Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1243

Archive 1240

Archive 1241

Archive 1242

Archive 1243

Help publishing a translation

I come from the spanish Wikipedia, where I've been publishing articles for some time. I wanted to translate one of the articles I had published to english, after doing so, it didn't allow me to publish it, arguing that I wasn't experienced enough and only allowing me to publish it as a draft in my user page. How could I publish it myself or find someone to revise and publish the article?

Thanks Mateo MD (talk) 15:38, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello. You may use the Article Wizard to create and submit your draft. Accounts that are new to the English Wikipedia cannot directly create articles. Be aware that the Spanish Wikipedia has different policies and guidelines, and what is acceptable there is not necessarily acceptable here. You need to ensure that the translation meets the guidelines here. 331dot (talk) 15:41, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I only have one question left: After submiting the draft to Article Wizard, what will happen?. Will it be reviewed and considered for being published? Excuse me if I'm making stupid questions, but I'm kinda lost since I haven't worked at all in the english Wikipedia Mateo MD (talk) 19:59, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

@Mateo MD: Welcome to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1243. Once your draft is submitted, it will be put in a backlog (not a queue) for a real-life reviewer to look at. You can still edit it during that time, and once a reviewer has taken a look at it, it'll either be accepted (article moves to mainspace), declined (article stays in draftspace, but reviewer sees potential for it to be improved), or rejected (article is unsuitable for Wikipedia and the author should work on other subjects). —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:11, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Mateo MD There are no stupid questions here, ask anything you wish. 331dot (talk) 23:14, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you v Mateo MD (talk) 15:06, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

I added a button to User:Mateo MD/Holy Week in Segovia, so when ready, you can submit it as 331dot and Tenryuu have described. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 21:47, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Mateo MD (talk) 15:07, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

No articles from "Linking"

I want to do editing so I am using suggestions. I wanted to find articles that needs links to be added, but it says 0 articles. Why? Taymallah Belkadri (talk) 18:32, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for wanting to help out. The "add links" suggested edits feature probably picks from articles that have the tag Template:Underlinked, but no articles currently are in that category. Anytime someone tags an article as underlinked, it gets flooded with new editors adding links, because it's usually only one or two articles that have that tag at a given time, and soon someone removes the tag because the problem is solved or simply to stop the surge. WP:Overlinking is probably a more common problem than underlinking. If you select the Copyedit task, it will probably suggest more articles to you. Or you can go to the "Help Out" section of the WP:Community portal, which is where I prefer to go when looking for articles to copyedit. Perception312 (talk) 19:01, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

The algorithm-based links Newcomer Task has begun phased rollout. Teahouse hosts may be interested in dipping into relevant RCP to help assess the value of such added links. Folly Mox (talk) 12:01, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Perception312! I finally found 2 articles that need linking. Taymallah Belkadri (talk) 16:58, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Draft article is getting declined

Every time when iam trying to submit my draft, it is getting declined and iam getting this reply, which i have shared below.

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

• in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
• reliable
• secondary
• independent of the subject

but how can i give multiple references to the subject to which i have already gave reference, can anyone please guide me.

your support will be really helpful. Congo1211 (talk) 15:41, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

What is the name of the draft? Perhaps I can take a look and help you out! Ali Beary; (talk) 14:00, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Congo1211 Whoops, forgot to tag you. Read the above! Ali Beary; (talk) 14:00, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Assuming this is about Draft:1211 Medium Regiment (Congo), the main problem is the obscure and probably unreliable sources being used. Also, the draft makes assertions like [the regiment] has extraordinary & glorious history: extraordinary claims like that need extraordinary sources but I see none. The draft has a section on many notable campaigns that the unit has participated in, most of which have Wikipedia articles. I suggest, Congo1211, that you look a these linked articles and see if you can use any of the citations there that mention this unit in depth. You may be able to get assistance from editors at WP:MILHIST, which is a very active project. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:03, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

how do I begin my journey to create articles

I have no idea how to start my career of making edits and articles for Wikipedia please help Jackman111914 (talk) 15:09, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Welcome. If you are going to draft articles, make sure that you have enough reliable sources about the subject you see. Read WP:RS and WP:NOTABILITY. Ahri Boy (talk) 15:20, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

@Jackman111914 Welcome to the Teahouse. Your userpage (currently a redlink but you can create it by clicking on your username) should have a "Homepage" tab which will give you suggestions for easy edits to get you started. Or begin by reading articles on topics that interest you and see if you can improve them, using reliable sources. I don't advise jumping straight in to create a new draft article as Wikipedia is a big project and you need to start small and build up your experience. The WP:Task Center may also give you some ideas. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:24, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Concur with recommendation to gain experience improving existing articles before attenpting to create a new article. David notMD (talk) 17:06, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Is anyone willing to offer suggestions on how I can get an article published?

From the messages I've received on denial, the issue seems to be citations. I've included citations from legitimate sources such as The Sun Sentinel, Orlando Sentinel, Fox 13 Tampa, and Tampa International Airport's official website, but I'm still getting declined. I'm a first time wiki contributor and I'm wondering if there's a certain amount of citations needed? Or is it completely up to the discretion of the person who reviews my article?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Kevin_Flynn_(Content_Creator) Yanhut (talk) 15:59, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @Yanhut, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid the experience you're having is common for new editors who plunge straight into the challenging task of creating a new article before spending time learning how Wikipedia works. (I realise that you created your account a year ago, but the first edits you ever made were yesterday). Would you expect to enter a major sport tournament when you have never played a game before? And if you did, would you expect to understand the feedback you got?

And it's even more difficult when you have a Conflict of Interest (thank you for disclosing that).

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.

To answer your question directly: what mattes is not quantity of sources, but quality; and while reliability is a crucial matter for sources, independence is only a little less important. Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.

Sources to establish notability must meet all three of the criteria of reliability, independence, and having substantial coverage of the subject. We're not interested in what Flynn says, or even seeing memes he has spread: we need articles where people wholly unconnected with him have chosen to write at some length about the person called Kevin Flynn. Do any of your sources meet that condition? ColinFine (talk) 16:36, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Also, remove all hyperlinks. Some may be repurposed as references. David notMD (talk) 17:14, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

owner of wikipedia name

OP blocked as sockpuppet

whats the owner of wikipedia name on here TheSmartWikiOne (talk) 15:28, 5 December 2024 (UTC) Hello, @TheSmartWikiOne. I don't understand your question. Please make it clearer what you are askin.g ("Wikipedia name" doesn't mean anything to me). ColinFine (talk) 15:37, 5 December 2024 (UTC) like the user name TheSmartWikiOne (talk) 17:51, 5 December 2024 (UTC) Jimbo Wales ☩ (Babysharkboss2) 17:56, 5 December 2024 (UTC) @TheSmartWikiOne I suggest you read our article about Wikipedia. If you want to edit, see also our articles about punctuation, apostrophes and proper nouns. Shantavira|feed me 15:40, 5 December 2024 (UTC) I know about grammar TheSmartWikiOne (talk) 17:53, 5 December 2024 (UTC) Wikimedia Foundation. A ton of bricks 15:41, 5 December 2024 (UTC) I'm not sure what this means... care to elaborate? If you're asking what the username of the owner of Wikipedia is, then I do not know, nor do I believe I can provide it anyways. Questions do not need to go to the owner himself, as the community is willing to help! Ali Beary; (talk) 14:00, 5 December 2024 (UTC) It has become increasingly obvious to me that @TheSmartWikiOne is only interested in wasting our time, asking questions that initially seem to make sense, but not entirely, and reply to clarification requests in an equally vague manner. See their thread "Wikipedia User" Above. Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 16:19, 5 December 2024 (UTC) why do you guys think your so bossy am trying to learn you think i have the god damn time to sit back and relax and edit wikipedia NO who the hell has and wants to do that every minute someone is editing or griefing wikipedia makeing a difference and your coming at me saying damn this kid is not helping out! TheSmartWikiOne (talk) 17:49, 5 December 2024 (UTC) Pardon? ☩ (Babysharkboss2) 17:51, 5 December 2024 (UTC) ? TheSmartWikiOne (talk) 17:52, 5 December 2024 (UTC) You are simply proving my point, mein freund. Such hostility is not required. Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 17:57, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

how do i copy edit

OP blocked as sockpuppet

I don't know how to copy edtit on here its confusing and my brain it fried TheSmartWikiOne (talk) 15:32, 5 December 2024 (UTC) Take some time off from here and come back when you feel better. --Malerooster (talk) 15:39, 5 December 2024 (UTC) wdym TheSmartWikiOne (talk) 17:46, 5 December 2024 (UTC) WDYM FEEL BETTER AM TRYING TO GET HELP FROM YOU GUYS TheSmartWikiOne (talk) 17:50, 5 December 2024 (UTC) What @Malerooster is trying to say is, if your brain is fried, it is a good idea to take a break. Throwing yourself further into Wikipedia is no way of fixing a brain-fry. And please, this aggression is absolutely not necessary. Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 17:58, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Regarding usage of "Glossary of Tribes in Punjab" book as references.

Hi, Can we use "Glossary of the Tribes and Castes of the Punjab and North West Frontier Province" book as referencing in a wikipedia article. Tizzythewhale (talk) 17:27, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

A Glossary of the Tribes and Castes of the Punjab and North-West Frontier Province by Horace Arthur Rose. Per WP:RAJ, it's not a good idea. Try to find some more recent scholarship. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:06, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

okay, thanks! Tizzythewhale (talk) 18:33, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Should bias of a source be noted in an article

If I were working on an article about an issue or person that both sides of the political spectrum are interested in, can I declare a source's bias? For example, let's say I am writing about Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, and I have articles from FOX (a right-wing news source) and MSNBC (a left-wing news source). Can I say something like "One left-wing news source said X (citing MSNBC) while a right-wing news source said Y (citing FOX)". I know Wikipedia is all about neutrality, but in today's world of biased news that often omits and distorts information to push an agenda, I think having both sides' opinions clearly displayed on a neutral middle ground like Wikipedia would be nice. ApteryxRainWing | Roar with me!!! | My contributions 12:49, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

You can certainly offer what differing sources say(but see WP:FALSEBALANCE) but you shouldn't characterize them in that manner. Wikipedia is about neutral point of view, but that doesn't mean sources cannot have bias, as all sources have biases. Sources are presented to readers so they can judge them for themselves. 331dot (talk) 12:51, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

@331dot That last part is actually exactly why I asked this question. People have terrible judgement, and would rather stay in their safe little echo chambers and get fed lies and fearmongering. Both sides are guilty of this, so why can't we force them to see the other side's viewpoint? Polarization is already horrible where I am from, and I don't want to contribute to it by allowing people to be ignorant. I myself was once stuck in a left-wing echo chamber that talked about right-wingers like they're the second coming of Satan himself, but once I finally started to talk to people with different beliefs than me, I realized we had a lot more in common than I was told. I want other people to have that experience too, no matter how uncomfortable it is, and Wikipedia is the perfect place to start breaking down that wall that has divided us for so long. ApteryxRainWing | Roar with me!!! | My contributions 13:01, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

As I said, you should certainly offer sources with differing views/content. You just need to take care in how you characterize them. 331dot (talk) 13:04, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. ApteryxRainWing | Roar with me!!! | My contributions 13:06, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

@User:ApteryxRainWing One suggestion would be to look at a few featured articles on people who have provoked strong views, e.g. Vladimir Lenin, to see how these views have been described in a neutral way. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:42, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

I respect what you are trying to do, but I'd recommend reading WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS before you begin. Also keep in mind that the definition of "Left-wing" and "Right-wing" can be different depending on what country you are from. Industrial Insect (talk) 16:14, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

@Industrial Insect yeah that makes sense. I didn't know that there were different versions of the political spectrum in other places, though. I thought they just prioritized certain issues like foreign/economic policy. ApteryxRainWing | Roar with me!!! | My contributions 16:20, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

For instance, outside of the United States, I doubt anybody would perceive MSNBC as "left wing". Simonm223 (talk) 20:23, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

@Simonm223 that's pretty interesting. I just looked at the homepage of the MSNBC website and even I as a hardcore leftist am able to notice a pretty clear left-wing bias just skimming article titles. At the very least, we can agree that they love making fun of Donald Trump and pretty much anything even marginally related to him. I wonder what someone outside of america would think of that ApteryxRainWing | Roar with me!!! | My contributions 20:29, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

I would suggest that treating the rubric of leftism as being "doesn't like Trump" is a very specifically American, and, even then, not particularly nuanced, perspective on political alignment. Simonm223 (talk) 20:31, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Include a new subheading on a wikipedia page

The Wikipedia page on Jaquira Díaz does not have a section describing her work and scholarship about it. How can I and my classmates add some description of the memoir and cite scholarship about it? Pinno516 (talk) 19:34, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Already asked by class instructor at User talk:Brianda (Wiki Ed)#contact Scr124 Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 21:33, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Missing wikipedia page

Hello, I saw that a Wikipedia page is missing it is called list of Korean Names of Native Origin. 130.212.95.174 (talk) 22:38, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello. In what sense it is "missing"? I haven't found any evidence that it has existed in the past. ColinFine (talk) 23:05, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

We have List of Korean surnames. Is that what you are looking for? CodeTalker (talk) 01:19, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Process times for info-en-q@wikipedia.org

sock; blocked.

I have 4 queries as a legal professional who is considering editing at Wikipedia and wishes to ascertain his potential consequential liabilities in law,:- What are the indicative process times (turnaround times) for complaints of on-wiki defamation//libels sent to email ID <info-en-q@wikipedia.org> which is mentioned on policy page WP:LBL ? Are the volunteers on that helpline legal professionals and empowered to remove/amend content independently ? Does Wikipedia/WMF acknowledge that "defamation/libel" is defined variously in different jurisdictions, and the legal definitions / torts / offences in the country of the "victim" are also applicable. In the event the Foundation claims intermediary status on being sued in the home jurisdiction of the victim, are they legally obliged to disclose the details of the concerned editors who inserted those statements for them to be sued/prosecuted in turn ? T3fg72zp (talk) 00:56, 4 December 2024 (UTC) Hello, T3fg72zp. Your questions are beyond the expertise of volunteers here at the Teahouse. I suggest that you contact the Legal department at the Wikimedia Foundation. Their contact information can be found here. Cullen328 (talk) 01:07, 4 December 2024 (UTC) @T3fg72zp: Seconding the above advice, also making sure you are aware of WP:No legal threats. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:54, 4 December 2024 (UTC) @T3fg72zp For #4, you may like to read the current edition of the in-house magazine WP:Wikipedia Signpost, which has extensive coverage of that issue in relation to an ongoing case in India. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:02, 4 December 2024 (UTC) @Mike Turnbull Yes I am aware of that case. It has been covered in the law websites/journals I am subscribed to. Since 2021 the new media and intermediary laws of India now make it very easy to sue Wikipedia in India. The earlier case was of Tuhin Amar Sinha versus Wikipedia Foundation in 2022, where WMF had to restore the plaintiff's bio page deleted by Wikipedia administrators, and now they are going into quantum of compensation to be paid to plaintiff. T3fg72zp (talk) 00:41, 5 December 2024 (UTC) I took a look at the Tuhin Sinha page and I couldn't find anything of the sort. It was recreated by @Jayen466, not by WMF. KoA (talk) 05:55, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

May I speak to a member or two of staff

I have been spotting numerous edits of valuable information being taken out by a user. I'd like to be assisted by a member or two of staff to resolve this, please. If you'd like more information, check my recent contributions to Haldraper's talj page, Cambridgeshire, and Peterborough. 94.10.105.239 (talk) 21:35, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Haldraper's talk page* 94.10.105.239 (talk) 21:36, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

I looked at it, and there read "I will also be contacting moderators and administration". I suppose that administrators can collectively be called "administration"; but their services would not be required here. Wikipedia has no moderators, unless you mean its "arbitrators", whose services are only required for [what are alleged to be] the most serious problems. -- Hoary (talk) 02:25, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

There are no members of staff: we are all volunteers.

Furthermore, there is nobody who has the authority to step in and resolve disputes, except in certain tightly defined contexts. If you have a disagreement with another editor, you should open a discussion on either the talk page of the article, or the editor's user talk page, and try and reach consensus. (I see you have opened a discussion).

If you cannot reach consensus, (eg the other editor does not respond - but give them at least a couple of days: some editors have lives outside Wikipedia) - then dispute resolution gives steps to take.

Admins will only get involved if there is a behavioural issue, in which case you may raise a report at (eg WP:AIV for vandalism, WP:ANEW for edit warring, or WP:ANI for other serious behavioural issues. But do not go to those pages without carefully reading what it says at the top of them. ColinFine (talk) 22:12, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

@ColinFine: given the pattern of behavior outlined by messages at User talk:Haldraper, I am wondering if this should go to ANI—that is, if Haldraper fails to respond. Would that be too drastic too fast? Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 22:16, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Looking at their edits, I don't see anything egregious. ColinFine (talk) 23:10, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Neither do I; they are simple copyedits aimed strictly at economy of English usage, devoid of any change to factual content in the article. Editors can disagree about the best wording to use, and this kind of simple disagreement should be worked out on the Talk page of the article, or on their Talk page. Administrators would certainly decline to step in in a case like this, and taking it to AIV, ANEW, or ANI would be futile and a waste of time, imho. Mathglot (talk) 07:09, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Asking for explanation what I did wrong.

@Yamla has Issued me a warning. }i wanted to ask for explanation on his talk page but i cant so I am asking here what I have done wrong when requesting a change in a name of an article? 109.67.4.18 (talk) 11:45, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

You are an IP who apparently wants to change the name of an article that falls under the contentious topic area, where you need to have an account and be extended confirmed before you can make any suggestions except simple edit requests via the article's Talk Page. You may not make such a name change proposal. Please edit only in other areas of Wikipedia. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:54, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Hey Mike, thanks for the replay,

What I have done was simple edit requests in the article's Talk Page, I am a bit confused what was the reason that you are stating right after saying that I am allowed to make Simple edit request that "You may not make such a name change proposal", it seams contradicting to me. 109.67.4.18 (talk) 12:38, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

The change you propose is not a simple edit request. It will require discussion to establish a consensus- and you cannot participate in such a discussion due to the restrictions around this topic. "Simple edit request" in this context is limited to spelling and grammar fixes, not changing how a topic is described by its title, which as I'm sure you're aware has strong feelings on each side. 331dot (talk) 12:40, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello. Please see your user talk page. As a user without an extended-confirmed account(an account that is 30 days old with 500 edits) you are not permitted to make edits about the Israeli-Arab/Palestinian conflict. It is a formally designated contentious topic. You are only permitted to make completely uncontroversial edit requests- and your proposal would certainly be controversial. 331dot (talk) 11:55, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

hello @331dot, thanks for the replay.

could you please help to redirect me to the policy that states what is "controversial"?

Looking for guidance to so i could contribute and make sure I am complicit with the site rules. 109.67.4.18 (talk) 12:41, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Please click the words "contentious topic" in my above message, this should answer your questions. I'm sure you understand that the Israeli-Palestinian/Arab conflict has strong feelings on each side, these make the restrictions necessary to ensure participants can discuss these articles as dispassionately as possible while trying to figure out how to best summarize what independent reliable sources say about it. 331dot (talk) 12:43, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

109.67.4.18, you can find a list of contentious topics at Wikipedia:Contentious topics#List of contentious topics. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:08, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Page Gone

moved from the talk page '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 08:08, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, There is a wiki page that is gone called List of Korean Names of native origin. Can you check why it was gone? Derdaniel636 (talk) 06:31, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

It looks like you already asked about this at Wikipedia:Teahouse#Missing wikipedia page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Was it an article, Derdaniel636, or a draft? When did you see it? -- Hoary (talk) 08:43, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I saw it around March and it was a article. Derdaniel636 (talk) 08:50, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

None of List of Korean Names of native origin, List of Korean Names of Native Origin, and List of Korean names of native origin seems to have ever existed. If an article with this or a similar title had existed, it presumably would have been linked to from Lists of Korean names. But since 2012, no such article has ever been linked to from Lists of Korean names. -- Hoary (talk) 09:08, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

May the called something related to Sino-Korean names Derdaniel636 (talk) 09:33, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

How did you first find this page back in March? Why have you been looking for it? It's like looking for a restaurant: if you don't know the address, you might be able to find it by directions from a known location. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 10:37, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

well I was just looking for Korean Names and stumbled across a page called that Derdaniel636 (talk) 11:00, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Have you looked in your browser history? Cordless Larry (talk) 11:14, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

it is so long ago that the browser history from March is gone. Derdaniel636 (talk) 11:25, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

or not there anymore not sure Derdaniel636 (talk) 11:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

wikipedias user

whats Wikipedias user TheSmartWikiOne (talk) 16:03, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello @TheSmartWikiOne, and welcome to Wikipedia. It's unclear what exactly you're asking; can you please rephrase? CoconutOctopus talk 16:11, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

TheSmartWikiOne, you have used up a lot of the time of other editors but haven't made any improvement to Wikipedia. Please consider abandoning Wikipedia and taking up some alternative pursuit. -- Hoary (talk) 22:04, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

xtools counter. I recommend to be mindful of WP:NOTHERE. In the past, I've seen over-enthusiastic editors getting blocked for similar editing. You should spend more time on help building Wikipedia, and less time on user/user talk pages, or doing some other irrelevant activity. —usernamekiran (talk) 03:16, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

But its time consuming am busy looking at houses TheSmartWikiOne (talk) 18:27, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

If it is "time consuming" according to you, why did you register for Wikipedia! It is great to ask questions, but your questions, as said by Hoary have used up a lot of the time of other editors but haven't made any improvement to Wikipedia. Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 12:23, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

TO LEARN WHAT DO YOU THINK I DO ZJUST TALK TO RANDOM PEOPLE AM LEARNING MEDICAL STUFF HOW 0 IQ CAN YOU PEOPLE BE TheSmartWikiOne (talk) 16:13, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

read wp:npa to see why referring to people as "0 iq" is not considered very pogchamp 'round these parts. the kids still say that, right? cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 16:16, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

No, it was a very cringe L take. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:31, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

You’re not funny. 66.74.137.209 (talk) 22:00, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Practice your mewing, rizzler :) —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:24, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

i think my lifespan was cut by 75% from reading that, thank you cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 01:35, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

haiyaa TheSmartWikiOne (talk) 15:27, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

... TheSmartWikiOne (talk) 15:27, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Its ok to have a wikipedia account purely to only read, but please abide by WP:NPA please! Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 16:38, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

plus am busy wikipedia has millons of people here TheSmartWikiOne (talk) 16:14, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

no TheSmartWikiOne (talk) 18:27, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

I believe it would be in everyone's best interest to simply stop this thread. It is becoming increasingly apparent that @TheSmartWikiOne is only looking to waste our time. Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 02:15, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 12:14, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

• user blocked, TPA revoked. —usernamekiran (talk) 23:15, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you! Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 12:14, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Article issues

Hello! I'm an admin from SqWiki. Recently I got contacted by user Lenti2026 about some issues they were having with their articles, one of which was deleted and they weren't really sure about the procedures at hand that they would need to take to handle such a situation. I usually work on the technical side myself so I'm not the best in handling article issues so can someone help guide them around in regard to this? (Also pinging Leutrim.P which is another admin who has been involved a bit more closely to the situation.) - Klein Muçi (talk) 10:35, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Klein Muçi. It appears that User: Lenti2026 has no edits on the English Wikipedia. The Teahouse only deals with English Wikipedia issues, and problems on other language versions need to be dealt with on those autonomous language versions. The English Wikipedia is not the "boss Wikipedia" or the "dominant Wikipedia". We deal only with questions about the English Wikipedia here. Cullen328 (talk) 10:50, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Cullen328, hello! Yes, that's right. The problem is that their initial account got blocked, as far as I could understand, in which the said articles were created. So this is a fresh start and they are trying to not repeat the same mistakes as the first time. This is about the English Wikipedia specifically, though they need to provide more info such as the articles and accounts involved the first time as I can only go this far in explanations unfortunately. — Klein Muçi (talk) 11:01, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

There's not much information to go on here, but this related to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ledja Liku (October 2024)? Admins may be able to check the deleted article's contribution history to confirm possible block details.

Anyone planning on an attempted recreation of that article will have to meet enwiki's notability and sourcing requirements. They may be able to get a copy of the deleted article restored into their userspace if requested at WP:REFUND, but if their account is blocked they'll need to follow the instructions at Appealing a block first. They can't just start a new account: this is block evasion. (If they are not blocked, then using the Lenti2026 account is not likely a problem.) Folly Mox (talk) 11:55, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Where to appeal or request for undeletion of article? becouse ''Ledja Liku'' is notable person in Albania,in her profession. Lenti2026 (talk) 18:03, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

It seems you should unblock your former account before being able to discuss the recreation of the article at hand. File a compaint here Wikipedia:Appealing a block, then when your account is unblocked you can request the undeletion of that article.. Leutrim.P (talk) 18:59, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

The problem is that I can’t log in there to make the appeal, because my account has been globally locked due to being misunderstood as spam, when it was not intended for spam or sockpuppet purposes, just creating an article for a notable person in Albania based on Wikipedia-s rules and guideliness. Lenti2026 (talk) 19:26, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

You can try with your current account to file the complaint there. And mention all the relevant information of the topic. Leutrim.P (talk) 19:42, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate your help and suggestions, thank you all Lenti2026 (talk) 19:55, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

@Lenti2026 and Leutrim.P: per meta:Steward requests/Global, global locks should be appealed through email to stewards-appealswikimedia.org. As far as I'm aware, a local unblock will have no effect on a globally locked account. Folly Mox (talk) 12:19, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Change the article name from the sandbox default

Hello, i would like to get some assistance in changing the name of a sandbox article (User:Cotorobai Vasile/sandbox - Wikipedia) to The "Holy Trinity" Church in Grătiesti. Also i would like some help regarding an article that was supposed to be a translation (The "Holy Trinity" Church in Grătiesti - Wikipedia) of the Biserica „Sfânta Treime” din Grătiești - Wikipedia article, but it was published to the ro / romanian wikipedia instead of the en / english wikipedia. Cotorobai Vasile (talk) 10:23, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

@Cotorobai Vasile I'm not sure if you mean you want to make this an article now, or if you'd just like to change the name of the draft while it remains a draft. I note that none of the weblinks in your references go to a page with relevant info, they all go to some sort of startpage. If you can fix that, you should. I also wonder if part of the name should really be in quotemarks, see for example Holy Trinity Church, but I don't know this church. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:01, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. I have the church's archive on papers but couldn't find a copy of these on the official government archive so i linked the references to the gov archive start page. Should i scan the archive papers and upload them somewhere to then reference them or is there something else is should do? Cotorobai Vasile (talk) 12:59, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Also, you need to follow the directions at Help:Translation#Licensing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:05, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I added the missing attribution (diff). Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 11:10, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Your English article you published at the Romanian-language Wikipedia has been deleted there by an admin. You should submit your sandbox article for consideration by the articles for creation reviewers. There is a big blue button at the top of your sandbox for you to do that. If accepted, the reviewer will move the article into mainspace. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:37, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I will try that, thanks! Cotorobai Vasile (talk) 12:59, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Templates

Hi, I've opened a couple of templates but can't figure out how to remove/close them - can anyone help me? Rendham (talk) 12:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

@Rendham Assuming this is about recent edits at John the Baptist, you can most easily remove the templates from the top of the article using the source editor (see Help:Introduction if you are not familiar with editing that way). They will be near the top of the source code. Alternatively, if you find this difficult, ask again here and someone else will remove them. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:41, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Michael

It is about the editing of the John the Baptist article. I saw the source editor page but I'm afraid I do not know how to remove the templates there. Would you mind asking someone to remove them for me?

It's my first attempt at editing and I'm sure I'll do better next time.

Regards Rendham (talk) 13:18, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

@Rendham I've removed the templates here. Jolly1253 (talk) 13:28, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks. Rendham (talk) 13:41, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

on blocking

not on the useful side of questions because it's something that won't even impact me if i'm on the receiving side, as i have no interest in being an admin

but assuming the function works at all, how does blocking work without twinkle? cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 20:41, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

You go to Special:Block and enter the username (note I'm not an admin here, but I am on other projects). More info is at mw:Manual:Block and unblock. —Matrix(!) _{ping one}^{when replying} {u - t? - _uselessc} 21:07, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

@Cogsan: Admins also have a block link in the interface in userspace. It goes to a page like Special:Block/Cogsan which is just Special:Block with a prefilled username field in a form similar to File:Special-Block how to create a past block for IPInfo.png from 2021. The English Wikipedia has added a long text at top with MediaWiki:Blockiptext which replaces the MediaWiki default at MediaWiki:Blockiptext/qqx. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:26, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

(And then you have to go find the block template and manually add it to the user's talk page.) -- asilvering (talk) 21:34, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

figured it'd take like 3 more steps than "press twinkle's 'do the thing' button lol"

thanks. guess that's why literally every single block i've ever checked (which isn't that many, now that i think about it) has been done with twinkle cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 21:46, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Literally every single block I've ever made (and there've been quite a few) has been executed without Twinkle. -- Hoary (talk) 23:12, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

this can only mean one thing... i'm really bad at conveniently bumping into accounts you specifically have blocked cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 23:21, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Doing it manually is not difficult, the interface is very straightforward, but twinkle does the tagging for you, which is nice as the names of the various blocking templates are a lot to recall. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:36, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

By complete coincidence, this happens to be the moment in time when I have blocked 11,111 accounts. I have never used Twinkle. I do it manually on my smartphone, and it is a very simple process. Cullen328 (talk) 01:31, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

What a lazy fellow I must be, Cullen328. I don't know where I'd find my total total, but my total for the eleven months plus a few days of 2024 stands at a measly 13. -- Hoary (talk) 02:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

According to your xtools, you've blocked 669 people, @Hoary. Have the both of you considered retiring the block button and taking on some other task? Those are excellent numbers to hold on. Maybe you could get really into revision deletion instead. -- asilvering (talk) 04:02, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Admins find their niche. And sometimes it changes over time. I've done a lot of revision deletion but it's because editors have come to me requesting it, you don't go out looking for edits to rev-delete. At least, not that I know. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:25, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

@Liz, CAT:RD1 gets backlogged every so often. It was pretty dire when I became admin, but these days I don't usually see it get higher than 5 items. It's at 15 now. -- asilvering (talk) 08:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I too do my share of revision deletion including one in recent hours. My block count is relatively high because I frequently patrol Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention, which I consider one of our bulwarks against spam and corporate propaganda. If I see that someone has registered an overtly promotional username and then made overtly promotional edits, I will block them. Trolls, vandals and dedicated POV pushers get listed there. I block them too. So, no, Asilvering, I get to decide what I want to focus on as an administrator, plus I do a lot of non-adminstrative work as well, including writing significant new content, and answering questions at the Teahouse and the Help Desk. Cullen328 (talk) 08:43, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

nice cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 11:12, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

At least one person understood the comment in the spirit it was intended... asilvering (talk) 13:45, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Unsure if I Should Continue to Try…

Hello there! I like a band I discovered via Spotify. They are called Six Impala. They have 47.8k listeners so they’re not tiny but I feel they should be better known. One of their members is called underscores and they have 361.8k listeners. I do not know them personally and live on the other side of the planet. They have not been written about much so maybe that means they are not worthy of entry? Please advise! (Also, my draft was rejected because the tone is inappropriate so I will work to fix that if they are allowed to be included.) Here is the URL: Draft:Six Impala Vaudeville Duo (talk) 11:31, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

@Vaudeville Duo That's the thing on WP, if there are no good independent sources, you can't make an article about it. It seems WP:TOOSOON applies here. See also WP:BAND Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:11, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Ah okay. Thank you. Vaudeville Duo (talk) 14:38, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Vaudeville Duo. The way to think of it is: Wikipedia is not intended to help make a band or any other thing well-known; it's intended to summarise what is published about the thing once it has become well known. For the policy, follow the link WP:NOPROMO. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.211.243 (talk) 13:28, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. I guess I was thinking of Wikipedia as somewhat of a reference for music nerds like me rather than a promotional tool but I can see how that would leave it open to all kinds of meaningless information. Thanks very much! Vaudeville Duo (talk) 14:43, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Restoration of an Article

Hey there, I was wondering if there's an article deleted by a WP:AfD, which is nominated by a banned user, can I restore it through any such policy cause in the first place it is nominated by a user who was banned subsequently after nominating it to WP:AfD? 182.182.10.109 (talk) 13:04, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorry no. On the other hand an article created by a user who is subsequently topic-banned should not be deleted just because of the editor's comportment either. AfDs are consensus discussions - the decision doesn't belong to the nominator. If you feel an article that was deleted was actually notable and that sources were missed you could try building a draft and putting it through AfC - but if topic bans are in play and the article is about a contentious topic you might want to check and see if extended confirmed restrictions are at play as, in that case, an AfC from an ip or a new user will likely not be accepted. Simonm223 (talk) 13:33, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Noted. What about a redirect, can I revert the edit if done by a banned user? 182.182.17.160 (talk) 14:17, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I would really want more detail about the specifics before I hazard a response. To be clear: there is no blanket Wikipedia policy allowing for reversions or changes on the basis that the editor who made them was topic banned, blocked or had some other administrative or arbitration action taken against them. This does not mean those edits are fixed in stone either - only that any given edit must be considered on its own merits and not on the basis of who made it. Simonm223 (talk) 14:45, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Sir John Fitzpatrick

This entry has been deleted again, I used teahouse to try and resolve the issue but don't understand how to use it. could you please restore it again so I can finally get it published? Sir John Fitzpatrick was an RAF colleague and still a friend of David Craig, Baron Craig of Radley, is it possible to show me on his page what is required on Sir John Fitzpatrick's? I notice in the References numerous links to the London Gazette that cite evidence of awards, is this the sort of thing you need? Sorry to be a pain. Shepreth (talk) 12:46, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Sir John Fitzpatrick has been deleted three times being abandoned for lack of activity, undeleted twice. Do you believe that if it is undeleted again, progress can be made? Your Talk page shows that at one point in time the AfC was declined because the draft had no references. David notMD (talk) 14:13, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I found out that he was Royal Air Force 39 years, retird as Air Marshal, Knight Commander of the Order of the British Empire, Companion of the Order of the Bath, but have no idea whether that would qualify him for an article. David notMD (talk) 14:25, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Sounds like there's a good chance, but my brief search only gets lists/mentions. Someone will have to dig out the books/old newspapers. The entry at everybodywiki.com might be a clue what to search for. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:51, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Did I do the right thing?

I was editing the page for Nancy Mace, specifically concerning the trans bathroom bill thing and I removed a citation from the Washington Post because of a paywall, and expanded on information from a CNN article that had direct quotes from Mace about her stances on LGBTQ people. Was it the right thing to do? I know paywalls don't automatically disqualify a source but the CNN article that was cited already provided a lot of information without a paywall. ApteryxRainWing | Roar with me!!! | My contributions 15:53, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

No you did not. It's fine to add another source but, when an editor cannot review a source due to a paywall, the generally accepted course of action would be to leave it alone, go to article talk, note the technical reason you could not verify the source and ask for another editor to do it. Simonm223 (talk) 15:55, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

@Simonm223 Both the CNN article and Washington Post article were already there (I just expanded on some information from the CNN article), and the CNN article was pretty detailed and a lot easier to access, that's why I removed the WP citation. All the information that was there before my edit could be found in the CNN article, so I simply expanded upon it and removed the paywalled article. ApteryxRainWing | Roar with me!!! | My contributions 15:59, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes and you should not have removed the article for being paywalled. I suggest you restore the deleted reference. Simonm223 (talk) 16:01, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Removing warning labels

Many articles in Wikipedia have warnings about issues that seem to be outdated. The case I am looking at currently is this article: List of people pardoned by Bill Clinton

It appears that the problems flagged in 2017 have long been fixed but the warning labels remain. I've done a lot of small edits to wikipedia articles over the years but very little admin-type tasks. I've posted on the talk page that I plan to remove those labels and my basis for doing so. But since it is the first time I would be doing something like that I figured I'd check in here, too.

In general, the warning labels are useful but there value is lessened when many remain when they are no longer valid. Jreiss17 (talk) 16:42, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

If they are outdated, I would say they are safe to remove, but it is good to proceed with caution.Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 16:48, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

@Jreiss17 Many of the people in the list have neither separate articles, nor, more importantly, citations to show what offense it was they were originally found guilty of. That seems to me to be a violation of our biography policy and well justifies the cleanup tag. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:35, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Looking at this further, there is a citation that lists what offense each person was pardoned for, though it could be cited more prominently. The first reference is to a Dept. of Justice web site that lists all of the pardons and the offenses. That is cited early in the article but not in each section or at each persons' mention. I could make the citation more prominent by adding it to the top of each section (or conceivable, cite it separately for each line in the table).

I would like advice from people in this teahouse as to what would be best.

There is another citation (reference 4) that links to another DoJ web page that also has comprehensive information. [note: that page is no longer valid and I've added reference to the archive.org archive of it. However, as that also provides comprehensive information, I'm inclined to treat it the same way as the other link as it provides additional information.

In any event, the entry does contain a reliable and independent source regarding the crimes the people were convicted (or in some cases, just charged) with. So, it think it does satisfy the biography policy. Please let me know if there is anything that needs to be addressed before removing the tags.Jreiss17 (talk) 17:20, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

@User talk:Cooldudeseven7 Thank you for the response. @Mike Turnbull. Thanks a lot for checking. I'll see how many and tackle them if I have time but leave the tags as they are. Glad that I checked.Jreiss17 (talk) 20:46, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

HELP please ..

who could I ask to write a wikipedia about my innovative work across music and entertainment ?? Saskhiamenendez01 (talk) 14:45, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Who has written about you before? Wikipedia is not a promotional space and our rubric for determining if a person is appropriate as a subject is contained within WP:GNG and WP:BLP. If there are reliable sources that indicate you have made "innovative works across music and entertainment" then these might be used by any Wikipedia editor who is not associated with your enterprise as the basis of an article. However absent adherence to notability guidelines and reliable sources nobody is going to successfully create an article about you. Simonm223 (talk) 14:49, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

@Saskhiamenendez01 Please see the messages on your talk page and note that an article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. Shantavira|^{feed me} 14:58, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

There are websites that offer to create articles for payment. Most of those are scams (either no actual attempt, or an effort so flawed that it fails). Also, any attempt at paid editing requires the creator to declare paid on their User page. If a friend tries, they have to declare a conflict of interest. If you are truely famous enough, in time a person who has no personal connection to you might submit a draft about you (probably after you are dead). Meanwhile, use social media to promote yourself. David notMD (talk) 16:27, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

.... slightly harsh. We have plenty of articles on living people, even musicians and entertainers ;-) Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:22, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Writing a first Wikipedia page for Klothild de Baar Author

How does one go about getting a wikipedia page published for an author of 91 books (including translations) Thank you. Katharina Lyon-Villiger (talk) 05:48, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

If anyone does it, that person will probably have to be you, Katharina Lyon-Villiger. With this username, you've so far made a total of one (1) edit to Wikipedia: the one immediately above. So, start by making a hundred or more constructive, referenced-based edits to existing Wikipedia articles. Once you've done that, check whether Klothild de Baar is notable (with notability as defined not by you or me but instead by Wikipedia's criteria. Then read H:YFA and the pages to which it links. Once you're ready, create a draft. -- Hoary (talk) 06:19, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

@Katharina Lyon-Villiger On WP, number of books doesn't matter, what matters is if reliable sources (WP:RS), independent of the author, has written about her/her books. This rarely happens if the books are self-published (createspace etc), but it does happen. Joy of Cooking was self-published.

Your first hurdle to make an article "stick" is sources. See WP:GNG and WP:BACKWARD. If you conclude "Yeah, I have those sources, no problem!", move on to WP:YFA. If not, write about something else.

I'll add also that trying to make an acceptable WP-article without having done any WP-editing makes your task even harder, so it's recommended that you "just edit" for awhile, to try to get a hang of this place. WP:TUTORIAL is a good start. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:07, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, Katharina Lyon-Villiger, it seems that the comments above were a waste of time, as you created a draft on your user page (an improper place for it). I have moved it to User:Katharina Lyon-Villiger/sandbox; you're welcome to work on it there. -- Hoary (talk) 07:23, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

For a living person, all content must be verified by references (see WP:42). Your draft has none. Rather than list all publications, consider a much shorter list titled Selected publications. Be aware that listing books she has authored does not contribute to confirming Wikipedia-notability. Instead, what is essential is to have text and references for what people have written about her. Do not submit the draft for review until all of this has been remedied. David notMD (talk) 09:02, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @Katharina Lyon-Villiger, and welcome to the Teahouse. The reason that so many replies above advised you to get some significant editing experience before even thinking about creating a new article, is that you have done what nearly all beginners do when they try to create an article: you have written your draft BACKWARDS.

• First, find the sources about de Baar, each of which meets all three of the criteria in 42.
• Then, assuming you can find at least three such sources, forget everything you know about her, and write a summary of what those sources say.
• If that produces a reasonable encyclopaedia article, you can then add some uncontroversial information from non-independent sources (eg places, dates), and you can add a limited bibliography - but preferably containing works which have themselves been the subject of secondary commentary.

If you can't find three such sources, then she is almost certainly not notable in Wikipedia's sense, and there is no point in continuing. ColinFine (talk) 17:27, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Two famous persons without Wiki page

Two persons from West Bengal, the Chief host of ABP Ananda, Suman De and the Bengali nationalist leader Garga Chatterjee of Bangla Pokkho do deserve Wiki pages. People of much less popularity and importance than these two have Wiki pages. Any interested user should create those two pages immediately. জয় বাঙালি। 2409:40E1:10CC:FDE3:9B71:F8D2:36E9:561B (talk) 22:55, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello IP user. "Any interested user" might create those (assuming they meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability). But you probably won't find any sufficiently interested user here. There's a chance you might find somebody interested if you post at WT:Wikiproject India, but maybe not.

Wikipedia is a volunteer project, and people work on what they choose. ColinFine (talk) 23:09, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

I see, I don't know much about Wiki. Pls take my request to Wiki project India and West Bengal. 2409:40E1:10CC:FDE3:9B71:F8D2:36E9:561B (talk) 23:18, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

You can post here. (You've already done so.) And therefore you can post at WT:WikiProject India. But before you do so, think hard. Wikipedia articles aren't awarded for merit. These two people may be very meritorious but nevertheless not qualify for articles, which can be, and are, created about people who aren't meritorious at all. (Are they meritorous? Do they qualify? I've no idea: I haven't attempted to find out.) The first question to ask yourself is whether there are reliable sources that go into detail about each of these two people. -- Hoary (talk) 23:57, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Sort of sounds like an example of WP:Pokemon test to me. I'm sure though, someone will eventually make these pages.

Hey, brainstorm. Just spitballing, but what if you did it? Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 18:00, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Time for Google to Index Article

I created an article almost a month ago and it still hasn't been indexed into google. Does anyone know how much longer this will take? Thanks, Ali Beary (talk) 12:54, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

@Ali Beary Please see WP:INDEXING, that'll tell you everything you need to know. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 12:56, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

It would help to know which article you are referring to- to check and see if it has been patrolled. We have no control over how quickly Google indexes articles. Do you have a particular need for it to appear in search engines quickly? 331dot (talk) 12:56, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Which article? If it is still a draft it will not be indeed by Google. However Google's processes are quite opaque, I've seen them index an article within minutes or even take a week or more. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:00, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Thayne Jasperson. It's not a draft and it's been rated on the content assessment scale, 331dot & Dodger67. Ali Beary (talk) 13:11, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

@Ali Beary: this article hasn't been patrolled yet, that's the likely reason it hasn't been indexed by search engines. (The 'content assessment' has no bearing on this, AFAIK.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:56, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Google doesn't know there exists a new page in the Web waiting to be indexed. In a quite simplified view: their crawler visits all known pages from time to time and collects links from them. If it finds an unknown link, it adds it to the collection and some day it visits that new page, too. And there are only two links from the normally indexed main Wikipedia space coming into the artice (Special:WhatLinksHere/Thayne Jasperson). Additionally, those two (Samuel Seabury & Jon Rua) are not modified too often, so they may be scanned in some longer intervals than average, so Google may have just not discovered the new page yet... --CiaPan (talk) 14:06, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

CiaPan, partly right, but you missed the essential reason it is not indexed. That is because all search engines are blocked from indexing the page, from line 29 of the page Html:

• <meta name="robots" content="noindex,nofollow,max-image-preview:standard">

and the reason that line is there, is as described by others above, and is due to a new user having created a page that hasn't been patrolled yet. After it has been, that line will disappear, the page will become indexable, and Google will pick it up very quickly. See Meta element#The robots attribute. Mathglot (talk) 18:50, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

IP editor keeps making seemingly accidental edits to a page, not sure what to do

An IP user on the page Country code has been randomly adding the country code for Bangladesh and deleting random parts of the page. It seems accidental, however it keeps happening constantly. The comments are various things, including their personal Facebook username (?). They have been warned twice now as well for edits on the same page. I've noticed other IP editors doing the same thing, adding the country code for Bangladesh to the page or deleting random parts of the article. I'm not really sure what I should do, if I should take it up with an administrator, or try and get the page protected. Thanks. TechnoKittyCat (talk) 06:54, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

I will help you! I can report them. Taymallah Belkadri (talk) 07:05, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the help! TechnoKittyCat (talk) 07:13, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

No problem! :) Taymallah Belkadri (talk) 07:16, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Please help get WiiUf to quit spreading misinformation so I can donate to wikipedia! $$$$$$$$ GOD BLESS TRUMP! HATERSHATEBOY (talk) 10:33, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

@TechnoKittyCat – The recommended venue is WP:AIV for cases like these (this doesn't seem "accidental"; it is vandalism per the linked policy). However, seeing as the page has been vandalized repeatedly by different IP addresses, it would probably be a good idea to start a page protection request thread. — 3PPYB6 ^{(T / C / L)} — 07:09, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

@3PPYB6 Thanks for the reply. I do agree that it is vandalism, however, most of the edits seem to not be intentionally destructive and merely users misunderstanding how to use Wikipedia. Thank you for pointing me in the correct direction, I'll look into getting the page protected and report some of the repeat infringers. TechnoKittyCat (talk) 07:15, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

@TechnoKittyCat – Noted. I will probably agree that they probably didn't intend to destroy it but they probably should have stopped upon being called out to do so. Still, such editing remains disruptive to the overall reader. — 3PPYB6 ^{(T / C / L)} — 07:21, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

@TechnoKittyCat and 3PPYB6:, please be aware that Wikipedia's definition of WP:VANDALISM differs in an important way from the definition of the English word. In particular, if the damage is not intentional on the part of the editor, then it is not vandalism, and should neither be reported as vandalism, nor taken to the WP:AIV noticeboard. Even total destruction of an article is not vandalism if the editor in question was attempting to improve it, but messed it up badly because of inattention, lack of skill or experience, or any other reason. Vandalism, in Wikipedia's sense of the word, requires malice and an intention to disrupt the article.

If they did not intend to destroy it in your opinion, then the first step is to add a friendly message on their Talk page informing them of what happened to the page (they may not know or ever find out, if no one tells them), and then explain to them how they can avoid similar problems going forward. Hope this helps. Mathglot (talk) 07:19, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Alright, thank you. Should I remove the vandalism warning on their page? I did not take the case to admin, and instead opted for page protection, and was immediately approved. TechnoKittyCat (talk) 22:17, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

TechnoKittyCat, I had a look at ip 45.125.221.170 (talk · contribs)'s contributions at Country code, and I think your initial instincts about vandalism may have been correct. What I would do now in your shoes, is leave the vandalism warning on their page for the time being, and watch the user's activity. If they do this again, then add a second vandalism warning ({{uw-v2}}) on their page, and wait a bit more. If they do it a third time, add {{uw-v3}}, and then raise an issue at WP:AIV linking to the edits you found questionable, say that you are uncertain if it is vandalism or not, and ask for advice on what to do, pretty much as you have here. If it comes to that, it is probably worth linking this discussion as well at the AIV page. Good luck! Mathglot (talk) 20:08, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. The page has been semi-protected and immediately the rush of IP editors has gone away. I'll continue to watch for any suspicious edits from this specific editor. TechnoKittyCat (talk) 20:47, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Reporting

How do I report in Wikipedia? Taymallah Belkadri (talk) 07:45, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

What kind of report are you asking about, Taymallah Belkadri? (Report of an error? Report of malicious edits? ...) -- Hoary (talk) 07:56, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

If this is related to the thread immediately above, then simply, you do not. (i) Don't promise to do something when you have little or no idea of how to do it. (ii) Another editor has already come to the rescue. -- Hoary (talk) 07:59, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

The published rules re "conflict of interest" seem very strict. Apparently I'm to be discouraged from creating (or even editing?) an article concerning any company for which I've ever worked for -- even if my only interest is historical and I have no axe to grind (so help me!). It would seem that there is value in preserving some defunct company's contribution to the development of a key modern technology. Please advise me. JdelaF (talk) 21:03, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

@JdelaF The guideline can appear strict but is designed not to discourage editing but to encourage disclosure. Many editors work on topics for which they have some type of COI but even paid editors are allowed to draft articles here provided they use the correct process. The guidance at WP:SELFCITE allows you to use some (normally academic) source which you authored, with care. So my advice is to be as open as possible on either your Userpage or the Talk Page of the article but not worry too much about long-past associations, especially where you no longer have any financial stake or the company no longer trades. Mike Turnbull (talk) 22:57, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Divock Origi

I am just totally fed up with editing Divock Origi's Wikipedia page. It is frequently "defended" by Wikipedia folks who simply cannot accept that he no longer plays for the club. The AC Milan club's own website makes it clear that he is no longer a player for the club. The club's directors made it clear that he is no longer part of the team (use your web search engine of choice and choose your trusted source (not that I agree with the concept of trusted source!). He was demoted to the Serie C side (Milan Futuro) but does not feature for that side either. It is reported that he has been allowed to train separately and spends his time between Florence and Rome. It is further reported that he remains in Italy for tax reasons. Look, saying that he "plays for" (present tense) is wrong, inaccurate. OK, let's play the Wikipedia game then: you give me your source for the claim that "he plays for AC Milan". Come on. Where's your source? Finally, I am wondering why this sort of misinformation persists at Wikipedia. 2A02:C7C:D4BF:AD00:E8B7:35B3:3F3:54CD (talk) 22:47, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

The quoted source in the article is from AC Milan itself, which says he has a four-year contract from 2022. If you wish to argue that he no longer plays, then please discuss this on the Talk Page of the article at Talk:Divock Origi. Mike Turnbull (talk) 23:04, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

How’s it going folks?

Answer by replying! 2605:B100:1129:3EBA:F5C1:F97C:E3CE:D855 (talk) 22:53, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Do you have any questions about editing Wikipedia? Cullen328 (talk) 23:19, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

How to stop vandalism?

Hi - I'm an occasional Wikipedia contributor. The entry for an acquaintance, Suzanne Blier, has been under attack, violating NPA [[1]] policy, listing out of context material and making false and misleading claims. The personal attacks have been deleted numerous times by me and other contributors, but the vandalism by the one person continues. How can this material be reviewed and handled appropriately? Thanks. Cdrp221 (talk) 21:52, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

The article has been protected to prevent editing. Please discuss issues on the talk page. You should also disclose your conflict of interest, see WP:COI. 331dot (talk) 22:13, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Cdrp221, that article has not been vandalized. Vandalism requires a deliberate, conscious intent to damage the encyclopedia. Disagreements about content are not vandalism. Suzanne Blier has been subjected to an onslaught of promotional editing pushing a specific point of view by new editors who do not understand Wikipedia's policies and guidelines despite claiming to. Promotional editing and POV pushing is forbidden on Wikipedia is strictly forbidden by policy. We have a core content policy requiring neutrality. Several previous accounts have been blocked for violating our policies so you need to be cautious. Make your case calmly at Talk: Suzanne Blier. Cullen328 (talk) 23:52, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Content Assessment

Hey Teahouse, I am working on improving the article Quinte Health. Could someone look over the article and see if it can be moved up class per Wikipedia:Content assessment? (It is currently "Start-class") If not what should be specifically done to improve it? Thank you! CF-501 Falcon (talk) 23:42, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi CF-501 Falcon, and welcome to the Teahouse. I have just upgraded this article to C-class, as I feel it has sufficient content and sources to merit such a grade. Regards Nick Moyes (talk) 00:54, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Nick Moyes, Thank you. Do you have any advice on what to add to further the article? Again, Thank you. CF-501 Falcon (talk) 01:05, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

@CF-501 Falcon I've not looked in detail for sources, but often organisations do get involved in disputes or controversies. Ignore any very minor news stories, but do look for major stories about treatment concerns, mismanagement or legal action. This might well fit into such a section. It's important that Wikipedia (being a neutral encyclopaedia) collates and presents all relevant stories - both good and bad - in a balanced but informative manner. Avoid trivial detail, and keep such matters short and sweet. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:40, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Hey @Nick Moyes, I completely forgot about that. I will look into any major disputes or controversies. Thanks, CF-501 Falcon (talk) 00:03, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

@CF-501 Falcon I've not looked at that specific article but there is general advice about B-class assessment at WP:ASSESS. Some people use the semi-automated tool at WP:RATER to help. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:15, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

@Michael D. Turnbull, I will check it out. Thank you, CF-501 Falcon (talk) 14:45, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

space engineers 2

I am having trouble with this since it is my first time making a page so I was wondering if I could have help maybe? 45.78.143.73 (talk) 20:47, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:space engineers 2

I'm sorry but I think it is very unlikely that an article can be written on this topic yet as it appears to have recieved no independent, reliable coverage. There's not even a press release, just speculations which are of no interest to Wikipedia. You might need to pick another topic, or wait until there is anything concrete to say about this one. -- D'n'B-t -- 20:57, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Teahouse hosts are here to advise, not author or co-author. David notMD (talk) 04:20, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

WP Style questions

I've noticed that many articles will make statements in the top section without citation and then have more detail, with citation, below. I'm inclined to add the citation to the first mention of the fact but since I commonly see that it is not I'm wondering if there is a WP convention not to put citations in the opening.

The instance that provoked this post is Gail Slater. It says in the opening that she is nominee for Asst. AG for Antitrust without a citation.

Near the end of the article, it has further details with a citation. But, unless there is a reason not to, I'd be inclined to add the reference to the first mention.

Also, while I'm posting here, the citation is to a NY Times article that would be subject to a paywall. Since I am sure there are lots of reliable sources without paywalls, I'd be inclined to add one of them. These questions about about general practices more than this specific case.

So, I'll also add that if there is a good WP Style guide or FAQ that answers questions like these, I apologize for not finding it myself but willl appreciate it if you point me to it. Jreiss17 (talk) 20:00, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

@Jreiss17 The first part of an article is called the lead in Wikipedia and as that linked page explains, it is intended to be a summary of what follows, and is cited, later. Some leads do indeed also include citations but some of our very best featured articles don't. One thing that is almost always an error is when the lead has a citation which isn't also used in the body of the article, using named references. Mike Turnbull (talk) 20:08, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

.... there is a manual of style which covers many other details but is perhaps too daunting for most people. You can usually get help/guidance by using the search bar with the prefix WP: followed by the keywords you are interested in (e.g. WP:PAYWALL) but asking here at the Teahouse is also fine! Mike Turnbull (talk) 20:14, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Jreiss17, the relevant guideline can be found at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, which says Because the lead usually repeats information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Although the presence of citations in the lead is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article, there is no exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. As for the New York Times reference, I would leave it in and supplement it with a more accessible reference. The New York Times often goes into much greater detail than free sources, and there are many ways to access their content. For example, subscribers (like me) can send gift links to non-subscribers. Cullen328 (talk) 20:15, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. That's all clear and helpful. I also subscribe to NY Times but assume most WP readers do not. But I do agree the greater depth can be helpful. In general, I rarely (never?) delete citations others put in a article.Jreiss17 (talk) 06:42, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

THank you all. That is clear and helpful.Jreiss17 (talk) 07:03, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Collapsed TOC

I've been working on Attacks on the United States, which subsequently has a lot of headers. I noticed on Timeline of the Russian invasion of Ukraine (1 August 2024 – present) that the table of contents is collapsed inside itself (drop-down arrows for "August", "September", "October", ect...). How can I set that up to help make the TOC on my article more manageable? The attacks on US article is already subdivided by "1776–1899", "1900–1945", ect... as level 3 headers, so the way the Russian timeline TOC is set up would be perfect for this article as well. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:44, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Weather Event Writer, see {{Horizontal TOC}}. Mathglot (talk) 08:14, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

About my account retrieval

Hi there! I recently forgot password of my User account named "Wallu2" and unfortunately because of not having email attached to it I am unable to retrieve my account back! Can anyone please assist me in this issue regarding whether how can I now reset my password, or will I have to create new account with different username as per stated on Help:Logging in#What if I forget the password or username?, I am afraid of being caught by sockpuppetry evasion! Thanks! 202.59.13.116 (talk) 11:57, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

If you cannot remember your password and you didn't have an email address attached to your account, the account is unfortunately inaccessible. You will indeed need to create a new account. You can identify it as a successor account ("I am User5678, I was User1234 but lost access") 331dot (talk) 12:00, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

@331dot: Thank You for your assistance! I have made my new account named User:Wallu2Back, can you please help me redirect my previous user account page to this new account? Thanking in advance! Wallu2Back (talk) 06:59, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't know if I would make it an actual redirect but you can do as you did on your current user page and place a link on your old user page to your new one. 331dot (talk) 08:34, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Article owners

I know there are 6.9 million articles in Wikipedia. But, how can we see the creator name in an article? Taymallah Belkadri (talk) 15:43, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

The creator of an article does not own that article nor is the creator of an article ever really relevant. You can view the entire edit history of an article using the history link on each article page. Simonm223 (talk) 15:46, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

For popular-topic articles (example: Vitamin C), an article likely started years ago, with scores if not hundreds of editors modifying it since then. As Simonm223 mentioned, View history will always show the editor who started an article. David notMD (talk) 16:32, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

And newer versions of the article may contain none of the text from its earliest author. WikiBlame can show you who authored a specific part of an article; I imagine doing so for an entire article likely requires some

more sophisticated program. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 17:08, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Any article can be analysed by the page statistics tool, which is accessed from the History tab. In the case of Vitamin C, for example, there is detailed output at xtools and you can see why David notMD had it in mind. You can use the same sort of tool to analyse your own edits: see "Edit count" at the foot of your contributions page. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:19, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

why complicate things? @Taymallah Belkadri: Simply go to "history" of the page, then click on "oldest", at the bottom is the article creator. —usernamekiran (talk) 20:13, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Taymallah, the easiest way is to go to your Preferences, then click Gadgets, and find the entry in the Appearance section which says:

• XTools: dynamically show statistics about a page's history under the page heading

and check the box in front of it, and click the blue Save button. This will give you the creator of the page, and some other handy statistics, right at the top of the article. But as others have pointed out, there is a page creator, but no page "owner". Mathglot (talk) 08:38, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

What if a wiki rule worsens an article? Can I ignore?

Hello, an article went backwards where for many years, it was originally so much more informative and helpful for readers like in 2019 (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Korean_War&oldid=1049732432) but regressed just to conform to a rule which doesn't suit it. Previously the results info box in article for Korean war says (Inconclusive - military stalemate and list key summary points that btw aren't even nuances but straight indisputable key facts of the war's outcome. And they are hardly taking too much space either. I was just surprised to see it all removed so in good faith, I added in this edit [2], which got reverted because of that wiki rule. It's no skin off my nose and I do not wish to edit war but I just don't understand following such an arbitrary rule that arguably worsens the article in terms of being user friendly reading at a glance. I want to know what are my options to address this issue before I give up and justt let the article regress. IP49XX (talk) 03:51, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Korean war

The Teahouse is not the best place to resolve a content dispute; you would be better off raising your concern at Talk:Korean War. I looked at the revert, which gave the reasoning and a link in the edit summary; if you disagree with their reasoning, that would be the starting point for your Talk page discussion. That said, an Infobox is intended to be a summary, and there is no need to explain an English word with a parenthetical appositive. If you think removal of the parenthetical worsens the article, by all means say that at the Talk page, and provide your reasons; perhaps other editors will agree, and if you establish consensus there, then you will be able to re-add your content. Mathglot (talk) 06:48, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

@Mathglot Kinda my point. An infobox is intended to be a summary and objectively, "inconclusive - stalemate" is arguably far superior and informative summary of Korean war's results than "inconclusive" as it quickly conveys a less vague picture. Note that I did not create this version but the collective editors of the past who together formed the 2019 version, most definitely made a decent summary of the results in results info box and it's a shame that their work has gone to waste. But the question I ask here is not focused on content perse, but more on what does an editor do when a particular rule prevents someone from improving that article? Is it Wikipedia etiquette to follow the rule always even if it's the only thing preventing a perfectly acceptable improvement to an article? Or is there a clause to wiggle room to negotiate and review on individual circumstances and make exceptions to the rule? The reason I abandoned discussion on talk is because others bring up the rule and not sure how strict it is to allow exceptions as the topic pretty much ends at "it's the rule and end of story". I can only continue if there is even an option or clause that a Wikipedia rule can be ignored under certain circumstances. IP49XX (talk) 08:53, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

IP49XX, there is almost always wiggle room for negotiation and exceptions. See WP:5P5. But if people are objecting, and your side of the negotiation fails, it's not possible merely to assert that your view reflects an actual improvement where opposing views do not. Consensus is stronger than policy, with some exceptions, typically involving legal issues. Folly Mox (talk) 12:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

@IP49XX Just to say that, in fact, ignore all rules is a policy. The point is that you still need to argue that the change you want to make will improve the encyclopedia and reach consensus that it will. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:56, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

IP49XX is arguing at Talk:Korean War#Stalemate against a very clear provision in the military MOS: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Military history#Primary infoboxes which states "The infobox does not have the scope to reflect nuances, and should be restricted to "X victory" or "Inconclusive". Where the result does not accurately fit with these restrictions use "See aftermath" (or similar) to direct the reader to a section where the result is discussed." and WP:Manual_of_Style/Infoboxes#Purpose. I advised them that the MOS was developed to present a consistent approach across pages and all the issues that they raise have been considered, but they are welcome to raise this for discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history, which is the appropriate venue. They do not just get to "ignore all the rules" on this. Mztourist (talk) 10:27, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

I want to add new column in a table

column TrueMoriarty (talk) 07:22, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi, TrueMoriarty. Are you using the Visual Editor, or the source code editor? In Visual Editor, it is very easy to add a new column, just click the column header of one of the columns to visualize a small widget above the column header, then click the widget to get a drop-down which includes a pair of insert column links. Hope this helps! Mathglot (talk) 08:10, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

thank TrueMoriarty (talk) 10:58, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

My Draft article was rejected,even I added reliable, credible and independent sources.

My Draft article was rejected,even I added reliable, credible and independent sources to verify.But I think every Wikipedia reviewer is likely here to reject every draft.Because the do no want to come up others.These was by draft.draft:Yaarian Bantomey (talk) 12:33, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Yaarian was Declined, which is less severe than Rejected. Hundreds of drafts are submitted to English Wikipedia every day, and the cadre of volunteer reviewers do their best to evaluate every draft. David notMD (talk) 12:40, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

@Bantomey Civility is important. Directing incivility towards all reviewers is deeply unpleasant. That, alone, would be sufficient to discourage anyone from making a further review.

Please confirm that you read and understood the reason it was declined. If you have further questions, generally the first person to ask is the reviewer, Idoghor Melody. Put plain, however, the song fails WP:NSONG as presented in your draft.

You have work to do. Please seek to prove it passes NSONG, and resubmit. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:41, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Your references confirm the song exists, but are not about the song, i,e, are not reviews. Also, Times of India not always considered a reliable source reference, and it is impossible that you retrieved these references in 2019 for a song released in 2023. See song articles linked at Guru Randhawa for better examples. David notMD (talk) 12:45, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Bedford Park school artical

Hello,

My name is Mobina Maghami. I wrote an artical about my school, Bedford Park School, after spending a year researching it. My goal is to help more people learn about the school and encourage them to consider it as a great place for education.

I have attempted to publish my article several times on Wikipedia, but it keeps getting regected. I am uncure why, as I makde sure not to include anything inapproprate or incorrect. It has been a long process, and I am eager to see it published because no one has written about my school on Wikipedia yet.

I would greatly appreciate your help in understanding why it was rejected and how I can improve the article to meet Wikipedia's standards. It means a lot to me to contribute accurate information about my school.

Thank you for your time and guidance.

Mobinaa2012 (talk) 01:42, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

The article, Mobinaa2012, has been declined, not rejected. (In the context of Wikipedia drafts, there's a difference.) A notice at the top says: "the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

• "in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
• "reliable
• "secondary
• "strictly independent of the subject

"Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting." And it says this with a profusion of links, so that if you don't know what for example "reliable" means in this context, you can click on "reliable" and find out. Certainly not all that you read will necessarily be easy to understand, and people here in the "teahouse" are willing to explain the difficult bits. But which bits are difficult? -- Hoary (talk) 02:09, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

@Mobinaa2012: Welcome to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1243. I would consider maybe tackling another subject if your goal is to help more people learn about the school and encourage them to consider it as a great place for education. Wikipedia is not a place to promote its article subjects. In fact, some other veteran editors who frequent this page will strongly recommend you edit existing pages before you even think about creating a new article from scratch. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:18, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

@Mobinaa2012 Welcome to the Teahouse. As the above comment says, Wikipedia is not the place to promote its subjects, so it is unlikely your article will be published if there aren't enough WP:RELIABLE SOURCES on the topic. TheWikiToby (talk) 05:35, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi, @Mobinaa2012. I've had a look at the draft. I agree with the feedback you have had that this is not yet ready to be published, because it doesn't have enough independent, reliable sources to verify the statements in the article. But as this is a school which has existed since 1911, I think it's likely that sources do exist which could be added. This article from the Toronto Observer, for instance. I would suggest you have a hunt for newspaper and local history sources which have covered the school. WikiProject Schools may have other ideas. Have a look at referencing for beginners, too, and make sure you add all the relevant information to any sources you cite - date, publisher etc. Best wishes, Tacyarg (talk) 11:07, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Just realised, @Mobinaa2012, that it's an elementary school. This does change the picture a bit - it tends to be harder to demonstrate that elementary schools are notable in Wikipedia terms and that coverage of them is not just routine, run-of-the mill. You might do better trying out smaller tasks on Wikipedia, or the WP:ADVENTURE, to get a feel for how good content on Wiki works. Best wishes, Tacyarg (talk) 12:48, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

How do I get rid of a space?

In Pietro Aretino, under "The Last Judgment" is " [T]he sagging flayed skin". I can't get rid of the space after the opening quotation mark. The opening quotation mark had previously been at the end of the previous line. To move it down to the line with "[T]he sagging flayed skin" I inserted {{n b s p}}. (I just added spaces between the letters so that they would be visible in this Teahouse question.) That succeeded in moving the opening quotation mark down to the next line, but it left the inappropriate space after the opening quotation mark. How do I fix that? Maurice Magnus (talk) 13:30, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

@Maurice Magnus: There's a non-breaking space between the opening quotation mark and "[", put there by the {{nbsp}} template. Remove the template and the space will go. To stop the text breaking where you don't want it to break, use the {{nowrap}} template. Bazza 7 (talk) 13:49, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

@Bazza 7 I can't figure out how to insert the nowrap template. Would you do it please (and I'll see how you do it)? Thanks Maurice Magnus (talk) 13:58, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

@Maurice Magnus You might also want to think of better wording prior to the quotation so as to give greater understanding of the context. Something like this, maybe? James Connor notes that, in Michelangelo's The Last Judgment, completed in 1541, he had painted Saint Bartholomew displaying his own flayed skin: "[T]he sagging... Nick Moyes (talk) 14:13, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes. Good suggestion. I've put it in, and it solves the space problem without the use of any template. Thanks. Maurice Magnus (talk) 14:22, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Another editor — User talk:Deor — put in the nowrap template anyway, so now I know how to do it. Thanks, everybody. Maurice Magnus (talk) 14:35, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

The shortest pencil

Hello, my brother keeps saying that the worlds shortest pencil is just a tiny piece of led is he true? CaCaCaCatherine (talk) 00:26, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

@CaCaCaCatherine: Welcome to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1243. Did you have a question about using or editing Wikipedia specifically? Questions like yours are better posed at one of the reference desks. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:38, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

@CaCaCaCatherine It is false. Pencils do not contain lead. You can read all about pencils in our pencil article. Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:27, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

I mean, graphite is almost always called lead, but it's still an effectively unanswerable question. Cremastra ‹ u — c › 15:00, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Archiving a talk section

Hello! I've just finished writing a section in Talk:2024 Syrian opposition offensive, and since the matter has been resolved, I'd like to archive it. However, it seems rather difficult to do based on the instructions in Help:Archiving a talk page, and I wouldn't want to mess anything up. What would be the proper way to archive it, and should I even archive it to begin with? Thanks. SirDoor (talk) 14:35, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

@SirDoor, I've added archives and archived anything that hasn't had a comment in 7 days. A bot will take over. Valereee (talk) 15:01, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

the myth of the west article has a problem

 Courtesy link: Frontier myth

Frontier myth - Wikipedia: the article says that the west myth was created up through the 20th century - that would mean the myth of the west was created until 24 years ago. The myth claims that people were moving to the new frontier until the country was fully formed - Alaska and Hawaii were made states in the 1950s bringing the country to 50 states. Baby Boomers were being born from 1946 through 1963 and are not a myth nor is Vietnam or Korea or World War II. Both Teddy Roosevelt and Franklin Delano Roosevelt were US Presidents and did exist. Please read and correct the article so it makes some sense. 199.66.171.52 (talk) 05:28, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you that the wording is confusing. Currently it says:

The American frontier occurred throughout the 17th to 20th centuries as European Americans colonized and expanded across North America.

You can edit the article yourself. Feel free to do so, and make the wording clearer. I would probably go with: "through the 19th century", but use your best judgment. Mathglot (talk) 08:20, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

When writing or improving an article about the Frontier myth. one not need be too concerned about the fact that Teddy Roosevelt and FDR actually existed. Neither was mythical and Teddy, in particular, was associated as an actual popular heroic figure as a hunter, explorer, cattle rancher under extremely adverse conditions, and Rough Rider in combat against Spanish troops in Cuba. Quite shortly thereafter, he was president of the United States. To the best of my knowledge, FDR is not associated with frontier myths. Hawaii was a kingdom plagued by terrible luck in its royal family. Alaska was an unprofitable Russian commercial colony. The United States obtained both under dubious circumstances as seen from today's perspective, but they are both firmly part of the United States today. Cullen328 (talk) 09:22, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

The OP might benefit from reading the article Myth, which in the context of History has a different meaning to the everyday one. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.211.243 (talk) 18:07, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

From starting with editing wiki articles to publishing my third article

I am thankful to Wikipedia editors here who provided guidance and helped me with my articles editing journey to where i successfully published two articles. i am on the journey to make addition to wikipedia with my article draft:Southbridge Investments a pan-african company promoting real solutions to ailing problems that have affected the continent. The company is led by a former president of the African development bank and former prime minister. Even though the company is in Kigali, Rwanda and i am based in Nigeria, i think there are some reasonable number of sources that meets Wikipedia:Notability requirements to qualify my draft for an article. But as i keep improving i will still be relying on the assistance of the dedicated efforts of editors here. thank you Marvs100 (talk) 09:05, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Marvs100: your draft states that its subject is a division of "southbridge group". Wouldn't it make more sense to create an article about the parent company, rather than about one of its divisions? Maproom (talk) 10:29, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

I thought about that at first but later realized during my research that the sources have covered mainly about Southbridge investments and very little about Southbridge group. Most media sources published news on the investment subsidiary of the group. Thanks a great deal for the advice. Marvs100 (talk) 18:17, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

When is it okay to have multiple Wikipedia accounts, if at all?

If I want to have a second Wikipedia account, say to review changes I've made to my sandbox or an article in a different view, would it be okay to do so? And if so, should they be "linked" in some way? (or are there other uses for multiple accounts?) Or is it seen as a sock/meat puppet account and would get me into trouble? Therguy10 (talk) 17:49, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, please see WP:VALIDALT for legitimate uses of alternative accounts. 331dot (talk) 17:53, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

This has the answers I wanted; thank you! Therguy10 (talk) 17:55, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Therguy10, when you write say to review changes I've made to my sandbox, that sounds problematic to me. It could be interpreted as trying to make it appear that two people were involved with that sandbox, instead of just one. Cullen328 (talk) 18:27, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328 Oh no sorry that's not what I meant by that! Let me clarify that so there isn't any confusion!

I was merely suggesting another account to view said article; not make changes to it. (That would most definitely cause confusion!) If I viewed the article on an "alt" account and found issues, I would simply switch to my "main" and make the changes. (The alt account would be used to see what a fresh perspective would see viewing said article, but not making any changes to it)

I hope that clears things up! (Oh and if it's still an issue and against Wikipedia standards then please let me know!) Therguy10 (talk) 18:50, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Therguy10, what you would see with an alternate account would be identical to what you see with your main account. Cullen328 (talk) 19:10, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

the Read and Edit screens display the same whether you've been an editor on that page or not. I don't see the neet of an 'alt' view. By definition, changing to the Read page is the view of the finishied/published product. Alegh (talk) 19:15, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Understood. I won't worry about making an alt account for now then. Thank you! Therguy10 (talk) 19:30, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

@Therguy10: An alternative account can have different preferences which affect the appearance of pages. See WP:TESTALT, but it's mainly used by more advanced users who have changed important things in their main account. The vast majority of readers have no account so you can just log out to test that. If you want to check how a page looks in other skins then you can see this without changing preferences by adding ?useskin=monobook or another skin name to the url. If the url alrady has a ? then add &useskin=monobook. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:35, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

"what you would see with an alternate account would be identical to what you see with your main account" This is not necessarily true. My main account uses a non-default skin and has a number of gadgets and user-scripts which significantly modify the appearance of articles. That said, viewing an article in a private browser window without logging in works for me and should give User:Therguy10 the perspective they desire. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:14, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

That seems like a better option than an alt account for sure. Thank you! Therguy10 (talk) 20:34, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

John Wesley Cotton

•  Courtesy link: John Wesley Cotton

Dear Teahouse: This article about the artist is correct and should be placed under his name instead of an incorrect article by a private gallery which has the wrong nationality (his place of birth was in Canada) and date of birth. Thank you. Joan arden murray (talk) 21:11, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi Joan arden murray. Did you mean the article is "incorrect"? For reference, the naming of articles is supposed to follow the policy specified in WP:ARTICLETITLE, and the name utimtely chosen is expected to follow WP:COMMONNAME. If you feel the name of the article should be changed, the best place to propose this is at Talk:John Wesley Cotton. If you can show that reliable sources regularly refer to this person by this other name, then including links or information about those sources in your post will help get the name changed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:40, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi. I meant the article I started for Wikipedia should be placed on the internet uhder his name at the top of the page on him. Right now there is an article from a private gallery in the US placed there. Could you replace it please? Thank you.Joan arden murray (talk) 00:15, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

@Joan arden murray: Wikipedia doesn't really have any control over the how things appear or in which order they appear in Internet search results. It also doesn't have any control over how private galleries post information on their websites. You could, I guess, contact the gallery directly and explain the error if you want, but there's really nothing Wikipedia can do to "fix" this kind of thing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:24, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Got it! Thanks anyway.Joan arden murray (talk) 00:58, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Non-autoconfirmed board

Why is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Non-autoconfirmed posts in Administrators' noticeboard/ and archived to the same archive as AN, when it's only linked from WP:ANI (for non-autoconfirmed users when it's locked) and not from WP:AN? – 2804:F1...6F:C038 (::/32) (talk) 00:52, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Also for some reason the posts are still being archived at archive 300, when the latest archive is 366. – 2804:F1...6F:C038 (::/32) (talk) 01:01, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Cross-site watchlist

I'm wondering if there's any way to have a single watchlist that will cover pages across Wikipedia, the Commons, and Wikimedia? I have things on my watchlist in all three places, and while I often check my watchlist on here, I often forget about the other two. – OdinintheNorth (talk) 00:01, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

@OdinintheNorth yes: meta:Special:GlobalWatchlist. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 01:22, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you!! – OdinintheNorth (talk) 01:24, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

On the link you shared. I saw only my activities on "Meta-Wiki".

I don't see anything from "Wikipedia in English language" or "Wikipedia in French language".

Can you explain to us why I don't see the others wikis ? Anatole-berthe (talk) 01:41, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

You need to click the "settings" button and add sites whose watchlists you want to see. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 01:43, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I tested but I can't add "wikidata" and "mediawiki"

It does seem normal but I have a doubt. I can add others projects without any problems. Anatole-berthe (talk) 02:27, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I think you have to do www.wikidata.org, www.mediawiki.org, etc. for multilingual sites. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 02:28, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I tried with "wikidata.org" and "mediawiki.org".

I followed your advice that is add the three "W". It's running rightly !

Thanks you ! Anatole-berthe (talk) 02:37, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

No problem. Happy editing! '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 02:41, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

My edit got deleted

 Courtesy link: Manga outside Japan

Greetings, My edit from Manga Outside Japan Wikipedia got deleted. I am affirmative that my information are correct. I have included news links , research papers etc. to verify. What should I do to include those text again? I have copied text from the news. Should I re-write those and add the news link? I am new, so please help me. Thank you so much. Manga outside Japan Blank Leo (talk) 08:36, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

A reason was clearly given for the reversion of your edits: "Text copypasted from thedailystar.net omitted." Are you saying that text was not copy-pasted from thedailystar.net? -- Hoary (talk) 08:42, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

No, I copypasted. I thought I have to do that. Sorry for the mistake then. Should I write on my own based on this data instead and reedit it to fix the issue? Blank Leo (talk) 08:46, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi, Blank Leo! Welcome to Wikipedia! The reverting editor, User:Spintendo left this comment on the revert acttion: Text copypasted from thedailystar.net omitted. That means your text violates copyright of The Daily Star publisher, which is illegal. Please see the Wikipedia policy:Wikipedia:Copyright violations. Copyrighted materials must not be copied or quoted in large parts here. --CiaPan (talk) 08:51, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I understood. I will write it from the start with the help of references so it does not paraphrase or gets copy-paste the existed. Blank Leo (talk) 08:56, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Blank Leo, you absolutely cannot copy and paste from copyrighted sources, except for brief quotations clearly indicated as direct quotes and attributed to the source. Please read Wikipedia:Copyright violations. The website in question has this warning at the bottom of its pages: Copyright: Any unauthorized use or reproduction of The Daily Star content for commercial purposes is strictly prohibited and constitutes copyright infringement liable to legal action. Wikipedia content is freely licensed and routinely used for commercial purposes. Cullen328 (talk) 08:58, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! I understood.Blank Leo (talk) 09:16, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

@Blank Leo: I have added a message to your talk page wih a handful of useful links. They provide information on copyright concers at Wikipedia as well as rules and hints on effective use of external sources. Please take the time to go through them – there is WP:NORUSH on Wikipedia, and it's always easier to learn from manuals than from our errors. I hope the initial mistake will not discourage you and you'll soon find a right and satisfying way of contributing to this amazing project. CiaPan (talk) 09:06, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I have already started to read those. Sorry for my stupid mistake. Grateful to you!!Blank Leo (talk) 09:15, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @Blank Leo, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia. Your mistake was not stupid. Wikipedia is different from many sites on the internet in a number of ways: one is in its careful approach to copyright. Another is in its insistence on reliable published sources.

There is no reason why a new editor should be aware of this: you have unintentionally participated in one of the normal processes of editing Wikipedia, called Bold, Revert, Discuss. You made a bold edit, somebody reverted you, and you have discussed it. In this case, you have also learnt something you didn't know. Congratulations! ColinFine (talk) 17:32, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

So kind of you. Thank you so much!Blank Leo (talk) 06:57, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

youtu.be

Why is youtu.be blacklisted? How is it different to the main youtube.com url? (tag me in replies please) Industrial Metal Brain (talk) 07:43, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Because, Industrial Metal Brain, it's a redirecting address. It has no advantage over youtube.com for those who click on it. -- Hoary (talk) 08:02, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Please Help me to upload "Song of Tibet.JPG to the film item

Please Help me to upload "Song of Tibet.JPG to the film item. It says it seems you do not have the copyright. It is a film poster of 24 years ago. Jingfua (talk) 02:28, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Jingfua, you don't say what help you want. And Song of Tibet.JPG is not in Wikimedia Commons or English-language Wikipedia. When you say "It says", what do you mean by "It"? Why would you think a 24-year-old poster would be in the public domain? -- Hoary (talk) 08:08, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi Jingfua, You have already succesfully uploaded Song of Tibet poster.jpg. But you do still need to awnser the copyright questions on that page before it gets deleted. A easy way to do this could be with the template {{Film poster rationale}} - just fill in who owns the image. -- D'n'B-t -- 08:07, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

page veiws

is there a way to see how many views a Wikipedia page I made has? NossonLA (talk) 01:01, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

On any page, you can click on the "Page information" link, which shows information about the page, including "Page views in the last 30 days". You can then click on the view count to see more detailed information about page views. CodeTalker (talk) 01:23, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Or click "Pageviews" at top of the page history. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:48, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

thank u so much for helping me 😀 CodeTalker and PrimeHunter NossonLA (talk) 08:17, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

If someone leaves a comment on my Talk page, will that person see (or at least be notified of) my reply?

If someone leaves a comment on my Talk page, will that person see (or at least be notified of) my reply? (That is, my reply posted on the same page [my Talk page], below their comment) Captain Quirk (talk) 01:25, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

If the person follow your "Talk Page" with the "Watchlist" . This person will receive a notification.

The same if the person activated notifications by mails.

Messages on a "Talk Page" are public. Everyone can read these. Anatole-berthe (talk) 01:34, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Captain Quirk. The best way to be sure that another editor is aware of your response on any page, including your own talk page, is to ping the editor. I have just pinged you. Please read Help:Notifications for a detailed description. Cullen328 (talk) 01:42, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

So then, how do you "ping" them? Instructions please. Billyshiverstick (talk) 03:02, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Use the character @. When you use this character , pseudonymous appears. Anatole-berthe (talk) 03:14, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

@Billyshiverstick If you use the [ reply ]-button, the reply-window has a little-guy-with-a-plus button that can be use to ping people. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:43, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Basically . —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 07:08, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

That's the one. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:25, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

@Captain Quirk: Welcome to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1243. Assuming that they haven't fiddled with their preferences, they should get a notification in their , as they should be subscribed automatically when they made the original post. Of course, the best way to be sure is to ping them as Cullen328 pointed out. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:47, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I discovered today we can ping an user. Anatole-berthe (talk) 02:12, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Reliable Sources

Hello! I just wanna ask if X (formerly Twitter) can be exception to the Government account? I was 50-50 here because I was approving a draft article and I don't know if failed on WP:SOCIALMEDIA or WP:TWITTER? Hope can help me, thanks! Royiswariii Talk! 00:03, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Royiswariii. Although I do not fully understand your question, the relevant policy language can be found at WP:TWITTER which you already linked to. If you can ask your question more clearly, perhaps we can help you in greater detail. Please explain what you mean by "Government account". Cullen328 (talk) 01:37, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Cullen328, On Draft:Upper Hand Organization the cite this post of Metropoliceuk on X a gray checkmark says This account is verified because it is a government or multilateral organization account. which is that account controlled by UK Government or I think division of UK Government. There is a exception on this reference? Royiswariii Talk! 02:04, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Royiswariii, an official tweet from a verified X/Twitter account is a primary source, and the relevant policy language can be found at WP:PRIMARY. In my opinion, that particular tweet is so vague and lacking in detail that I do not think that it adds anything of value to that draft. Cullen328 (talk) 03:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

@Royiswariii The BBC and Channeldraw sources you already cite are much better as both are secondary and the BBC at least is considered reliable for Wikipedia. There is no need for multiple extra primary sources and you should simply delete them. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:03, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Illryian pure sport

Hello my page was declined I wanted to know what I should add to this car brand Mrmacrobloxteleb (talk) 21:41, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Mrmacrobloxteleb, I assume you mean Draft:Illyrian pure sport (sport car brand). I am by no means a very experienced editor so take my words with a grain of salt. The reason given by the reviewer at AfC was:

"This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources."

Your draft has one citation, while it should ideally have one for every fact that may be challenged. I would suggest reading over the blue links above and; Wikipedia:Simplified Manual of Style, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability and your first article. Good luck, CF-501 Falcon (talk) 22:21, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Mrmacrobloxteleb, and welcome to the Teahouse. I will echo CF-501's advice, and say more.

First, creating a new article is a very challenging task for new editors. 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.

In this case, the crucial policy that you have not carried out before creating your draft is to determine whether the car is notable or not, in Wikipedia's sense (broadly, that there has been enough reliably published, independent material, published about it to ground an article on). This is like starting to build a house without first surveying the land to see if it is suitable to build on.

The one source you have cited looks to me as if it is reliable, but not very independent: the author says some things about the car that are probably his own thoughts, but much about it - and in particular, everything about how it came to be - are quoted from Thaqi, and so not independent. I would say therefore that this might be a useful source if you already had at least three sources that meet all three requirements in WP:42. But until you have found at least three such sources, putting any work at all into this draft is a waste of your time. ColinFine (talk) 17:15, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia refuses Gen Beta until reputable sources say it?

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.

---

The popular Media has revealed news stories as of late accepting the change officially now.

I realize it is up to more than that and Wikipedia's community will deny the switch until it's even more apparent, but I'm pointing it out now: Gen Beta cometh.

https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Living/generation-names-and-years/story?id=114802892

https://1075koolfm.com/new-generation-begins-in-2025-gen-beta/

https://www.nationthailand.com/news/general/40042288

https://www.sinardaily.my/article/223756/culture/life/2025-marks-the-dawn-of-a-new-generation-welcome-gen-beta Timelinessly Timelinessly (talk) 19:54, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

@Timelinessly Please understand that Wikipedia is not ever going to be first with the news. It's not news media. It records what is said about a topic in reliable secondary sources. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:03, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

@Timelinessly We have already had Generation Beta as a soft redirect to Wiktionary since last May. Now that the name is gaining traction in ? reliable sources, you should be able to expand that into a full article. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:11, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I would if I could, but it's fully protected and probably would get deleted soon after I do that. Timelinessly (talk) 17:11, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

@Timelinessly Please see, and use, {{Edit fully-protected}} if you wish edits to be made to a fully protected article, use the process at WP:AFC if you feel an article is merited when one is absent. Please do not feel despondent. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:18, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @Timelinessly. If you think that sources exist to establish notability (remember that they should each meet all three parts of the criteria in WP:42), then the thing I would recommend to inexperienced editors is to create a draft using WP:AFC.

Having said that, though 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) 17:19, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I am fairly confident in editing Wikipedia, I understand how it works. I just want to communicate my reputable sources to warrant this article so as to not get my edits undone. Timelinessly (talk) 17:21, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

@Timelinessly Note Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Generation Beta where it was deleted by consensus. If circumstance change the consensus may be very different. Please heed the worlds of advice from@ColinFine and at the head of the deletion discussion. Indeedmplease read the discussion to become better informed about what was wrong with the article as it was then 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:21, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

From what I gathered, it was Wikipedia:Too soon because reputable news sources were not reporting on it, only primary McCrindle sources. That was April, and now ABC, VOA and others report on it, which is why I believe it is warranted now. Timelinessly (talk) 17:23, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

@Timelinessly I recommend most strongly that you use the process at WP:AFC, and get to work. Do not write what yu want to say and then find references to fit, that would be WP:BACKWARDS. Find the references that prove, (WP:V), notability and record, in your own words, what they say. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:26, 8 December 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.

Need someone to review a page

Hello I recently made a page about the album "When You Wake Up" by the singer Molina. It's been published and I would like if someone could review it to tell if it's ok. Also I took some inspiration from other artists albums' pages (I even gave credits to one in the description of the edit you can do) is that alright too?

I don't know if this is the place sorry CrimsonScarletBurgundyy (talk) 21:38, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

@CrimsonScarletBurgundyy I've taken a look at When You Wake Up, and currently it's been nominated in a deletion discussion because it doesn't seem to meet the notability criteria for albums. To improve the article, you need to find more articles (not on Wikipedia, not autobios, etc) to establish notability, as indicated by the criteria linked above. In some cases, the song just isn't notable, and thus can't have an article in its name on Wikipedia. Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 22:43, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

By "its been published" you mean you bypassed AfC and put it in mainspace yourseof. It has been nominated for deletion. Among many problems, having a very lengthy quote from one reviewer is wrong. David notMD (talk) 23:10, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

AI generated text unrelated to artical title, maybe revert

I was reading through a text book on electricity when I wanted to know more about the term "specific potential energy". So I went to the Wikipedia article only to find that the article had been edited by a user using AI and the AI generated text referred to "massic gravitational potential energy" not "specific potential energy" as the unchanged article title would imply. I think that that AI edit should probably be reverted even if the original is quite bare-bones, just because the generated text is referring to a different subject to what is in the title. But since other edits have occurred since then, I think it would be better for a more experienced editor to do the reversion or remove the generated text.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_potential_energy

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Specific_potential_energy&diff=prev&oldid=1185063267 CoderThomasB (talk) 23:42, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi CoderThomasB, I hope you are well. It does seem that this article was generated using AI, and I have reverted the changes made by a suspicious user. Thank you so much for pointing this out and taking so much time out of your day to contribute! Hope you have a great week, L.E. Rainer 23:56, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Can I upload photos from the web for my article about an actress?

Hello!

Thanks in advance for anyone willing to help. I'm writing my first Wikipedia article about my favorite actress. I had one try but the photos I uploaded seem to violate the Wikipedia guidelines. So, now I want to try one more time, but I'm not sure where to find images that are copy-free. The person I want to write about is from Slovakia, all I can do is find images online but how do I know they're copyright free. Is there any other way - may I cite the sources and how, and borrow their images? Please help, thanks. Marijakondic2023 (talk) 23:05, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @Marijakondic2023, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Unless you can find positive evidence that a picture has been released under a suitable licence (or is so old that it will be in the Public domain, then you cannot use it, I'm afraid.

But worrying about images before you have written the article is like worrying about how to decorate the rooms in a house before you have started building the house: leave it till later. Not all Wikipedia articles need to have images, but all Wikipedia articles should have inline citations to reliable independent sources.

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) 00:03, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Deleted page archives

I want to know if there is a place on Wikipedia that archives deleted articles, as I wanted to find the contents of a few deleted articles (specifically the article on the 2028 United States presidential election, which has been deleted.) Thank you, -Sword172 Sword172 (talk) 17:30, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

2028 United States presidential election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is an actual extant article right now though? Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 17:50, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @Sword172. There is very definitely not a place on Wikipedia that archives deleted articles, as they would then not be deleted. But admins can usually see deleted pages, and may be willing to restore them in some circumstances: see WP:UNDELETE. ColinFine (talk) 20:12, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

@Sword172: Also some other places on the Internet may copy Wikipedia pages, before they are deleted. So if you search for the topic you may be able to find a copied but now deleted page. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:17, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

@Sword172: FWIW, there are versions of "2028 United States presidential election" from before then available in the Wayback archive. There's even a history page. See November 29, 2024 version and archived history going back to November 23, 2024. Hint... on the archived history page, the links are actually good, but you have to strip off the part referring to the Wayback archive, i.e. everything before "https://en.wikipedia.org". However, you can't directly do a "diff" of two versions, though if you really need it, this can be done with "Special:diff". Fabrickator (talk) 20:24, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. -OP Sword172 (talk) 00:38, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Use a map captured from a U.S. Army Center of Military History book

I want to capture Map 2 at page 26 of this CMH book https://www.history.army.mil/html/books/091/91-5/index.html, upload to Wiki Commons and use for Battle of Đồng Xoài. Do I need a permission from CMH, or just need to cite the source? Leemyongpak (talk) 09:20, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

@Leemyongpak Although the book is hosted on a US Government website, I would assume that its author will retain copyright, so you can't just upload maps from it to Commons, where only CC BY licenses are allowed. In a brief search of the site, I could not find general copyright information, so your best bet is to contact them and ask. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:47, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

I think CMH allows distributed or copied for non-commerical purposes as declares at https://www.history.army.mil/sec-priv.htm. We even have ACMH template. I just don't know which license I can use for their maps. What do you think? Leemyongpak (talk) 13:04, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @Leemyongpak. Note that licences with the "non-commercial" restriction are not accepted at Commons. I doubt that the maps are available on a more permissive licence than the rest. ColinFine (talk) 15:29, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your answers. I asked another contributor and he confirmed he did it with just citing the CMH book link for source and using {{PD-USGov}} template for license. Leemyongpak (talk) 06:53, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

@Leemyongpak: What someone else did doesn't mean what they did was correct or what they did also applies to this particular map. A mentioned above by Michael Turnbull and ColinFine, being posted on a US government website doesn't automatically make something {{PD-USGov}} because US government websites sometimes host copyrighted content created by third parties, and non-commercial restrictions are too restrictive for Commons. In addition, the CHM Security and Privacy page you linked to above seems self-contradictory and doesn't make much sense from a copyright standpoint. "PD-USGov" by definition means the content isn't under copyright protection; so, there's nothing to protect from commercial re-use because there's nothing eligible for copyright protection. You'd probably be better off asking about this at c:COM:VPC just to make sure because Commons is where the content should be uploaded if it's truly PD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:20, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, someone doubts, other confirms. I just meant if someone did it, anyone can do the same. Here is an example for an editor successful in using CMH map https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Operation_Attleboro_3-4_November_1966.jpg Leemyongpak (talk) 01:33, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

​ It's a "success" only in the sense that the uploader knew how to upload a file to Commons. The licensing of a file uploaded to Commons isn't "checked" or "confirmed" by Commons prior to upload; the c:COM:ONUS falls on the uploader to make sure the file they're uploading is correctly licensed. They're plenty examples of files "successfully" uploaded to Commons eventually ending up deleted (sometimes quickly and sometimes after years have passed) because their licensing was found to be wrong for one reason or another. I only suggested you ask at VPC just to make sure since uploading the file doesn't mean it someone won't nominate or tag it for deletion. If that happens stating "someone else did the same thing" isn't going to matter much because that someone else could also be wrong or the situation might not exactly be the same. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:40, 8 December 2024 (UTC); post edited. -- 22:13, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, @Marchjuly. I was going to make exactly these points but you beat me to it. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:38, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks all for your advice. I have just tried uploading a map of CMH with {{PD-USGov}} license and haven't seen any problem yet. So I consider my problem is solved. I will come back here with a new question if I need further help. Leemyongpak (talk) 03:50, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Uploading an image (logo) in an Infobox

Dear world of Wiki,

I desparately tried uploading our company logo on our German company page: d:Edwards Vacuum.

I have tried all kinds of syntax, but the image won't appear. Edwards Vacuum

Also, for the same page I have a French and Korean version ready (without image - same issue), but those won't publish and I don't understand why not. In the English, original version, the logo does appear but it has been added by a predecessor so I'm not sure how they managed and I can't ask.

Thank you all so much for helping out. E Serluppens (talk) 12:53, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

@E Serluppens Afaict, if this File:Edwards (vacuum) logo.png is the logo in question, you can't add it on other WP:s because it's locally uploaded here on en-WP as "fair use", and so it can't be used on WP:s that don't allow fair use. en-WP go by American law on this, and it's comparatively liberal compared to many other countries.

However, it seems to me that this particular logo falls under "This logo image consists only of simple geometric shapes or text. It does not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection, and is therefore in the public domain." Like for example File:Enhanced Games logo.jpg. Does that make sense to you?

If so, upload your logo here, see how the Enhanced Games one is done and pretty much do it like that. Then you should be able to add it on any WP you want. Hope this helps some. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:07, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

@E Serluppens. Gråbergs Gråa Sång's advice is good and there is extra detailed information at WP:LOGO. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

@E Serluppens@Michael D. Turnbull I see now that E Serluppens did as I suggested... a year ago:[3] I made this edit on de-WP:[4] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:49, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Added it on zh-WP and wikidata [5] as well. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:58, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa SångThank you so much! E Serluppens (talk) 06:08, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

A question

Good evening, I just noticed that anyone can edit my (or anyone's?) User Page. I was wondering, could someone explain the rationale? Isn't there a danger of User Pages being subject to vandalism? Or is there possibly an option to close my User Page to edits by foreign parties? KiltedKangaroo (talk) 10:40, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

This is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. SO by default, others can edit your user page, and perhaps vandalise it. Vandalism can be undone, reverted or possibly hidden from view. The page can be protected. But we probably still want you to be able to edit your own user page. Usually it is vandals that are opposed to you, your opinion or your work that will vandalise. But they will also be blocked if they persist. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:03, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Much to that end, I've only ever had one person vandalise my userspace, my talk page to be exact, and I've done a bunch of anti-vandalism work in the past so I'd kind of expect more. If people vandalise your user page routinely enough, you can request protection for it, but this is very rarely needed. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 11:15, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

@KiltedKangaroo In your user preferences, under 'notifications', you can choose to be notified (here or by email) if anyone edits your user page. Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:39, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Could you detail exactly how to do this, @Shantavira? I’d like that protection too but when I tried just now, I couldn’t succeed. Augnablik (talk) 14:05, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Preferences > Notifications > Scroll down to "Notify me about these events" > Edits to my user page, second option down. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 14:15, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

@Commissar Doggo, I see there’s a big difference between trying to do that on a mobile — which was where I first tried and failed — and a computer, where I am now, On the computer, I see the options you mention. They didn’t appear when I tried on my phone.

But even now, I’m down to Edit to my user page and I see next to that, three options: Web, Email, and Apps. They are grayed out. What do I do now? Augnablik (talk) 14:24, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

@Augnablik: Your email is probably grayed out because you haven't defined an email address in your Wikipedia profile. You can set it from Special:Preferences. This is also necessary to recover your account if you forget your password (and it's also rather critical that you update your listed email address in the event that you lose access to your email account). Fabrickator (talk) 17:54, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Actually, my e-mail address IS saved in my User profile.

By the way, why are there two different ways to refer to Preferences, the other being Special Preferences? I came to understand they’re the same thing, but it’s very confusing. Augnablik (talk) 18:13, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I apologize if my suggestion was not helpful ... perhaps this goes to show that there's more complexity to Wikipedia than many fairly experienced users may perceive. Regarding your question about two different ways to refer to "Preferences", there is in fact a redirect from User:Preferences to Special:Preferences. Notice these are the values that work in the context where a Wikilink is expected. I'm not completely certain this is exactly on point with your question, but it's my "best guess" to explain what you described. Fabrickator (talk) 18:54, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

You picked up correctly on my concern, @Fabrickator. I just don’t “get” why the redundancy in terms. The term PREFERENCES I get — it refers to the tab on our User page. But the term SPECIAL threw me, because it doesn't appear with Preferences on our User page, and it has some abstruse connection to MediaWiki.

As a still newish editor, though, I have to confess that from time to time what seemed impossible to understand yesterday becomes clear tomorrow. Augnablik (talk) 10:28, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

@Augnablik: Special:Preferences with a colon is how to link to the preferences of a user. "Special:" means it's a special page in MediaWiki and not an editable wiki page. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:33, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Citations

Hello, I am Caman and I have a doubt, can I provide links to any reputed source I want or does it have to be my article.

Thanking you Caman9899 (talk) 00:28, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Caman9899. I'm not 100% sure what you're asking. But you are welcome to add links to Reliable Sources to support statements of fact in any article. This does not have to be in articles you started. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Also, you don't have to be the author of the source to cite it. Perception312 (talk) 02:25, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

FYI for passerbys, OP has put up the retirement banner 10 minutes after the first response for this. TheWikiToby (talk) 02:30, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

(passerby) User talk:Caman9899 § December 2024 sort of clarifies the question here. The real, unrelated problem – as tediously frequently – is super promo unencyclopaedic prose additions, which they kindly self-reverted apparently unprompted. Folly Mox (talk) 12:18, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Seeking for recognition for a company i found

I tried to create a wikipedia page to introduce a company i found and just learnt that I am not supposed to do that- makes sense- COI! - any recommendation? 18.29.3.162 (talk) 02:29, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! Before I answer your question, did you intend to post this thread without being logged into your account? By doing so, you've revealed your IP address to us volunteers for identification. TheWikiToby (talk) 03:44, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi Leyla, welcome to Wikepedia!

Given your COI, you can still feel free to contribute to Wikepedia as long as you follow these rules:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{edit COI}} template)—don't forget to give details of reliable sources supporting your suggestions;
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Wishing you the best, and I do hope you stay and become a Wikepedian!

Best, L.E. Rainer 03:50, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

You can abandon your draft, in which case it will be Deleted at six months, or you can tag the top with Db-author inside double curley brackets {{ }} and that will signal an Administrator to delete it. Generally speaking, new editors are advised to work on improving existing articles before attempting to create an article. Articles do not have hyperlinks, and all facts must be verified by references. David notMD (talk) 03:59, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I sent you a Wikilink to a list of articles on a topic related your yours. David notMD (talk) 12:50, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Articles for creation rejected

I have been trying to create a Articles for Music Composer with proper information, with references and using citation. Someone help me to why it has been rejected , and how to verify this?

Draft:Alish Karki (एलिश कार्की) Jasperitinc (talk) 04:23, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Jasperitinc. First of all, your draft has not been rejected, which would mean that it will no longer be considered. Instead, it has been declined, which means that you are free to make substantive improvements and then resubmit it. The obvious problem is that your draft has a very promotional tone, and promotional activity is not allowed on Wikipedia. The Neutral point of view is a core content policy that must be followed. You need to rewrite the draft to eliminate the promotional language that provides your writing. Cullen328 (talk) 04:39, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! When your draft was declined (not rejected), this paragraph was added to the page explaining why,

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

You can read our policies WP:N, WP:V, WP:BLP, and WP:RS to learn more. In short, your article must have multiple reliable, secondary, and independent sources which support the information in the article and that establish the subject as notable enough for an article. Sources like YouTube and IMDb are not reliable sources, so you should replace them. Also, please make sure the text follows out neutrality policy, WP:NPOV. TheWikiToby (talk) 04:39, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Example of not neutral

he has established himself as a leading figure, recognized for his innovative blending of traditional Nepali elements with contemporary sounds. His work has been instrumental in elevating the musical quality of Nepali cinema

David notMD (talk) 12:55, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

References

Hello!

I would like help on references for this draft Draft:Typst. Looks like the submission was declined on the basis of sources that are not good enough. My references are

- references to the official website for the pronunciation (Draft:Typst#cite ref-1), company name (Draft:Typst#cite ref-2), and design objective (Draft:Typst#cite ref-3).

1. I think the reference 3 might read as promoting the software. Can someone suggest an alternative phrasing, or should I remove the sentence altogether?

- outgoing links, e.g., published release of other software; which I think is an acceptable use of the reference syntax. If I'm wrong on that point, please tell me! Draft:Typst#cite note-11, Draft:Typst#cite note-12, Draft:Typst#cite note-13, Draft:Typst#cite note-14

- or references for the statement "The language is intended to be easier, faster to use and learn than LaTeX while still offering similar capabilities.":

1. Draft:Typst#cite note-4 (2024-11); An article in the PCLinuxOS Magazine, whose publishing started in 2006. It's in-depth, reliable, secondary and independent of the subject. I believe I should keep this one
2. Draft:Typst#cite note-5 (2024-12): A french article blogpost on a famous specialized forum (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developpez.com). I have to admit, it is a rather weak reference. I should probably remove it.
3. Draft:Typst#cite note-6 (2023-03): A blogpost on the specialized news website GNU/Linux.ch. It was developed as an alternative to https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-Linux after it's discontinuation. It is rather short, so I should also remove it.
4. Draft:Typst#cite note-7 (2023-07): it's a reference to a presentation during TUGBoat 2023, TUGboat is the journal of the TeX Users Group. I think I should keep this one, seems to meet all criteria

- two references to the orignal authors master's thesis are included Draft:Typst#cite note-9, Draft:Typst#cite note-10.

- a single reference to a high-visibility usage of the software Draft:Typst#cite note-15

There is an additional comment on the phrasing and peacock terms, which I think might refer to the sentence: "The language is intended to be easier, faster to use and learn than LaTeX while still offering similar capabilities", but this sentence is the one backed by references (or at least tentatively). Do you see any other issues with the tone employed?

Thanks in advance!!

Quachpas (talk) 09:35, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

@Quachpas Welcome to the Teahouse. If a company develops something, is there a difference between that and it officially developing something? I think not. So avoid common traps like these.

I see you have been discussing creating this article on your off-wiki Forum for Typst. If you are connected with, or are being PAID by the developer, you would have a conflict of interest, which you should declare on your talk page. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:55, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Nick! For officially developing, I see your point. I was trying to emphasize that it is developed both by its community, and the company itself (supporting its development). I will modify this part.

From what I understand, I do not think I have a COI. For transparency, I contribute to a dependency of the software (biblatex), maintain a package at typst-community/glossarium, and actively participate in the Forum for Typst. I am also a user of the software.

The off-wiki forum indeed has a topic about this article, but I have received no payment for that. Quachpas (talk) 13:10, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

A Jar of Cranberry Sauce; or, The Crime in Room 13

A Jar of Cranberry Sauce; or, The Crime in Room 13 may have been a silent film, but I cannot find any information about it or its plot. If anyone has any knowledge about this possibly non-existent film, I would be delighted to hear. Thank you. Oleeveeya (talk) 12:02, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

The "teahouse" is a place to ask about using Wikipedia. A better place to make this request of yours would be Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment. -- Hoary (talk) 12:26, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, and I apologize; I was merely curious. Oleeveeya (talk) 12:54, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

@Oleeveeya You are probably thinking of Room 13 (Wallace novel). There is also an IMDb entry for an earlier film but I wouldn't trust that souce. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:51, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but there are several newspapers from 1910 that mention this. It's quite suspicious to me. But anyways, thank you very much. Oleeveeya (talk) 12:59, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

For info: the question has now been asked and answered on the Entertainment desk. However, further information would doubtless be welcome there. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.211.243 (talk) 14:48, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Potential vandalism attacks

Hello! My username is "Blmtom34" and I have recently created my account to add more correct information to a page. The page is "Club of Rome",https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Club_of_Rome, and I have posted two different references from the Club of Rome's official website, both references are archives of the page where a certain person is mentioned as being a member of this organization, at least at the time when the articles were posted by the official website. Two different users have deleted this information as an attempt to hide this person's membership and have labeled it as "false" even thought they were unable to explain how two archived posts from the organization's official website are false information. I corrected the misinformation in the meantime, however I am asking for help so that these type of people wouldn't be able to vandalize the page in the future. Thank you very much! Blmtom34 (talk) 13:18, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

@Blmtom34 Welcome to the Teahouse. You have done the correct thing by creating a section on the Talk Page of the article where you can discuss these edits. If the IP editors do not engage with you, that would suggest they are close to edit warring, which is never a good sign. You can take various steps, such as seeking a third opinion. I would point out that one of the problems with that article is that it has too many primary sources. It would benefit if you could find reliable secondary sources for more of its content. Please read all the pages I have linked. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:15, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Isn't the organization's official website the most reliable source if the person was a member of their organization or not? For example if we have a football player that is said that he plays for a certain team, wouldn't the official team's website be the most reliable source if it states that it is in fact their player? Blmtom34 (talk) 15:21, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

It is the same process whenever a person says that they work for a certain company. The most accurate thing to do is to reach to the company and the company will state if the person is an employee of theirs or not. Blmtom34 (talk) 15:24, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Not necessarily. An organization can have a number of reasons to make false claims about its membership. Just as a general example, they might want to claim that a famous person is a member to add to their own prestige (think of the kind of restaurant that makes all kinds of claims about famous people who have eaten there). The organization is a primary source about themself, and, though the name might be counterintuitive, primary sources are frequently not the best sources for Wikipedia's purposes. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:26, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

But when you weigh the two options, I think that a club's official page where it shows that the player is part of their team is much more reliable than me writing an article on my website saying that it's not, for example. In that case, I could remove all members from that section because Club of Rome has declared them their members and their site is not reliable. So in that case, no one is a member because Club of Rome said it and I should trust an article instead. Blmtom34 (talk) 15:39, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Plus it says that secondary sources rely upon primary sources. So a secondary source would have to show how Club of Rome(primary source) lied about their membership and I did not find any evidence of that anywhere. Blmtom34 (talk) 15:42, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

You are missing the part where I said "reliable". Something you wrote on your website would be secondary but Wikipedia would have no reason to treat it as reliable. We have extensive discussions about what is and isn't reliable for our purposes. See WP:RS and WP:RSPS in particular and note that we have a special place you can ask about reliability of an uncommon source (WP:RSN). I'm not saying that in this case the Club of Rome is unreliable, I'm trying to make a more general point. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:50, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I understand. Yeah, I just looked at a bunch of articles now and read through them and I couldn't find evidence that would disprove the Club of Rome's information. I will read the stuff that you have sent me. Thank you! Blmtom34 (talk) 15:54, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

My next steps and how to do them

Let's say I finished editing from Easy to Hard (suggestions). Then let's say I created my first article and then started creating articles. (Keep in note that the editing and creating articles I said is not true.) So, what are my next steps?

Editing >> Creating articles >> ?

Make sure to notify me by using the "Mention a user" symbol. Thanks! Taymallah Belkadri (talk) 14:14, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

@Taymallah Belkadri There is no simple answer. We are mainly volunteers doing whatever takes our fancy. Developing existing articles in subjects that interest me is how I spend much of my time, only occasionally writing a whole article from scratch. I also help out here at the Teahouse. If you can't think of something to do immediately, take a look at the WP:Task Center, where there are plenty of ideas. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:05, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

@Taymallah Belkadri to second what Michael D. Turnbull said, I would say to do whatever interests you, and whatever you feel would best improve the site! I am of course assuming good faith here, and as long as you follow WP:5 and consensus you should be fine! Best, L.E. Rainer 15:12, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @Taymallah Belkadri. To add to what others say, please do not assume that "creating articles" is the only, or the best, way to contribute to Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 16:01, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

@Taymallah Belkadri Welcome to the Teahouse. As the fellows above me have said, this is a volunteer project, so you can contribute in any way that you prefer. There is no linear progression that editors have to follow. TheWikiToby (talk) 16:30, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Taymallah Belkadri, what are you hoping for? What are you trying to achieve? You make very few edit to actual articles. The most recent was to Louisville Classical Academy, where you made two minor changes to the text, both for the worse, and removed the template at the top without any attempt to address the problems it described. Maproom (talk) 16:54, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

How to update current Bio pic without getting rejected

anyone knows how to update current Bio pic without getting rejected, Please let me know Dan H Barouch (talk) 16:49, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm assuming you'd like to update the image on the article Dan Barouch, take a look at Wikipedia:A picture of you for a guide to accomplishing your goal. Amstrad00 (talk) 16:55, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

@Dan H Barouch Uploading a picture of yourself is difficult. You must have the right to upload it. But you not always, perhaps often, likely to have that.

If it is, or appears to be, a picture of the uploader, but there is no evidence that the image is under an acceptable free licence, then there are issues of copyright breach. Ownership or possession of a photo, proprietorship of the equipment used to take the photo, or being the subject of the photo does not equate holding the copyright. The copyright holder is the photographer (i.e. the person who took the photo), rather than the subject (the person who appears in the photo) or the person possessing the photo, unless transferred by operation of law (e.g. inheritance, etc.) or by contract (written and signed by the copyright holder, and explicitly transfers the copyright). Evidence of any transfer of licencing must be sent via WP:VRT

So the answer its, 'It's complicated', the more so if you are uploading to Wikimedia Commons, the place you ought to be uploading to 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:00, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

The simplest answer is to take a "selfie". As you chose the equipment, angle, lighting and the exact moment to press the shutter, you will be the copyright owner. Explain it is a selfie when you upload it. - Arjayay (talk) 18:09, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh, and don't upload it somewhere else on the internet before uploading it here. I'd advise you to not upload it elsewhere at all - although as you will release the copyright when uploading it to Wikipedia, someone else may do that in the future. - Arjayay (talk) 18:14, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

How to deal with an obsessed editor

Recently, I have been dealing with an editor whom I will not name to avoid drama who seems to be really obsessed and possessive over certain articles, mostly related to transgender issues. I made a small edit to the page about a certain south carolina politician who is in some hot water right now, and this editor wrote a small book on the talk page about why I was wrong. I tried to be polite in my explanation but to avoid a fight, I simply took the appeasement route (which in retrospect was the wrong choice). This isn't an isolated incident, this editor seems to love yelling into the void on article talk pages, protesting any edit that they don't like. Is this a normal thing, and is there anything I should do? I also am interested in LGBTQ topics but I don't want to start an edit war with this editor if we run into each other while having conflicting viewpoints. ApteryxRainWing🐉 | Roar with me!!! | My contributions 15:32, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I have warned the user, so hopefully this won't happen again! Best, L.E. Rainer 15:45, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

@Luke Elaine Burke Thank you. For the record, I don't actually believe some of the stuff I said to that editor, but I felt that it was the best thing to say to keep them happy. In the future, is it a good idea to pretend to agree with someone to avoid an argument? ApteryxRainWing🐉 | Roar with me!!! | My contributions 15:49, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that's a good idea but equally you shouldn't deliberately take on more stress than you can cope with. If someone is trying to WP:BLUDGEON you, there are various thing you can do, as discussed at WP:Dispute resolution. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:57, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

@Michael D. Turnbull Alright. Sort of unrelated note but I am sorry for bludgeoning you on the Redout deletion discussion. I didn't even realize I was doing it, my bad. As for the other editor on the Nancy Mace talk page, I'll just ignore them and let them yell their frustrations into the void. Maybe (hopefully) they'll realize no one cares and they'll give up ApteryxRainWing🐉 | Roar with me!!! | My contributions 16:00, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

If you mean WP:Articles for deletion/Redout (video game) then I'm not involved and I don't know which other editor you need to apologise to! Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:35, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, got you mixed up with someone else 😅 ApteryxRainWing🐉 | Roar with me!!! | My contributions 18:37, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

No resolution yet for WP:ANI#Persistent disruptive behaviour and unsubstantiated MOS:PUFFERY by 155.69.190.63

More than 12 hours on, there doesn't seem to be any action or solution taken about an IP address' personal attacks and casting aspersions in bad faith. Will there be a resolution, or if further action is necessary? hundenvonPG (talk) 18:21, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

@HundenvonPenang, once an issue is at ANI, it really isn't appropriate to bring it to the Teahouse. Please wait for the discussion at ANI to play out. ColinFine (talk) 18:54, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

why wont my article be published i added all the press i need

why wont my article be published i added all the press i need Liljosiey (talk) 18:36, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: User:Liljosiey/sandbox

Is the draft ☩ ^{(Babysharkboss2)} 18:40, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

@Liljosiey Interviews are not considered independent, and you have provided no other sources to back up your information. If no one has taken it upon themselves to write about you in reliabale sources then he is not considered notable enough yet to have an encyclopedia article on you. Review WP:NMUSIC as well. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 18:43, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse @Liljosiey. Your draft was declined. This reason was given,

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.

You can read our policies WP:N, WP:V, WP:BLP, and WP:RS to learn more. In short, your article must have multiple reliable, secondary, and independent sources which support the information in the article and that establish the subject as notable enough for an article. The content in your article is also very promotional which does not follow our policy of neutrality, WP:NPOV. Also note that external links do not count as sources. TheWikiToby (talk) 18:43, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Others above have linked the comprehensive guidelines; if you need somewhere to start, consider looking at the Plain and simple conflict of interest guide first, then going back to the comprehensive versions when you need more details. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 18:48, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Aside from all of the above which is required to have an article in the first place, Wikipedia articles are expected to be written from a neutral point of view so descriptions like "...a rising force in the music industry. Known for his unique ability to blend genres ... captivated listeners with his authentic approach and heartfelt storytelling. His music is more than just sound..." is not appropriate. -- D'n'B-t -- 18:53, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't think anybody here has yet pointed you to the policy on autobiography, which says that writing about yourself is very strongly discouraged, and almost always leads to frustration and disappointment.

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) 18:56, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Making huge changes to the Restless Legs Syndrome page. Need help

I know a lot about Restless Legs Syndrome but not much about Wikipedia editing, so any advice is much appreciated! I'm making changes to the medication treatment portion to include more current information on Opioids as a viable and recommended treatment option for refractory RLS. Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restless_legs_syndrome Bookminder (talk) 21:29, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

@Bookminder Welcome to the Teahouse, and to Wikipedia! We welcome the involvement of experts, but we need to make them aware that they must never add content based upon what they know. Everything - literally everything - needs to be based upon Reliably Published Sources. Research papers and other primary sources that have not been reported upon elsewhere need to be avoided like the plague. Instead, you should cite sources that have assessed and reported upon primary research. This is one of the fundamental differences between academia and Wikipedia. In the former, we expect primary sources to be cited; here we don't. Here we are more a collation and distillation of secondary sources, written in your own words (not copied verbatim).

I will leave you a welcome message on your talk page with links for you to read and work through to learn about the editing process. If in doubt, start slowly (as you would when learning to drive a car) before setting off at high speed to write on topics you are personally connected or very familiar with. I hope this helps, and I'm sure others will offer additional advice.

I should finally add that "huge changes" must be discussed first on an article's talk page. A new editor is highly unlikely to appreciate the complexities of how Wikipedia works. So, simply laying out your concerns and proposals for changes (new sections/reworking an existing section etc.)—including citing sources you propose you use - will allow other interested editors to offer their thoughts. We have very strict requirements for sources used in medical-related articles. You will need to read and understand these by following this shortcut link: WP:RSMED. Should you be involved in research or treatments in this condition, you would have a Conflict of Interest and should declare that in advance by following guidance at this shortcut link: WP:COI. I hope this helps. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:37, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

If you are a published researcher for this topic, general advice is do not cite your own work. David notMD (talk) 23:00, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

@Bookminder, that article needs an update. Medical school textbooks and review articles from the past five years are the best sources. If you need help finding decent sources, ask for help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:57, 9 December 2024 (UTC)