other Wikipedia based videos, I caved in and made an account to do some editing of my own! I'm wondering how I can improve my Wiki editing skills as well as what to do with my talk page, if there's even a point in editing that Avienby (talk) 09:35, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

One important point, if only informed by your other edit recently, is to never make personal attacks against other editors. Remsense ‥ 论 09:38, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Understandable, the last thing we need is for hostility to spread on here of all places. Won't make that mistake again. Avienby (talk) 10:04, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

@Avienby no, no real point in editing your talk page, though if you end up getting many, many discussions listed on it, you may want to set up an archive bot. For now, don't worry about it. I have some general advice for newbies on my userpage. I'd also suggest joining a wikiproject, if you are interested in any particular topic. Some wikiprojects are very active, some less so, but basically all of them maintain some kind of list of articles, and that can help you find tasks you're interested in. -- asilvering (talk) 21:55, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Please follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, if you want to get better at editing. Try to do the harder edits like referencing, and you will become a good Wikipedia editor!! Susbush (talk) 13:34, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Worthy Entry - Noob Editor!

hi all im trying to get traction and a page sorted for local disability campaigner and football club owner who has a documentary coming out on tuesday globally On TNT and Discovery +

The story is inspirational and a wiki page is fully deserved for George to have a place and be notarised on WIKI

can anyone help and expand on this talk, i started in sandbox but im so lame i do minor edits and changes as the world goes by but never really write from scratch

there really is so much to put in too! Talk:George Dowell#George Dowell MBE 2. Barshuts (talk) 23:43, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

@Barshuts Unfortunately, what you're trying to do is promote this person. People promote things for all sorts of reasons, and that doesn't make them bad people (or advertisers), but any form of promotion is inappropriate for Wikipedia. Editors use a guideline called notability to determine whether a subject merits inclusion in the encyclopedia – basically, if the subject has significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources which are independent from the subject, then it is "notable". There are exceptions to this guideline (which is called WP:GNG), specific to different subjects. Take a look at Wikipedia:Notability (people), and see if the subject meets any of the criteria there. Don't hesitate to ask for more help or guidance – no-one here denies that our guidelines can often be confusing or intimidating. Cheers, Cremastra (talk) 01:08, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

This person is actually likely notable, as they were awarded an MBE on the New Year's honours list, which would seem to meet the first criterion at WP:ANYBIO. There seems to be significant coverage of him. I'm happy to help you create a draft through the Article for Creation process if you want. Cremastra (talk) 01:13, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

An MBE alone doesn't usually confer notability - that takes a higher-grade OBE or above; see e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Dickson MBE - but the TV documentary does and both together certainly do. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:39, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

@Cremastra: How is this promotional? OP makes the case that the subject has already received wider recognition. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:39, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

“gain traction” sounds like wanting to promote a person -- NotCharizard ^🗨 11:01, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Let's have a little AGF and recognize that others might not use our standard terminology. GMG^talk 13:36, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

The OP wants to get traction and The story is inspirational which comes across as promotional, as NotCharizard said. Cremastra (talk) 11:50, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

So we Wikipedia editors may only write about things that do not inspire us. Got it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:28, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Is this vandalism?

Two IP editors - probably the same person - have been making misleading and uncited edits to a number of pages recently. Sometimes this person reverts their own edit, other times another editor gets there first. They have been warned about this behaviour.

Should this be reported as vandalism?

Special:Contributions/82.4.208.76

Special:Contributions/148.252.144.117

Bob (talk) 14:23, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

There is a constant background noise of anonymous editors engaging in sporadic, often invisible, and seemingly inscrutable edits—I kind of like it, it's a nice reminder that millions of people use this resource every day—and that I will never, ever understand what technical, personal, or editorial circumstances inform much of their behavior as recorded in page histories. Since vandalism is hurting the encyclopedia in bad faith, there is often not a meaningful answer to that question. I call this "gray-faith editing", when given my very narrow perspective, I can't really WP:AGF for an editor because I do not understand the pattern of edits enough to assume anything. It's like a few edits dashed off by a Boltzmann brain. Remsense ‥ 论 14:32, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Trying to get a Wikipedia page for our company started but always getting declined

For context: this was the draft: Draft:KOL (Key Opinion Leaders)

Question: Would any of the experience editors on Teahouse consider getting the page started so there is no conflict of interest? --Koc2a885f (talk · contribs)

I'm not surprised it keeps getting declined. I can find no evidence that the company is notable, in Wikipedia's idiosyncratic sense. The draft cites two sources: one is behind a paywall, which is not in itself a problem, but means that I can't judge whether it provides evidence of notability; the other is not independent of the subject, being written by the company's CTO. I tried a Google search for "key opinion leaders", and found nothing about the company. Maproom (talk) 21:31, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Koc2a885f, the relevant notability guideline is Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) and reviewers are strict about it. I see no evidence that this company meets that guideline. Cullen328 (talk) 21:36, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Okay, let me ask a question: Hypothetically, imagine that for example, our company was under siege by a "Corporate Spy Ring", could I create a page for the "Corporate Espionage Operation" itself (not the company being targeted)? Would that be an even relevant enough to merit a wikipedia page? Koc2a885f (talk) 21:44, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

@Koc2a885f, you'd then be trying to show that "Corporate Spy Ring" met the guidelines at WP:GNG or WP:NEVENT. So, it's possible, but it would still depend on significant, secondary coverage. -- asilvering (talk) 21:49, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

"Always" strongly suggests "more than once". Yet Draft:KOL (Key Opinion Leaders) doesn't seem to have been deleted more than once. I wondered about "Draft:Key Opinion Leaders". Yes, this has existed and was deleted, as the creation of "User:NewYorkerChic", which was just another username of an extraordinarily energetic spammer. -- Hoary (talk) 01:28, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Koc2a885f, and welcome to the Teahouse. Your words "get a Wikipedia page started for our company" sound as if you have a very common misunderstanding, and think that Wikipedia is like social media, a place where you can tell the world about your company. It is not: it is an encyclopaedia

If Wikipedia ever has an article about your company - whoever writes it - the article will not belong to your company, will not be controlled by your company, will not necessarily say what you would like it to say, should be based almost 100% on what people unconnected with your company have published about it, not what the company has said or wants to say, and may be edited by almost anybody in the world except people associated with your company (as they would have conflict of interest). Please see WP:PROUD. --ColinFine (talk) 15:18, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Income

Can i add manually as infobox parameter, annual income of a person? Thanks! Pallikari ap' ta Sfakia 19:03, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Afaict by Template:Infobox person, no. And if you intend to add it to an article, you need to cite a good source for it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:17, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Pallikari ap' ta Sfakia Aside from the REALLY good PUBLISHED source needed, I can't think of a single reason why that would be appropriate. Uporządnicki (talk) 21:01, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

money makes the world go round 😊 Joking aside, I think that especially in the infoboxes of politicians there should be the parameter income. Pallikari ap' ta Sfakia 01:04, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

@Pallikari You can suggest it at Template talk:Infobox person. Money can be important (even justifying a separate article:Category:Wealth by individuals), but the infobox is generally for simple, uncontroversial facts covered in the article text, and "income" might not be that at all, depending. Plus in WP-style it would have to be "as of 2022" or whatever can be sourced. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:20, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

@Pallikari We have articles such as salaries of members of the United Kingdom Parliament, since in the UK at least the income for a politician is a set figure. I assume that other countries have similar systems. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:45, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I see...indeed there are problems for infobox use. Pallikari ap' ta Sfakia 16:23, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I have a photo of my Father “Canadian “ whom served in WW2” Also my Mother also served in WW2”

Canadians that came home to Canada 🇨🇦 in or after WW2 2605:8D80:462:1A58:7000:9BC7:62D1:F60 (talk) 16:59, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi there! Do you have a question about anything Wikipedia-related? SirMemeGod  17:01, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

protocol for deleting/merging pages?

Hi, I'm back. I ran across these two pages while looking through the cleanup list for WP:ALGAE: Chlorophytina and Tetraphytina. The long story short is that based on all sources I can find, the chlorophytina page is incorrect and tetraphytina describes what is actually chlorophytina. (Also, sources on the pages currently are for the most part unhelpful and don't included the name of the groups in them...) I just posted on both Talk pages, but it's unlikely to be a "hot topic" for anyone. And I'm thinking there won't be a big debate around consensus.

I've read WP:DEL, WP:DOM and WP:MAD but as a newbie, I'm not sure I fully understand. It seems like it would fall under this - WP:ATD-M, since they're essentially redundant pages?

Is there a way to submit this? (I know - be bold. But as I've only been around < 1 month, I don't think I have the technical knowhow or understanding at this point.) Cyanochic (talk) 21:56, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

@Cyanochic, what I would do here is a WP:BLAR from Chlorophytina to Tetraphytina. If there's anything in the Chlorophytina article that you think should be in the other one, you can copy-paste it over (make sure your edit summary is very clear about where you got the original text from, for attribution reasons). -- asilvering (talk) 22:05, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll give that a read now! Does the fact that the title Chlorophytina is the correct name for the content of the current Tetraphytina page change which page should be blanked? (e.g. Tetraphytina is not an accepted name anywhere AFAICT)

Like should I just copy paste all of Tetraphytina to Chlorophytina, then blank and redirect tetraphytina to chlorophytina? Cyanochic (talk) 23:33, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I see, I misunderstood your initial post - I would do the blank-and-redirect from Tetraphytina to Chlorophytina. Basically, you want the correct information at the correct title. Whichever title is incorrect, that should be redirected to the correct title. If the correct content isn't at the correct title, copy it from the incorrect title (leaving attribution in your edit summary when you do this). Basically, what you're trying to do here is make sure that the correct content is where it belongs, that there is no incorrect content anywhere (except the page history), and that the incorrect title points to the correct title. -- asilvering (talk) 23:43, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Great thank you so much for your help! Cyanochic (talk) 00:13, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

If you (or another wonderful helper) is around to check what I've done with setting up the redirect and leaving information, I'd super appreciate it since this is my first time ever setting up any sort of redirect. Relevant pages - Talk:Tetraphytina, Chlorophytina and Talk:Chlorophytina. Cyanochic (talk) 04:24, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I moved the WP:BLAR notice for you. :) -- asilvering (talk) 15:01, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I think I misunderstood where it goes. Thank you! Cyanochic (talk) 17:37, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Is there any category

Is there any categories tracking all the pages that are using {{GBurl}}?
also is there any categories that are tracking all pages that are using the whole google book url starting with books.google.com? ––kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 18:32, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

You're in luck! You can see the list of pages that transclude any given template at Special:WhatLinksHere: in your case see Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Google Books URL. Remsense ‥ 论 18:36, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for helping me out with that. is there any way we can trace external links like books.google.com. ––kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 18:39, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Would a search for [insource:"books.google.com"] work for you? Like this one? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:41, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

 Thanks mates for helping me out, shall learn a lot more in upcoming days from you. ––kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 18:46, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I had to double-check, but we do indeed have Special:LinkSearch/books.google.com that does what you want! Remsense ‥ 论 18:42, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Temperature chart

What is the difference in "Mean Maximum", "Mean Daily Maximum" and "Daily Mean"? 38.94.112.73 (talk) 19:24, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

This page is for help with editing Wikipedia. I suggest you ask your question at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Mathematics. Shantavira|^{feed me} 19:35, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

The context is the climate sections in Wikipedia articles about cities, I presume. Without getting into advanced math, you can get a better understanding by reading Mean and Average. In simplified terms, "mean" is the most common form of mathematical "average". So think of these fields as "average maximum temperature" and "average daily maximum temperature" and "Daily average temperature". I visited Alaska a few months ago, and these charts were very useful for understanding the typical weather in various Alaskan cities in June. Cullen328 (talk) 19:40, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I need help for making the phonetic usage visible

i need to make the phonetic usage of the letter Draft:Shha with Cil top visible on the navbox Infobox Cyrillic letter 2.49.60.209 (talk) 14:18, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, IP user. Given that Draft:Shha with Cil top has been rejected (not just declined) it is not clear why you are spending time on it, and in particular, why you are spending time on anything other than finding suitable sources to establish that it meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability. Adequate sources are the only thing that might cause @NoobThreePointOh to reconsider the rejection. ColinFine (talk) 19:53, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Easy edits

I still count myself as a relatively inexperienced editor with something approaching a thousand edits, but a short while ago I allowed myself to be side-tracked by an 'easy edit' topic that passed under my nose. In the event the article needs a total overhaul (IMO), but I saw two easy improvements and made them. Now I am feeling guilty because they were so easy, perhaps I should have left them in place for another, even more inexperienced editor, to rattle off?

Yes, I am aware that 'Suggested Edits' has three levels and I could apply some filters, but I am also wondering why there isn't an automated process for promoting editors to higher levels of difficulty. On the other hand I have delved into some alleged 'easy edits' that left me totally baffled, either by their complexity, or the fact I could see nothing wrong that needed editing.

I guess I am still learning.

WendlingCrusader (talk) 12:49, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, can I get a bit more clarification to answer your question? Susbush (talk) 13:20, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I suppose I was asking the editing community if my experience was normal, and whether experienced editors would apply easy edits if they came across them, or leave them as a learning tool for less experienced editors? The other reply (from @Andy Mabbett) suggests it is not an issue. WendlingCrusader (talk) 13:48, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

We are not short of needed edits, at any level of complexity. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:21, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

WendlingCrusader, I have been editing Wikipedia for over 15 years, and if I see a situation where an "easy edit" would clearly improve the encyclopedia, I make the edit. The notion of leaving it to a less experienced editor never crosses my mind. Cullen328 (talk) 17:57, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Me too. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:00, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Infobox error

So i just creating this article, HMS Diamond (1904), and there seems to be a big error with the infobox contents. Somehow the entire first paragraph has become a part of the infobox, causing the IB to not render properly. Why is this happening, and can someone help me fix it? Thanks. RedactedHumanoid (talk) 23:47, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

The issue has been resolved, please ignore the message above. RedactedHumanoid (talk) 23:59, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

In case some future reader is looking through the archives for solutions to similar problems: Special:Diff/1248697209. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 03:05, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Can you remove part of the talk page on other user?

I was thinking about removing some part of Japaneses' talk page because he rudely said the f word at the two users, I was thinking about removing only this part, but I was thinking would that violate Wikipedia's rule? 50.91.26.176 (talk) 06:18, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

It is indeed rude (in a very routine kind of way). But we don't remove material just because it's rude. And of course it says much less about its addressees than it says about the writer. Please leave it. -- Hoary (talk) 06:36, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

What is the consquences if somebody just removed it even when they are told not to, even if they are trying to remove some words on the talk page of other user's? Do they get a warning or a block?

Like in the talk page. 50.91.26.176 (talk) 06:44, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

The consequences that might follow from an editor doing something even when they are told not to depends on the nature of what they have done, and the credibility and authority of whoever gave the warning. If an adminstrator warns you to not violate a core content policy or other highly important policy, and then you defiantly go ahead and violate that policy, then expect to be blocked. The same applies to a warning from any experienced, well-informed editor. If an obviously inexperienced editor acting in bad faith warns you incorrectly, then you can disregard that warning. You need to have a well enough developed understanding of policy to correctly conclude that a warning is not valid. Cullen328 (talk) 06:56, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I encourage you not to remove things from another editor's talk page unless you are absolutely certain that no one would object. Routine f-bombs do not qualify, especially when the rude language is from the user on their own page. Cullen328 (talk) 07:01, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

And in this specific case, the f-bombs are evidence as to why this editor has been blocked. Leave the comments alone, please. Cullen328 (talk) 07:08, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Actually, that was because he was a sockpuppet of Equador83838/Cool828, when blocked and announced in his talk page, he [Japanese] shouted f-word at the two. User talk:Japaneses - Wikipedia.

Don't worry, I would not violate your rules. I promised not to edit. 50.91.26.176 (talk) 07:28, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Scam for my client Title new Page Added

Mohammad Hossain is a musical artists, I want to release a biographical data of his name on Wikipedia, now I am looking at Mohammad Hossain name charge, there is no page of his name in Wikipedia but a person named Imam Hossain is redirecting Mohammad Hossain's page now I How can I use it? MohammadHossain00 (talk) 04:33, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Anyone, including Mohammad Hossain himself, is welcome to create Draft:Mohammad Hossain, if this complies with Wikipedia policy and if Mohammad Hossain is notable. (The fact that "Mohammad Hossain" currently redirects to Imam Hossain won't matter.) But I'm puzzled. Are you saying that you are Mohammad Hossain? Why a "scam"? (Are you planning a scam?) -- Hoary (talk) 04:50, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

no I am Mohammad Hossain no I am studying music class together with Mohammad Hossain I am studying together with sir in musical industry today he is a famous musician so I want to release biography in his name.Because I know a lot about him, and no, sorry, I'm not a scammer , I'm a business man. MohammadHossain00 (talk) 05:02, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

MohammadHossain00, if you are not named Mohammed Hossain but are planning to write a draft about somebody named Mohammad Hossain, then your username "MohammadHossain00" is misleading. Please stop using it, think of a different username (one that doesn't suggest that you are Mohammad Hossain), and use that. -- Hoary (talk) 06:34, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok noted MohammadHossain00 (talk) 06:39, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

But please also note, @MohammadHossain00, that if he is your client, then you are a paid editor, and you must make the formal declaration specified in that link. If you are not being paid (then I wonder why you describe him as your "client"), you still have a conflict of interest, and need to understand what difference that makes to editing about him. ColinFine (talk) 09:40, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

One more point. My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft.. ColinFine (talk) 09:41, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Can I request feedback

The article was reviewed multiple times, initially accepted but later unreviewed and nominated for deletion, despite improvements. The nominator claims notability issues, it is relisted with no external comment, See Nasib Piriyev. I came here because it happened before on articles I created, and discussions were closed as Soft Deletion. 12eeWikiUser (talk) 18:07, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

@12eeWikiUser, you've done your part already, and there's nothing more to be done here. Other editors will weigh in about whether the subject is notable or not. There's no amount of improvement that can fix an article if the subject isn't notable. However, until you get the hang of how notability works on wikipedia, when you're writing future articles, I would suggest using fewer sources and keeping mostly to what can be said about the subject of the article. Experienced editors look at an article about an "entrepreneur" with this many references and immediately think "WP:REFBOMB". -- asilvering (talk) 18:20, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

@Asilvering, this is helpful, thanks for the feedback. Let me keep improving and will do better in future articles. 12eeWikiUser (talk) 18:48, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, 12eeWikiUser. I have just commented on the deletion discussion, but I will expand that here, because I suspect it is the problem you have had all along. Not one of the sources you link to in that discussion contains significant coverage off Piriyev, and so none of them contributes in any way to establishing that he is notable in Wikipedia's sense.

You need to look critically at all sources, and check that they meet all three of the criteria in WP:42. Only if they do will they contribute at all to establishing notability. ColinFine (talk) 20:12, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @ColinFine, this cannot be an excuse but, one of the challenges I used to (I think it is not only me) as an editor focusing on biographies about Africa and Middle east, is the lack of enough sources that meet WP:42. I often verify notability using WP:BASIC. That's why I think there is nothing wrong with Nasib Piriyev because it verifies WP:ANYBIO and WP:CREATIVE. 12eeWikiUser (talk) 10:08, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

@12eeWikiUser, WP:BASIC and WP:42 say the same thing. -- asilvering (talk) 11:42, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

@Asilvering, sure, they say same thing. I see that under Wikipedia:Notability (people) which has (WP:BASIC), it explains specific criteria we can rely on for a topic which has some challenges in meeting WP:42. 12eeWikiUser (talk) 12:10, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

How to change the icon for the "Buddhism portal"

Hello, I am the creator of Portal:Buddhism.

I've noticed that when adding a link to the Buddhism portal on a webpage, there is automatically a white dharma wheel to the left of the link.

I'm considering possibly changing this image to a yellow-colored one, to make it more visible to light-mode viewers.

How can I change this file? Zoozoor (talk) 22:31, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, @Zoozoor. Unfortunately, I'm not able to reproduce the issue you're referring to. Would you be kind enough to provide a WP:DIFF to the type of edit you're referring to so we can try the same edit and see what you mean. Many thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:47, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Hey, unfortunately I cannot provide a Diff because I don't even know how to modify this icon in the first place.

If you go to Buddhism#See also and look at the box on the right, which says "Buddhism portal," you'll notice the white icon immediately to the left. That's the icon I'm trying to edit.

However, I think I have solved the issue! I went to Template:Portal and I believe that's where I can change this icon. Zoozoor (talk) 23:01, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I spoke too soon -- the page Module:Portal/images/b can only be modified by template editors. Are you capable of editing this page? If anyone can, I'd appreciate replacing the Buddhism icon with "File: Dharma Wheel (2).svg". Zoozoor (talk) 23:07, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

 Done. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:52, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

@Anachronist: Module:Portal can't handle File: Dharma Wheel (2).svg in Special:Diff/1248725653, please change it to Dharma Wheel (2).svg. Sam Sailor 08:54, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Oops. And I knew that too. Anyway, it's been fixed by another editor. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:12, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Layered COI and tone problems

Unity Day (United States) happens this month, and the article seems to have copied from the organization's website multiple times over the years, and has major sourcing and tone problems. I can't handle it right now and am not an expert at "cutting through the noise", especially with a national event, so I humbly request someone else fix it. Thank you! QuietCicada chirp 13:28, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

That article's contribution history is replete with COI edits. I have semiprotected it due to past disruption.

I also removed the History section entirely due to being mostly promotional fluff written in first-person ("our") peppered with citations to YouTube. You can look at my revert and see if there's anything in there that's salvageable. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:19, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

How do I make this legitimate edit without getting in trouble

There are a couple of good faith edits that I’m trying to make on Spanish Wikipedia that I made on English Wikipedia with no trouble. The edits are to remove reference to a claim that is verifiably false. This claim is spread across 2 Wikipedia pages. Every time I try to make these edits it is reversed by the same Wikipedia user. I have created full edit summaries, I have created relevant posts on the discussion pages, I have tried to engage this user both on my talk page and on their talk page and this user has not engaged me in any of these places. The user just continuously reverts my changes without engaging with any of my points. What makes this more difficult is that this user seems to be some sort of admin and threatened me with a ban if I continue. I have no idea what to do.

What’s more bizarre is that when I got another user’s help to make one of the changes I was trying to make, the edit was not reverted. (One of the same edits that was reverted when I made it was not reverted when another user made it).

I’m not a Wikipedia pro or anything but I really feel like I’m doing everything by the book. The user who keeps reverting my changes does not seem to be acting in good faith and is not engaging with me in any way. I still want to make the edits but I don’t want to get banned.

What do I do? Oscopo talk) 23:10, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Oscopo. The Teahouse is for questions about editing the English Wikipedia. The Spanish Wikipedia is a separate project with its own policies and guidelines. You will have to ask for help at their help desk or administrator's noticeboard. They may have an equivalent to the Teahouse. Coffeehouse, perhaps? Cullen328 (talk) 23:25, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

@Oscopo: Try asking on es:Wikipedia:Café. Oddly, that's what WP:HELPDESK shows as the corresponding Spanish page, it isn't shown here on the Teahouse. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:47, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! I’ve asked my question there. Oscopo (talk) 06:39, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I think our teahouse is unusual and most wikis just have the help desk. -- asilvering (talk) 17:29, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Request for deletion

Hi. I discovered a page that was flagged 3 years ago on Talk as WP:HOAX. The page is Tibet Area (administrative division)

I completely agree with the editor's assessment 3 years ago. Briefly, the text creates an historical hoax dated to 1912, then builds on the hoax to justify subsequent events. Clever.

For those at Teahouse who are learning about the subject... The Qing surrendered to Tibet and were expelled from 1912-1913, overlapping the nascent ROC years. The ROC wasn't creating administrative subdivisions in Tibet in 1912, but asking the 13th Dalai Lama in 1913-1914 for his recognition of ROC (Others; Shakya, "13th Dalai Lama, Tubten Gyatso" at Treasury of Lives). Numerous scholars - including Carole McGranahan, Tsering Shakya, Y. Tsomu, the Chinese author below - never mention the so-called ROC "Tibet Area". It didn't happen.

The hoax is further revealed by Chiang Kai-shek's own personal papers that were released (reliably reviewed, published in a book, carried at JSTOR, printed in Tiawan - I'll find the title), where he discusses his leadership's necessarily hollow political positions on Tibet, until 1945 after which the civil war with the communists kept him busy until his fall in 1949.

The page which needs to be deleted has as its first 4 sources an atlas, a population survey, and 2 unknown authors. Their opinions appear quite bogus.

I just spent (too much) time on the page editing the most egregious aspects so as to protect unsuspecting readers - before the page is actually deleted. I'm adding as much information as possible here in order to save us time.

What is next? Hopefully a speedy delete? Just trying to be helpful and to protect the integrity of the encyclopedia. Metokpema (talk) 07:05, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Metokpema, the Teahouse is for asking and answering questions about editing Wikipedia and that certainly includes discussion of deletion processes. But you cannot reasonably expect that Teahouse hosts will have topic area expertise in Chinese administrative divisions of 112 years ago, or any familiarity with the scholars you mention. All that level of detail belongs at Talk:Tibet Area (administrative division). But despite what you said, there was no consensus three years ago that this is a hoax. Maybe it is a hoax and maybe it isn't. The place to narrow that down is through discussion at the article talk page. There are three distinct deletion processes, which are speedy deletion, proposed deletion and Articles for Deletion. Familiarize yourself with those options, and be prepared to make an effective case for deletion. Cullen328 (talk) 07:30, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

If I were you or a subject-matter expert, I might as well take it to AFD to gather further consensus on the next course of action for this topic. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 18:10, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

@Metokpema: Since there has been no resolution on the article talk page, a better place to discuss this would be Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tibet. Rather than duplicating the existing discussion, you could post a pointer there, to it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:35, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Diagram removed from page

Added a diagram of my creation to two pages (List of longest-living organisms and Longevity in the non-human section) that just got removed (reverted to the previous version). I was wondering what could be done in that regard, since the only comment was "illegible diagram with bonus inappropriate external link" and I don't really know both why it got removed exactly and how to, in case, provide a better contribution to the pages. I could maybe ask the editor but I still find hard to navigate the talk section as of now.

Thank you in advance! Yobonnie (talk) 18:08, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Yobonnie, the "bonus inappropriate external link" alludes to Wikipedia's policy on external links. In the majority of cases, external links, i.e. links to sites other than Wikipedia, do not belong in the body text or image captions of an article. As for whether that is a helpful diagram, you should discuss this issue on the talk pages of the relevant articles – editorial decisions on Wikipedia are made by consensus. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 18:14, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I see! Thank you very much Yobonnie (talk) 18:27, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Images removed from page?!

Hi I've been editing a page about the contemporary artist, Studio Lenca. However I just noticed that all the images (that I took) have been removed. Can you tell me why this is?

Thanks,

Oliver Frida1984 (talk) 11:44, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Frida1984, welcome to the Teahouse. The files were deleted at Wikimedia Commons as suspected copyright violations and you were notified at commons:User talk:Frida1984. Paintings are usually copyrighted and it's not allowed to publish a photo of a copyrighted work. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:46, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

@Frida1984 If you are in contact with the artist, you can ask them to permit your upload of what is called a "derivative work" (i.e. your photo of their creation). This can be done by email: see Commons:Volunteer Response Team for the full details. Admins at Commons can "undelete" your files, so Studio Lenca would just need to know the filenames you used and give appropriate permission. Mike Turnbull (talk) 21:18, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

i keep getting rejected beacause of unreliable sources

can somebody look at my article and give me some feedback Benjamin Fallah (talk) 23:56, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Not rejected but declined. Benjamin Fallah, as your very title above suggests ("[because] of unreliable sources"), you've already got feedback. You can see it on User talk:Benjamin Fallah. How is it inadequate? Or which part of it (or which page to which it links) don't you understand? -- Hoary (talk) 00:40, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Benjamin Fallah, vast swathes of your draft are entirely unreferenced, violating the core content policy Verifiability. Cullen328 (talk) 00:51, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

the role of the paparazzi

death of princess diana

BOAZ ARAKA (talk) 21:03, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

@BOAZ ARAKA Welcome to the Teahouse, which is a place to ask questions about using and editing Wikipedia. If you have a question, we will attempt to answer it. Meanwhile you may wish to read the article Death of Diana, Princess of Wales. Mike Turnbull (talk) 21:09, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Also worth reading, BOAZ ARAKA, is Paparazzi. Cullen328 (talk) 01:23, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

make a page

i want to make new page about Jewish Educational Media (JEM) but i have no idea how to make a wikipidia page and i dont know where to get citations YisroelB501 (talk) 22:34, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

You'll have to find reliable, disinterested, substantive sources, YisroelB501. That will be your job: you can't just ask others to do it. (Of course, if you encounter problems, others may well help you.) Then you'll have to summarize what they say, and specify which part comes from where. The needed sources don't necessarily exist: for many imaginable subjects, adequate sources don't exist, and no article can be created. Before you continue work on your creation Draft:Jewish Educational Media, it's a good idea to get experience improving existing articles. (Most articles can be improved.) Your experience with existing articles will make your work on a new draft very much easier. ¶ Incidentally, it seems to me that whoever wrote the prose that's in Draft:Jewish Educational Media wouldn't have also written "i want to make new page" (above). Is what's in the draft actually written by you? -- Hoary (talk) 23:55, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Hoary (or any admin passing by), at the risk of asking silly questions: is there anything salvageable in the version of Jewish Educational Media (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) deleted way back in 2007? And out of curiosity, what was the reason for its deletion? Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 02:39, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Very reasonable questions, Rotideypoc41352. (1) Nope. (It was only 485 bytes long.) (2) To my surprise, I see no reason. (All I know is that no WP:AfD/JEM exists.) -- Hoary (talk) 05:36, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Semantic Brand Score Page Creation

Hi everybody. I am struggling to get this article accepted and I am stuck. I have answered several comments and made edits, but would love the help of an experienced editor to know how to move forward: Draft:Semantic Brand Score. The last comment is about the unavailabilty of reliable secondary sources, but there are so many, even listed in the talk page of the article, so I don't know what to do next. WarmKomorebi (talk) 19:13, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Without looking at your sources, I find it surprising that of your fourteen citations in the draft, and thirteen on the Talk page, only one contains the phrase "Semantic brand score" in its title. This causes me to wonder how many of them have significant coverage of the concept, as opposed to mentioning it in passing. ColinFine (talk) 20:17, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

All these works use the metric, not just mention it. Then there are many other papers citing the metric but not really using it, which are not listed as secondary sources. 109.54.163.39 (talk) 20:33, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

How is this score discussed in relevant textbooks? (Meanwhile, I think Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Semantic Brand Score continues to be worth reading.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:43, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Are textbooks mandatory, or is newspapers and papers enough as secondary sources? I read the page marked for deletion but that was when secondary sources were not available in large quantities. 109.54.163.39 (talk) 06:01, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

No, textbooks aren't mandatory. But mere mentions don't suffice. What sources describe or evaluate the methodology that's the subject of this draft? -- Hoary (talk) 06:40, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

For example, all these works (also mentioned in the article Talk Page) provide a detailed description of the Semantic Brand Score and use it in their analyses (and hypotheses):

- https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014829631930582X?via%3Dihub

- https://arxiv.org/pdf/2008.12435

- https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13278-022-00917-5

- https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10478487

- https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-66981-2_8

- https://www.politesi.polimi.it/handle/10589/150944?mode=complete

- https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/polish-twitter-immigrants-during-2021-belaruseuropean-kasia-parys

This other work just describes it:

- https://www.athensjournals.gr/tourism/2021-8-2-4-Bianchino.pdf

I have only mentioned secondary sources. WarmKomorebi (talk) 11:08, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

WarmKomorebi, I looked at the first of these. A description within it starts "To measure the importance of particular memes, the so-called semantic brand score (SBS) developed by Fronzetti Colladon (2018) is adopted." Most of what follows about SBS is attributed to (or taken directly from) the paper it refers to as "Fronzetti Colladon, 2018". The final sentence says "By combining frequencies and centrality measures, the SBS serves as a useful metric to measure importance of nodes in a network that may also help to fathom the diversity of organizational memes in terms of their importance." This looks like the authors' own judgement rather than merely a rehash of what Colladon says. I wouldn't call this passage a "detailed description", but it is a start. Two minor tips: First, the LinkedIn piece has a named author (Kasia Parys). Secondly, the draft says "The SBS is a composite indicator with three dimensions: prevalence, diversity and connectivity", which is comprehensible -- but is illustrated with File:SemanticBrandScore 01.jpg which neither adds nor explains anything, thereby managing to detract from the draft, and which I suggest you remove. -- Hoary (talk) 22:32, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks @Hoary! I have fixed the LinkedIn reference adding the name and removed the image you suggested. More detailed descriptions of the SBS in secondary sources can be found for example here:

- https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s13278-022-00917-5.pdf (end of page 6 and beginning of page 7)

- https://www.politesi.polimi.it/handle/10589/150944?mode=complete (end of page 27 until page 29) WarmKomorebi (talk) 07:00, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Full name or acronym?

When specifying where a link is from in brackets, would I use the full name of the country or the acronym for it?

For example: 'Example Law (US)' or 'Example Law (United States)' Galaxy111 (talk) 15:29, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think there's a hard and fast rule. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Abbreviations#Acronyms_in_page_titles. Shantavira|^{feed me} 16:00, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Just to clarify your question on two counts;

• are you talking about a Wiki link, such a ACI or United Airways, where the country of origin becomes abundantly clear once you have digested the contents of the pop-up screen? And are users on mobile devices less likely to benefit from these pop-up boxes, and therefore need more help?
• are you talking about country acronyms such as (It) when you wish to indicate (Italy)?

Unfortunately, the example you gave was for the United States, where (US) or (USA) is internationally recognised. Likewise (UK) is almost as well accepted. But this does not apply to all countries. How many readers would associate (HR) with Croatia?

WendlingCrusader (talk) 12:33, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, you can see what I mean in the external links section of the 3-feet law page, I am not talking about country acronyms but just shortenings. Galaxy111 (talk) 00:38, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Having glanced at the 3-feet law page, (US) looks perfectly correct in my eyes. And after some digging I found MOS:USA which confirms this, and gives some useful pointers regarding when United States (in full) is more appropriate.

WendlingCrusader (talk) 01:16, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Galaxy111 (talk) 08:00, 2 October 2024 (UTC)