C-class
editHello, I was just wondering where I could request that my article on Perothopinae could be promoted to C-class, or maybe even B-class? Based on the criteria that I've read, I think the article is okay for B-class. UserMemer (chat) Tribs 01:56, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Memer15151, hello and welcome to the teahouse. Personally I think the class-rating is not that important: it is usually not displayed to the reader, and there is quite a bit of grey area between different classes. Criteria of WP:Good articles and WP:Featured articles are more clearly defined and objectively enforced. If you wish to do more on Perothopinae, feel free to aim for GA level. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 02:14, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- Memer15151, in my opinion, you have done a very good job and this is one of the best articles on a lesser known insect species that I have ever seen. I have upgraded it to B, and encourage you to take it to a Good article review. Cullen328 (talk) 02:38, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you very much! You made my day. UserMemer (chat) Tribs 02:39, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- Hi Memer15151. I was adding my reply while Cullen323 was adding his; so, it seems this has been resolved now. For reference, though, WP:ASSESSMENT ratings (outside of WP:FA and WP:GA) aren't really official ratings per se; for sure, they're based on certain criteria, but basically their assigned by users such as you and me without under going through a formal review process. So, if you feel the article meets the B-class criteria, you can "promote" it yourself; if someone disagrees, they can "demote" it back to where it was. However, since you describe the article as
my article
it might be better to let someone else promote it instead to avoid any appearance of bias. You can try asking about the article at the WikiProjects whose scope it falls under and explain why you think it meets the "B-class" criteria. Someone may see your post, agree with your assessment, and promote the article. Similarly, someone may see your post, disagree with your assessment and explain why. You could also seek a WP:PEERREVIEW as well. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:44, 24 December 2023 (UTC)- I'm aware of peer reviews, and I was thinking about it, but I currently have an active peer review for Combat of Goldberg, and based on what I remember, you can only submit one at a time. Thanks for the help! UserMemer (chat) Tribs 02:49, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- fwiw, @Memer15151:, whereas Wikipedia:Peer review seems to be a general 'how could this article be improved' forum which may well have a one article per person per time period restriction, there are other forums for article review. I think the suggestion being made in this thread is that you consider nominating Perothopinae for Wikipedia:Good articles review ... GA being the next higher quality rating for articles above the B-class which is now sported by the article. Having an article in peer review does not prevent you nominating an article for GA. (And after that, you could consider either an A-class review or a featured Article review. Or you could do none of these things :) --Tagishsimon (talk) 06:47, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- Hi again! Yes, I nominated it for a GA. It would be cool to see it become one of the 7 beetle GAs, considering there are hundreds of thousands of beetles.
- Kind regards, UserMemer (chat) Tribs 12:21, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- More images would be nice. In nature. larvae. Eggs. Wings open? And curious, could you provide links to a few of the beetle GAs? David notMD (talk) 19:03, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- I'd like to say that the image I added is the only one I found licensed under CC-BY, CC0 or CC-BY-SA. Examples of GA-class beetle articles include Colorado potato beetle, Emerald ash borer and Tansy beetle. UserMemer (chat) Tribs 19:08, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- More images would be nice. In nature. larvae. Eggs. Wings open? And curious, could you provide links to a few of the beetle GAs? David notMD (talk) 19:03, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- fwiw, @Memer15151:, whereas Wikipedia:Peer review seems to be a general 'how could this article be improved' forum which may well have a one article per person per time period restriction, there are other forums for article review. I think the suggestion being made in this thread is that you consider nominating Perothopinae for Wikipedia:Good articles review ... GA being the next higher quality rating for articles above the B-class which is now sported by the article. Having an article in peer review does not prevent you nominating an article for GA. (And after that, you could consider either an A-class review or a featured Article review. Or you could do none of these things :) --Tagishsimon (talk) 06:47, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- I'm aware of peer reviews, and I was thinking about it, but I currently have an active peer review for Combat of Goldberg, and based on what I remember, you can only submit one at a time. Thanks for the help! UserMemer (chat) Tribs 02:49, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- Hi Memer15151. I was adding my reply while Cullen323 was adding his; so, it seems this has been resolved now. For reference, though, WP:ASSESSMENT ratings (outside of WP:FA and WP:GA) aren't really official ratings per se; for sure, they're based on certain criteria, but basically their assigned by users such as you and me without under going through a formal review process. So, if you feel the article meets the B-class criteria, you can "promote" it yourself; if someone disagrees, they can "demote" it back to where it was. However, since you describe the article as
- Thank you very much! You made my day. UserMemer (chat) Tribs 02:39, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- Memer15151, in my opinion, you have done a very good job and this is one of the best articles on a lesser known insect species that I have ever seen. I have upgraded it to B, and encourage you to take it to a Good article review. Cullen328 (talk) 02:38, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Can I include in Donald Trump and Joe Biden's Wiki?
editBiden’s economy vs. Trump’s, in 12 charts[1] from Washington Post. I want to anlyse the idea given by them.
Brandflock (talk) 08:04, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- It's unlikely to be a good idea. Commentators opinions on the US economy probably have little to do with biographies of the two individuals. --Tagishsimon (talk) 08:10, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- Brandflock, discussions of the economic performances during the two most recent administrations are better suited to Presidency of Donald Trump and Presidency of Joe Biden. The article you linked to is probably not the best source, since it is a high level overview based on discussing charts and graphs. I think that using more analytical pieces that quote a range of prominent economists would be a better approach. That's my opinion, at least. Cullen328 (talk) 08:26, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- So you don't think that Washington Post crticsed them and it will create bad impact to the world? Brandflock (talk) 08:40, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- This has little or nothing to do with wikipedia. No, today's washington post opinion is tomorrow's chip wrapper. --Tagishsimon (talk) 08:43, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- I can see millions of Wikipedia articles which criticised wiki's. I am thinking because noone noticed it and I am not political wikipedia editor, I relate myself with business and economics here so please check the reference I given as link. Brandflock (talk) 09:07, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- It is one of tens of thousands of articles on economics loosely related to politics. It does not move the dial. It has little or no significance. It is unlikely you will be able to make the encyclopedia better by doing anything as a result of the article. Please take the advice being given to you and drop this idea. --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:11, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- World recieved conflicts because of economics and its significant topic as I can see and it will remark Wikipedia more in the world so people should get aware of the drama behind business and economics. Brandflock (talk) 09:58, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- But it would need to be written up in WP by someone with competence. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:10, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- World recieved conflicts because of economics and its significant topic as I can see and it will remark Wikipedia more in the world so people should get aware of the drama behind business and economics. Brandflock (talk) 09:58, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- It is one of tens of thousands of articles on economics loosely related to politics. It does not move the dial. It has little or no significance. It is unlikely you will be able to make the encyclopedia better by doing anything as a result of the article. Please take the advice being given to you and drop this idea. --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:11, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- I can see millions of Wikipedia articles which criticised wiki's. I am thinking because noone noticed it and I am not political wikipedia editor, I relate myself with business and economics here so please check the reference I given as link. Brandflock (talk) 09:07, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- This has little or nothing to do with wikipedia. No, today's washington post opinion is tomorrow's chip wrapper. --Tagishsimon (talk) 08:43, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- So you don't think that Washington Post crticsed them and it will create bad impact to the world? Brandflock (talk) 08:40, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- Brandflock, discussions of the economic performances during the two most recent administrations are better suited to Presidency of Donald Trump and Presidency of Joe Biden. The article you linked to is probably not the best source, since it is a high level overview based on discussing charts and graphs. I think that using more analytical pieces that quote a range of prominent economists would be a better approach. That's my opinion, at least. Cullen328 (talk) 08:26, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- Brandflock indef'ed. We're done here. DMacks (talk) 22:08, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Citations with authors with middle names
editWhen citing a work where the author has one or more middle names, should the middle name be put in the last name or the first name parameter, or outright ignored? Examples:
Last name param: Mackenzie, William Lyon, Title; OR Mackenzie, W. L., Title
First name param: Lyon Mackenzie, William, Title; OR Lyon Mackenzie, W., Title
Ignored: Mackenzie, William, Title; OR Mackenzie, W., Title
Which is correct? Cremastra (talk) 17:17, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Cremastra: Hello! I usually put the middlename along with the first name, but you also can do |author= instead of |last=, |first= Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 17:23, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- It depends on whether his surname is "Mackenzie" or "Lyon Mackenzie". Both are possible, in general. But looking at the article, it seems clear that this particular man's surname was "Mackenzie", so he should appear as "Mackenzie, William Lyon". ColinFine (talk) 17:32, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- Since we have some "usually"s and a "wrong venue", seconding ColinFine just above that the general case is unanswerable. It will always depend on what the "middle" name connotes for the individual in question. For most individuals of Anglospheric cultural extraction, the "middle" name is a second bit of the personal name. Not so everywhere, and WP:SUR has got guidance about it, including the fun exception (paraphrasing) "if not covered here, check this". Folly Mox (talk) 18:50, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter, but experienced editors usually post at the Help Desk Mach61 (talk) 17:57, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- It's easier when people put hyphens in their own names, so A-B C has first=A-B and A B-C has last=B-C. That used to be common practise for UK surnames but I see it less these days. --Northernhenge (talk) 22:27, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Creating a soccer national team page
editHi there,
I'm trying to create my first national soccer team page and I'm having issues. When I click on publish the players, results and references mess up and move to the side (looks okay when I click edit). Can anyone assist with this issue?
This is the page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AMcwamcwa%2FSouth_Africa_national_under-15_soccer_team&wvprov=sticky-header Mcwamcwa (talk) 22:48, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- Hello Mcwamcwa,
- I saw the article, good work!
- It seems to me that all of the stats are in one of the boxes on the table. Try separating all of the boxes out.
- Happy editing! Geardona (talk) 22:53, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply! Mcwamcwa (talk) 23:02, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- The problem seems to the player box. I tried adding spaces in between and everytime I do they get removed and the template sticks to it's default setting. Mcwamcwa (talk) 23:03, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- Hmm, let me try to fix it, I will try to keep the info intact but may need to use placeholders. Geardona (talk) 23:08, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- Ok, I fixed it, the issue was in the source editor, the templates needed space. Geardona (talk) 23:17, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you. Mcwamcwa (talk) 23:20, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Mcwamcwa: I can understand if you are confused. You used VisualEditor which sometimes render differently than the saved page. The "Show preview" button in the source editor shows how the page will really look if it's saved. The end of Help:VisualEditor#Getting started: the VisualEditor toolbar mentions "The Switch editor button" you could use. Some things are also easier to do in the source editor, and some are simply impossible in VisualEditor. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:34, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you. Mcwamcwa (talk) 23:20, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- Ok, I fixed it, the issue was in the source editor, the templates needed space. Geardona (talk) 23:17, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- Hmm, let me try to fix it, I will try to keep the info intact but may need to use placeholders. Geardona (talk) 23:08, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- The problem seems to the player box. I tried adding spaces in between and everytime I do they get removed and the template sticks to it's default setting. Mcwamcwa (talk) 23:03, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply! Mcwamcwa (talk) 23:02, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Query about coding language
editWhat coding language does source editing use? Adityaverma8998 (talk) 17:33, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Adityaverma8998: Hello! See Help:Wikitext. Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 17:34, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for your help but I have another question, which is that if any article uses complex language and jargon the can I use ChatGPT or Bard to make it more simple to understand and replace the complex language of the article to simple language to make it comprehensible to a wider audience? Adityaverma8998 (talk) 18:05, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Adityaverma8998: It depends on the subject of the article. If it is something niche, for example, something related to category theory, then I don't think it is a good idea to simplify existing text. Also, check out https://simple.wikipedia.org Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 18:11, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- In addition, be wary of using AI to make edits to Wikipedia. In general, human edits are preferred and AI edits have some issues, both in accuracy and in copyright status. I'd recommend using AI to help you (like brainstorming) but not to generate actual article text. This legal note from the Wikimedia Foundation elaborates a bit: m:Wikilegal/Copyright Analysis of ChatGPT. Bsoyka (talk) 18:15, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for your help but I have another question, which is that if any article uses complex language and jargon the can I use ChatGPT or Bard to make it more simple to understand and replace the complex language of the article to simple language to make it comprehensible to a wider audience? Adityaverma8998 (talk) 18:05, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Adityaverma8998: Absolutely not. Do not use the output of ChatGPT as an input for Wikipedia. Fullstop. See Wikipedia:Large language models. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:06, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- I think you misunderstood me. I am not saying that AI can be used as input in wiki articles. The question was can complex sentences by simplified using AI because a simpler version would be comprehesible to wider audience.
- Picking up info or data from AI is obviously not a good idea. Adityaverma8998 (talk) 20:48, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Adityaverma8998 However you phrase the question the answer remains the same. No. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:56, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Adityaverma8998: Absolutely not. Do not use the output of ChatGPT as an input for Wikipedia. Fullstop. See Wikipedia:Large language models. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:06, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- How are you going to replace complex sentences with simple sentences generated by ChatGPT if those simple sentences are not an input to Wikipedia? Look, Adityaverma8998, I'm not up for playing with words. I'm not misunderstanding you. You want to remove human-written sentences and replace them with ChatGPT-written sentences, because you believe for some reason that there are complex sentences which readers do not understand, which could be simplified so that readers do understand them. It may or it may not be that there are complex sentences which could be simplified. It may or may not be that ChatGPT could achieve the simplification. The jury must be out on both of those two speculations. But the guideline answer is still no; use of ChatGPT on WP is not welcome. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:03, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- At this point my request is close to being a moot point, but anyway: Adding references to examples of such texts might have been an idea... Autokefal Dialytiker (talk) 21:38, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- Such simplifications may be more appropriate in the Simple English Wikipedia.
- In this 'Main' English Wikipedia, the level of language complexity is, I believe, ideally intended to be suitable for a University undergraduate not studying the topic in question (although I can't now find where I read that). See also Wikipedia:Manual of Style, Sections 15 and 16, and Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_manual,_guidebook,_textbook,_or_scientific_journal, Point 7.
- Wikipedia currently contains a good deal of over-complex language, usually in articles written by experts in their applicable field, and certainly this should be clarified, but preferably by a fluent native/competent English speaker/writer capable of doing so without distorting the text's meaning or introducing falsifications – so far AI applications have not demonstrated the ability to do this. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.205.111.170 (talk) 00:56, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
do examples need citations?
editSo i am wondering if examples require citations like if i said that a example of a emergency was a house fire would i have to cite somewhere that said that? 50tr5 (talk) 22:06, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- It's a bit silly, 50tr5, to provide a reference for an assertion familiar to most people and questioned by almost none. I don't suppose you're really asking about that example. Which examples of what are you actually asking about? (Just reveal one or two examples of the examples.) -- Hoary (talk) 22:15, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:SKYISBLUE. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.205.111.170 (talk) 01:01, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
requests for [insert word beginning with c here]
edithow does starting an rfc work? do you just use the template in any given article's talk page and ask about whatever it is that might require more people's opinions? cogsan (give me attention) (see my deeds) 00:50, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- Hello,
- RFC's are a part of dispute resolution, intended for users who have a content disagreement with each other.(read this) for more.
- If you do feel a RFC is necessary these are the steps to create one, there is a template in the article I have linked.
- Hope this helps,
- Geardona (talk) 00:58, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- so it's just adding the template, putting fitting words under it, and not using it for small scale squabbles between two people, because that's what third opinions are for
- thanks cogsan (give me attention) (see my deeds) 01:03, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
Featured article
editHow do I get something to be the featured article on Wikipedia? I’m trying to put Weezer on there. Theobegley2013 (talk) 22:03, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
- See WP:FAR --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:05, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
- Ok? Theobegley2013 (talk) 22:13, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
- Per WP:FA & WP:FAC, it needs to go through a lengthy process before it can be featured. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:05, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
- ? Theobegley2013 (talk) 22:26, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Theobegley2013: Can I help you? As Tagishsimon said, the process to have it featured is long and complicated. Raising the article to
Good Article status is probably a good first step before shooting for 
Featured Article. And even Good Articles are pretty hard! You'd need to do a lot of work. (for reference, here's an example of an unsuccessful GA review). Cremastra (talk) 22:31, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
- Indeed. Here's a Featured article candidate review which took about 6 weeks to complete starting from the point that the nominator thought the article was of sufficient quality. FA is super-hard to achieve. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:07, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Theobegley2013: Can I help you? As Tagishsimon said, the process to have it featured is long and complicated. Raising the article to
- ? Theobegley2013 (talk) 22:26, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
- Per WP:FA & WP:FAC, it needs to go through a lengthy process before it can be featured. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:05, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
- Hi Theobegley2013. You might want to aim for WP:GA status first since the process is a bit less rigorous and everything needed for GA-status is going to also be needed for FA-status. You might also want to discuss this on Talk:Weezer to see whether you can find anyone else interested in helping you or get some other input. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:22, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
- Why are you using WP abbreviations? Theobegley2013 (talk) 22:25, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
- Click on the links, Theobegley2013. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:27, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
- I agree to aim for taking the article from B-class to Good article before nominating for FA. For both GA and FA, reviewers like to see that you made significant improvements, as evidenced by many edits, before nominating. David notMD (talk) 03:19, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- And for GA there's the 10% threshold, correct? Cremastra (talk) 13:12, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Cremastra 10% of Wikipedia articles happen to have GA status, but that's not a threshold rule. It could be 100% if the rate of improvement of existing articles outpaced creation of new/unmaintained articles. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 02:13, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Shushugah: I meant that the nominator had to have contributed more than 10% of the article. I'm pretty sure that's one of the GA criteria. Or am I hallucinating? Cremastra (talk) 02:18, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- It's not an explicit part of the WP:GAN instructions, however there is certainly discussion. Part of the issue is technical, who gets credit, when there's mixed/multiple authors? Last relevant discussion I found is here Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 15 § Overanxious nominators ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 02:26, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- Don't worry, you're not hallucinating. At WP:GAN/I, there's a footnote stating that a nomination is uncontroversially drive-by when the nominator is either less than 10% of the article or ranked sixth or lower in authorship, and there is no post on the article talk page. I believe the post on the article talk page part covers when there's mixed/multiple editors. (There's a warning template for it as well: Template:Uw-ga-driveby) ayakanaa ( t · c ) 01:38, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- It's not an explicit part of the WP:GAN instructions, however there is certainly discussion. Part of the issue is technical, who gets credit, when there's mixed/multiple authors? Last relevant discussion I found is here Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 15 § Overanxious nominators ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 02:26, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Shushugah: I meant that the nominator had to have contributed more than 10% of the article. I'm pretty sure that's one of the GA criteria. Or am I hallucinating? Cremastra (talk) 02:18, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Cremastra 10% of Wikipedia articles happen to have GA status, but that's not a threshold rule. It could be 100% if the rate of improvement of existing articles outpaced creation of new/unmaintained articles. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 02:13, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- And for GA there's the 10% threshold, correct? Cremastra (talk) 13:12, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- I agree to aim for taking the article from B-class to Good article before nominating for FA. For both GA and FA, reviewers like to see that you made significant improvements, as evidenced by many edits, before nominating. David notMD (talk) 03:19, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- Click on the links, Theobegley2013. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:27, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
- Why are you using WP abbreviations? Theobegley2013 (talk) 22:25, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Where to begin?
editHi! I've been lurking on Wikipedia for a year now (and refuse to log in on my phone), but I'm not really sure where to start. I've basically run out of copyediting tasks or I'm hesitant to move on to the harder ones given a general lack of knowledge on both source & visual editor.
Also, what is the best place to report vandalism? I watch recent changes quite often, but often don't know what the best place to report those is. Thanks in advance! Schrödinger's jellyfish (talk) 01:27, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Schrödinger's jellyfish thank you for your contributions. Best place to report vandalism (if necessary) is Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism and I would recommend installing WP:TWINKLE to make warnings easier. Is there a reason you don't log in on your phone? It would make additional tooling/communication easier. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 02:07, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- I use a manager. Would having a mobile-exclusive account be alright, as long as I make it clear that it's me on the other device? Schrödinger's jellyfish (talk) 02:14, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- Yes; something like "User:Schrödinger's jellyfish on mobile", perhaps. -- Hoary (talk) 02:19, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- Schrödinger's jellyfish, your first paragraph: Forget visual editor: you're likely to run into its limitations sooner or later. (Or so I infer from what I've read about it. I've never been tempted to try it.) Source editing with syntax highlighting is the way to go. (Unfortunately I'm chronically unable to remember where within Special:Preferences I've enabled syntax highlighting; and when I look for this option there, I don't find it.) You will often be warned not to rely on your own knowledge when augmenting articles. And indeed you should not do so. However, your own knowledge is of great importance when editing: it helps you find good materials, to understand those good materials, and to faithfully summarize what's said in those good materials. So start with articles on subjects you know something about. -- Hoary (talk) 02:19, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- Syntax highlighting is under Gadgets → Editing. Folly Mox (talk) 02:29, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you both! I've turned it on. Already makes it a million times easier to use! Schrödinger's jellyfish (talk) 02:29, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- As for editing on your phone, Schrödinger's jellyfish, I am going to be immodest here, and suggest that you read my essay, User:Cullen328/Smartphone editing. I have done 99% of my editing from smartphones for many years. Cullen328 (talk) 06:29, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you so much! I've linked it on User:Phönedinger's jellyfish's page so I can get to it more easily. I didn't even know about the smart punctuation thing! Just disabled it. Schrödinger's jellyfish (talk) 02:09, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- As for editing on your phone, Schrödinger's jellyfish, I am going to be immodest here, and suggest that you read my essay, User:Cullen328/Smartphone editing. I have done 99% of my editing from smartphones for many years. Cullen328 (talk) 06:29, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you both! I've turned it on. Already makes it a million times easier to use! Schrödinger's jellyfish (talk) 02:29, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- Syntax highlighting is under Gadgets → Editing. Folly Mox (talk) 02:29, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Schrödinger's jellyfish: If you're looking for more copyediting tasks, you could try updating these articles to remove the "double dollars" (e.g. change "$50,000 dollars" to "$50,000"). The same issue occurs with euros and pounds. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 16:53, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
Some help at Miss Universe Philippines 2023
editHi, I'm currently dealing with another editor adding unsourced content after I remove it from the article. Is there a limit to how many reverts I can do? I've put some notices on their talk page asking for them to add sources. I will revert for a third time, and then leave it. Schrödinger's jellyfish (talk) 02:47, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- For the record, I think they're good faith changes, I just don't think they know how to access their talk page or they're not seeing my edit summaries. Schrödinger's jellyfish (talk) 02:49, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- Given this edit and their overall pattern of inserting the same sentence or two in many different places in the article, it's clear this editor is not able to contribute constructively, so I have blocked them. Wikipedia:Mobile communication bugs or not, edit-warring and disruption with BLP implications cannot be allowed to continue. DMacks (talk) 02:56, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you very much! Would someone editing like this instead go to WP:AIV? Not sure if it's just disruptive editing, or if it's vandalism. Schrödinger's jellyfish (talk) 02:58, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- AIV is ok for extensive and obvious disruption that's not literally "vandalism" (in the wikipedia-specific meaning). It's typical after escallating user-warnings to level 3/4 with no change in behavior. But admins are active (or at least lurking:) in lots of other places too. DMacks (talk) 03:02, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- If you're still around, we've got a similar disruption going on at Dissocation here. Schrödinger's jellyfish (talk) 02:59, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- That's just vandalism, but multiple IPs joining in. Will push some buttons after I refill my coffee.... DMacks (talk) 03:04, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- A few others did the needful. DMacks (talk) 03:11, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- The needful may need to be done again... is there a chance that User:Mutia ti la union updates or User talk:110.54.154.78 are trying to do the same thing? My hackles may just be raised for no good reason. I'm aware that IP connections can't really be disclosed, but probably worth keeping an eye on. Same wording of "there are 5 presenters". Schrödinger's jellyfish (talk) 03:21, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- I'm aware of WP:SPI but don't know if I should post there with only IPs. Schrödinger's jellyfish (talk) 03:22, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah, SPI would be slow and not very helpful. Takes a few days, it's obvious, and only really IPs involved. And Philippines IP pools are fairly dynamic. So it doesn't need CU tools but instead needs prompt "any admin can do this" action. WP:RFPP is the alternative when lots of IPs/accounts are a problem on one page. DMacks (talk) 03:27, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- Alright, I'll keep that in mind for the future! I've put a request for protection on the page. Thank you for the help in reverting, blocking, and sending me to the right places! :) Schrödinger's jellyfish (talk) 03:30, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah, SPI would be slow and not very helpful. Takes a few days, it's obvious, and only really IPs involved. And Philippines IP pools are fairly dynamic. So it doesn't need CU tools but instead needs prompt "any admin can do this" action. WP:RFPP is the alternative when lots of IPs/accounts are a problem on one page. DMacks (talk) 03:27, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- I'm aware of WP:SPI but don't know if I should post there with only IPs. Schrödinger's jellyfish (talk) 03:22, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- The needful may need to be done again... is there a chance that User:Mutia ti la union updates or User talk:110.54.154.78 are trying to do the same thing? My hackles may just be raised for no good reason. I'm aware that IP connections can't really be disclosed, but probably worth keeping an eye on. Same wording of "there are 5 presenters". Schrödinger's jellyfish (talk) 03:21, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- A few others did the needful. DMacks (talk) 03:11, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- That's just vandalism, but multiple IPs joining in. Will push some buttons after I refill my coffee.... DMacks (talk) 03:04, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you very much! Would someone editing like this instead go to WP:AIV? Not sure if it's just disruptive editing, or if it's vandalism. Schrödinger's jellyfish (talk) 02:58, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- Given this edit and their overall pattern of inserting the same sentence or two in many different places in the article, it's clear this editor is not able to contribute constructively, so I have blocked them. Wikipedia:Mobile communication bugs or not, edit-warring and disruption with BLP implications cannot be allowed to continue. DMacks (talk) 02:56, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
Indexing my page in search engine
editHow to fix my page is not indexed in search engine. When i search the name of article. Chparveshtaak (talk) 02:28, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Chparveshtaak: If it is a new article, then it may not have been through WP:NPP review yet, as there is a large backlog. Unreviewed articles are not indexed by search engines. If not reviewed in 90 days, then it will be indexable by search engines. RudolfRed (talk) 02:39, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Chparveshtaak: Please be specific and name the page and search engine. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:40, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) @Chparveshtaak: Are you referring to the Dangar Khera article you created? (Remember that it is not your page - see WP:OWN). GoingBatty (talk) 04:08, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
Disappearing pictures
editIs there a problem with Commons? I'm not seeing any images, just blank spaces in articles? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 20:51, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Murgatroyd49, hello! For me it's normal, the problem is likely on your side. Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 20:53, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- That's what I was afraid of! I've done a complete reboot and tried different devices, still no images. All other websites I've tried are fine. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 21:02, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Murgatroyd49: Our actual images (not the file pages) are stored at https://upload.wikimedia.org. Claygate railway station displays an image at https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/33/Claygate_station_-_geograph.org.uk_-_1022355.jpg/300px-Claygate_station_-_geograph.org.uk_-_1022355.jpg. Does that link work for you? If not then it may be your Internet provider which currently fails to retrieve pages from that domain. Such things can happen. A few interface images are hosted here at en.wikipedia.org. For example, https://en.wikipedia.org/static/images/footer/wikimedia-button.png is displayed in the lower right corner. Does that work? PrimeHunter (talk) 23:43, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks, I can see the button but not the Claygate image. The link just locked up so it looks like I can't access the server. Must have words with my ISP. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 09:30, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- Right, contacted my ISP and they twiddled a few things and the images came back. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 09:45, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks, I can see the button but not the Claygate image. The link just locked up so it looks like I can't access the server. Must have words with my ISP. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 09:30, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Murgatroyd49: Our actual images (not the file pages) are stored at https://upload.wikimedia.org. Claygate railway station displays an image at https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/33/Claygate_station_-_geograph.org.uk_-_1022355.jpg/300px-Claygate_station_-_geograph.org.uk_-_1022355.jpg. Does that link work for you? If not then it may be your Internet provider which currently fails to retrieve pages from that domain. Such things can happen. A few interface images are hosted here at en.wikipedia.org. For example, https://en.wikipedia.org/static/images/footer/wikimedia-button.png is displayed in the lower right corner. Does that work? PrimeHunter (talk) 23:43, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- That's what I was afraid of! I've done a complete reboot and tried different devices, still no images. All other websites I've tried are fine. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 21:02, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
I'm seeing the blank spaces too. I can see images if I go to Commons, but not on Wikipedia, apart from the main page. --Northernhenge (talk) 22:21, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Northernhenge: If Commons works then it's probably a different issue. Maybe someting in your browser or a browser extension is set to block images which are loaded from another domain than the page you are viewing. Commons is at https://commons.wikimedia.org and our images are loaded from https://upload.wikimedia.org so they are both at wikimedia.org. Can you see https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/33/Claygate_station_-_geograph.org.uk_-_1022355.jpg/300px-Claygate_station_-_geograph.org.uk_-_1022355.jpg? Can you see the same image in the infobox at Claygate railway station? If the anwers are yes and no then my domain theory sounds right except it doesn't explain why you can see main page images. What is your browser? Years ago one of the common browsers (not sure which one) had a feature where it was easy to accidentally block images from another domain. Can you try another browser on the same computer or Internet connection and test whether it works there? PrimeHunter (talk) 22:46, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- Yes and no on Safari on iPadOS 17.2, but the Claygate page displays correctly on Android Chrome v120. I therefore assume it's a setting on the iPad. Thanks for your help. --Northernhenge (talk) 00:39, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Northernhenge: I'm trying to narrow down what may be blocked. Can you see the Claygate image at https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1937264#P18? At https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Claygate_station_-_geograph.org.uk_-_1022355.jpg? Can you see an image saying "a WIKIMEDIA project" at https://en.wikipedia.org/static/images/footer/wikimedia-button.png? (One of a few interface images which are loaded from en.wikipedia.org and not upload.wikimedia.org) Can you see the same image in the lower right corner of this page? If you have a "Desktop" link at the bottom of the page (meaning you are on the mobile version of Wikipedia) then click that before checking the lower right corner. You can return to the mobile version by clicking "Mobile view" at the bottom of the desktop version. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:58, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- I can see the wikimedia button image but not the others. Northernhenge (talk) 01:01, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks @PrimeHunter: for your continuing help. Unfortunately I need to go offline for a while, but it's much appreciated. --Northernhenge (talk) 01:05, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- And now I’m not seeing images in Commons either. I’ll keep looking for iPad settings, given that it seems ok on Android. Northernhenge (talk) 00:59, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- If images come and go at Commons then it may not be a setting after all. Somebody at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Images slow to load mentioned a varying image problem which appears to affect the UK. I guess from User:Northernhenge that you are in the UK so maybe you just have to wait for something to become more stable. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:12, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Northernhenge: I'm trying to narrow down what may be blocked. Can you see the Claygate image at https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1937264#P18? At https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Claygate_station_-_geograph.org.uk_-_1022355.jpg? Can you see an image saying "a WIKIMEDIA project" at https://en.wikipedia.org/static/images/footer/wikimedia-button.png? (One of a few interface images which are loaded from en.wikipedia.org and not upload.wikimedia.org) Can you see the same image in the lower right corner of this page? If you have a "Desktop" link at the bottom of the page (meaning you are on the mobile version of Wikipedia) then click that before checking the lower right corner. You can return to the mobile version by clicking "Mobile view" at the bottom of the desktop version. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:58, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- Yes and no on Safari on iPadOS 17.2, but the Claygate page displays correctly on Android Chrome v120. I therefore assume it's a setting on the iPad. Thanks for your help. --Northernhenge (talk) 00:39, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- Not sure if red-herring or related, but T353849 is a server-side parser error related to images with geotagging. DMacks (talk) 04:10, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
Trying to add withdrawal info of a train from a UK train operator
editI'm trying to figure out how to add information that Nova 3 trains have been withdrawn from TransPennine Express service as off the December 2023 timetable on this Article. The issue I'm having is that the only sources about the withdrawal are from before the withdrawal took place so any edits keep being reverted due to lack of recent sources. The only other evidence is that the trains have been removed from the TransPennine website, have not been visibly recorded (that I can find) on any services since the timetable change and do not show up on any services on RealTimeTrains. I was wondering if I was to email TransPennine directly and get a direct quote that the trains have infact been withdrawn (as announced in August) by email, if there would be a way to cite that and if that would be a valid source for wikipedia?
Thanks in advance
@Alexbrassington Alexbrassington (talk) 20:01, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Alexbrassington: Welcome to the Teahouse! Email correspondence from the company would not count as a verifiable published source. I suggest posting at Talk:TransPennine Express do see if other editors could help you find sources. GoingBatty (talk) 20:07, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- References such as this would be fine. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:11, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- Myself and others have already tried to use the articles from September and August as sources but each time the edits have been reverted due to no source of withdrawal, just an announcement from the past that they would be Alexbrassington (talk) 20:19, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- So sounds like it would have to be a case of trying to get the company to publish an article or press release confirming that the trains have been withdrawn? I don't see how this would be different to them confirming by email but I understand that it's hard to prove that an email is genuine so I suspected that would be the answer. Surely though, if they said in August that the trains would be withdrawn and have said nothing since then the assumption should be that they didn't change their mind rather than assuming that they did? Alexbrassington (talk) 20:17, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- References such as this would be fine. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:11, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- Perhaps @Danners430: could explain why they are accepting forward-looking statements in citations 28 & 29 such as this supporting the assertion that TPE will be using a rolling stock in the future, but not supporting forward-looking statements that TPE will not be using the rolling stock in the future. It seems like very unhelpful WP:POINTY editing to use two different standards. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:40, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- The difference is that that’s a published image in a rail magazine showing a locomotive that has already been liveried - it’s not a statement for example from TPE saying “we will apply this livery”, it’s already been applied. When it comes to the withdrawal, no source that I’ve found states that the plans to withdraw actually have gone ahead - how often have we seen plans to withdraw stock being announced, then being pushed back quietly? Example being GWR’s Castle HSTs. Of course, you and I know this isn’t the case - but it’s not WP:VERIFIABLE.
- I might also add that the above source was likely added before I was regularly active, so I can’t really comment on whether it should’ve been used - I haven’t retrospectively looked at sourced in most cases. Danners430 (talk) 20:55, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- Both references are of the same type, in that they both make forward-looking statements. If your head is turned by one having an image, I have a bridge to sell you. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:13, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- It seems to me to be completely appropriate for the article to say that the company announced on such and such a date that they will start or stop using particular stock. But in the absence of a reliable report that they have done so, the article should not say anything further. A picture in a reliable source with an appropriate caption would be adequate for this, but not a picture on a random website. ColinFine (talk) 21:50, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- This has been my view, and in the absence of any other consensus what has been written in the article. Danners430 (talk) 21:57, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- I've amended the page per https://www.tpexpress.co.uk/travelling-with-us/the-nova-fleets ... we are entitled per WP:PRIMARY to rely on TPE to define what its current trainsets are. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:13, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- Alexbrassington, the best place to discuss this is Talk:TransPennine Express. Please ping the editors who objected. Cullen328 (talk) 21:16, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- I hadn’t spotted that TPE had updated their site - that definitely counts as a source! Danners430 (talk) 08:02, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- I've amended the page per https://www.tpexpress.co.uk/travelling-with-us/the-nova-fleets ... we are entitled per WP:PRIMARY to rely on TPE to define what its current trainsets are. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:13, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- This has been my view, and in the absence of any other consensus what has been written in the article. Danners430 (talk) 21:57, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- Perhaps @Danners430: could explain why they are accepting forward-looking statements in citations 28 & 29 such as this supporting the assertion that TPE will be using a rolling stock in the future, but not supporting forward-looking statements that TPE will not be using the rolling stock in the future. It seems like very unhelpful WP:POINTY editing to use two different standards. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:40, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
What to do about a conflict of interest with removal of sourced information?
editIt's me again! At both Rukhsar Rehman & Faruk Kabir, User:BAPASSPHD has been removing sourced information without providing a good reason. On their talk page here, they claim to be from their legal team. This is a violation of WP:COI, right?
I'm unsure how to proceed here and would appreciate some help! Thank you for your time! Schrödinger's jellyfish (talk) 04:59, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Schrödinger's jellyfish: User talk:BAPASSPHD shows that the user has been blocked. GoingBatty (talk) 05:32, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- The blocked user may have a point. There was a rash of stories, all from unreliable sources, all echoing eachother, all the 29 and 30 Jun 2023, specifying that the couple had decided to end their marriage. That has somehow been parleyed into 'they are divorced' on WP. Seems like a major BLP fail on WPs part. --Tagishsimon (talk) 05:44, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah, I wasn't too sure on that part. I did check the deprecated sources on WP:RS, but didn't see the cited one (or any of the top results) on the list. What's the right thing to do here - edit the text of the article to just reflect "they are ending their marriage", remove the claim entirely, or keep it as-is? Schrödinger's jellyfish (talk) 05:49, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- I've put a note on both talk pages. I'd be in favour of removing the divorce business from both articles, since the sources are unreliable, and the supposed divorce may not have happened. --Tagishsimon (talk) 05:56, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- I'm so so sorry - I just did some further looking and it looks like the same articles are popping up from June of this year. Read over a few of the articles and they're essentially garbage. 100% worth removing. In the future, I'll be sure to look more into BLPs before charging in headfirst. Schrödinger's jellyfish (talk) 06:00, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- No reason for you to be sorry; you were trying to do the right thing in dealing with the COI editor & you're clearly acting in good faith. --Tagishsimon (talk) 06:12, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- I'm so so sorry - I just did some further looking and it looks like the same articles are popping up from June of this year. Read over a few of the articles and they're essentially garbage. 100% worth removing. In the future, I'll be sure to look more into BLPs before charging in headfirst. Schrödinger's jellyfish (talk) 06:00, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- I've put a note on both talk pages. I'd be in favour of removing the divorce business from both articles, since the sources are unreliable, and the supposed divorce may not have happened. --Tagishsimon (talk) 05:56, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Schrödinger's jellyfish: I also added {{connected contributor}} on the article talk pages. GoingBatty (talk) 05:45, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
Apparently, User:BAPASSPHD now indef blocked despite having been confirmed correct in denying the divorce. I left a note on Talk page how to appeal block, and in the future, because paid, propose changes on Talk pages versus editing articles directly. David notMD (talk) 09:38, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
How to delete a redirect?
editI want to create a new article, but there's a redirect obstructing it. How can I have the redirect deleted to claim that namespace for my upcoming article? Sajjad Altaf (talk) 01:39, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- Hi Sajjad Altaf. If it's OK that you will not be registered as the page creator then you can convert the redirect to an article. See Wikipedia:Redirect#How to edit a redirect or convert it into an article. Your contributions will still appear in the page history. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:58, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- Isn't there an alternative solution? Is there a template available that I can place at the beginning of the article to request its deletion? Sajjad Altaf (talk) 02:09, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Sajjad Altaf: If the draft has been approved by WP:AFC you can use {{Db-afc-move}}, otherwise you need to list it at WP:RFD. Whatr is wrong with PrimeHunter's solution? RudolfRed (talk) 02:14, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- If you submit a draft for review at WP:AFC then others will probably take care of it for you if the draft is approved. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:59, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- I see Sajjad Altaf has chosen to create their article at Khurd, Pakistan, leaving Khurd as a redirect to Khurd and Kalan. Honestly, until we get the ability to receive notifications for arbitrary articles (not just ones where we're in the database as first editor), I can't really fault the decision, even if it does feel a little vain. No comment on notability, sourcing, or article title. Folly Mox (talk) 04:30, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- Khurd and Kalan may be the primary topic anyway. I have added a hatnote there to Khurd, Pakistan.[2] PrimeHunter (talk) 12:57, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- I see Sajjad Altaf has chosen to create their article at Khurd, Pakistan, leaving Khurd as a redirect to Khurd and Kalan. Honestly, until we get the ability to receive notifications for arbitrary articles (not just ones where we're in the database as first editor), I can't really fault the decision, even if it does feel a little vain. No comment on notability, sourcing, or article title. Folly Mox (talk) 04:30, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- If you submit a draft for review at WP:AFC then others will probably take care of it for you if the draft is approved. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:59, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Sajjad Altaf: If the draft has been approved by WP:AFC you can use {{Db-afc-move}}, otherwise you need to list it at WP:RFD. Whatr is wrong with PrimeHunter's solution? RudolfRed (talk) 02:14, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- Isn't there an alternative solution? Is there a template available that I can place at the beginning of the article to request its deletion? Sajjad Altaf (talk) 02:09, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
First Steps in Article Creation
editMerry Christmas to all you fine folks at the Teahouse.
I was just wondering, how do I start creating pages and articles on Wikipedia? I want to do so for a cartoon I'm surprised hasn't had a dedicated page to it. The show in question is Kody Kapow, a cartoon that used to air on Sprout, and later Universal Kids for a short while after the rebrand of the channel. You don't have to provide me with exhaustive details, but I was wondering how to begin making an article, as I have yet to do so. Specifically, however, I was wondering what some good sources are which relate to the show. Accurate sources, I mean. I hope it's not too much trouble and not too silly a request and question.
Thank you, and I hope your holidays are going merrily. Triviatronic9000 (talk) 06:12, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- We would probably point you at WP:YFA and WP:RS, but equally note that there is no certainty that reliable sources exist for Kody Kapow, which might be why there is no article. --Tagishsimon (talk) 06:14, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you. If perhaps you can find an accurate source, would you please let me know? I'm pretty sure I can explain the synopsis, characters, and (if I can find some way to watch them) the episodes, but I would like to fact check myself, just in case, because if I can help it, if it's inaccurate, I wouldn't include it. If I know it's inaccurate, anyway. Triviatronic9000 (talk) 06:19, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- This, probably. Maybe this. Again, maybe. ditto. This. The common theme for all of these is that they look like legitimate news sources, not blogs, fandoms, streaming services &c. Good luck. --Tagishsimon (talk) 06:26, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for going through the trouble. Hopefully I can find at least something I can use. I won't ask for any more assistance, because I don't want you to go on potential wild goose chases, since into is so scarce, though I will let you know if what I read is accurate. Triviatronic9000 (talk) 06:39, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- Hello, Triviatronic9000. The first step is also the most important step by far. Identify several reliable published sources that are entirely independent of Kody Kapow, and that devote significant coverage to that topic. The next step is to format references to those reliable sources, which is described in Referencing for Beginners. At this point, the most difficult part of the process is done, and you have not yet written a single word of prose. Then, you neutrally summarize in your own words what the reliable sources say, leaving out everything that is not verified by those sources. The rest is formatting the draft to Wikipedia's house style but that is straightforward. The first step is the hardest and most important step. Without identifying sources that comply with policy, it is not possible to write an acceptable Wikipedia article. Cullen328 (talk) 06:42, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- I do not like to disagree with Tagishsimon, but, in my opinion, all the coverage in the sources linked above was generated by press releases and public relations by the show's creators. I do not see any independent coverage there. A phrase like
The show is billed to launch
followed by lengthy quotes from a network executive does not indicate independent coverage. A phrase that says that Sproutshas greenlighted a new animated series
is evidence that the coverage is generated by public relations, as the author has clearly not seen the (future, at that time) series, and is parroting network talking points. We learn from another that Jason Alexanderhas been tapped to lead the voice cast
which isset for premiere July 15
. This is not independent reporting. It is clearly recapitulation of a network press release. And so on. Cullen328 (talk) 07:09, 25 December 2023 (UTC)- Thank you. Can I use the website of the company that made the show? Or is that not independent enough? I ask because I saw that it was on there. Kodiak, the production company is. Triviatronic9000 (talk) 13:46, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- You can use that to corroborate uncontentious facts about the show, but not to demonstrate the Notability of the show, as it is clearly not independent of the show. Indeed, it's about as non-independent as a source could be. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.205.111.170 (talk) 14:37, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you. Can I use the website of the company that made the show? Or is that not independent enough? I ask because I saw that it was on there. Kodiak, the production company is. Triviatronic9000 (talk) 13:46, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- I do not like to disagree with Tagishsimon, but, in my opinion, all the coverage in the sources linked above was generated by press releases and public relations by the show's creators. I do not see any independent coverage there. A phrase like
- Hello, Triviatronic9000. The first step is also the most important step by far. Identify several reliable published sources that are entirely independent of Kody Kapow, and that devote significant coverage to that topic. The next step is to format references to those reliable sources, which is described in Referencing for Beginners. At this point, the most difficult part of the process is done, and you have not yet written a single word of prose. Then, you neutrally summarize in your own words what the reliable sources say, leaving out everything that is not verified by those sources. The rest is formatting the draft to Wikipedia's house style but that is straightforward. The first step is the hardest and most important step. Without identifying sources that comply with policy, it is not possible to write an acceptable Wikipedia article. Cullen328 (talk) 06:42, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for going through the trouble. Hopefully I can find at least something I can use. I won't ask for any more assistance, because I don't want you to go on potential wild goose chases, since into is so scarce, though I will let you know if what I read is accurate. Triviatronic9000 (talk) 06:39, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- This, probably. Maybe this. Again, maybe. ditto. This. The common theme for all of these is that they look like legitimate news sources, not blogs, fandoms, streaming services &c. Good luck. --Tagishsimon (talk) 06:26, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you. If perhaps you can find an accurate source, would you please let me know? I'm pretty sure I can explain the synopsis, characters, and (if I can find some way to watch them) the episodes, but I would like to fact check myself, just in case, because if I can help it, if it's inaccurate, I wouldn't include it. If I know it's inaccurate, anyway. Triviatronic9000 (talk) 06:19, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
Replacing a redirect with a new article
editHi, the article draft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Kezia_Hayter is ready to publish but there is a redirect on the page "Kezia Hayter". Can someone please publish the draft over the redirect, or leave me instructions on how to do so? Thanks and merry Christmas to all those celebrating today! MurielMary (talk) 10:49, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- Done! -- Hoary (talk) 12:27, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- It was indeed ready to publish. Good work on that draft-now-article by both of you. A merry Ziemassvētki to you and all. -- Hoary (talk) 12:57, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- @MurielMary: You could have used {{db-afc-move}}. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:04, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- I've also found the folks at the technical move requests board helpful, especially if you explain that the draft in question is ready for mainspace. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 17:10, 25 December 2023 (UTC)