Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1172

Archive 1165

←

Archive 1170

Archive 1171

Archive 1172

Archive 1173

Archive 1174

Archive 1175

Unable to create new pages except as drafts

I'm trying to disambiguate a page and need to create 2 pages to make this all happen. When I try to make pages I end up a new user landing page and am stopped from making new pages. I can only make drafts. Haugtusser (talk) 01:47, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Tusse (disambiguation) 💜  melecie  talk - 02:00, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

@Haugtusser: That is because you aren't autoconfirmed yet. Your account needs have 10 edits in 4 days. You don't have 4 days yet. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:13, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Annoying, but fair.

Would you recommend I leave the drafts or wait until my account is 4 days old? Haugtusser (talk) 02:17, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

It's not (yet?) obvious to me that such a disambiguation page would be helpful. The title "Draft:Tusse (Singer)" is malformed at best: there's no reason to capitalize "singer". But if the only likely confusion is with an alternative name for something that has an article with a quite different title, then the singer should be plain "Tusse" and perhaps a hatnote should be added to the singer's article. -- Hoary (talk) 02:28, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I will try to change the Singer to singer. Thank you for that feedback. I think it is useful as if anyone looks up "Tusse" on Wikipedia they will only get the singer, while they may be looking for the singer or the mythical creature. I don't think the singer is more notable than the creature. Haugtusser (talk) 02:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Singer is now singer Haugtusser (talk) 02:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Well, thanks to your disambiguation draft, I see that the mythical creature you're referring to has an article, under the name Nisse. If your draft on the singer is accepted, you might think about putting a hatnote on that singer article, of the type that is already on the Nisse article. Uporządnicki (talk) 03:12, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Oops! I see Hoary already made that suggestion. But in case you don't know what a hatnote is, now you can know to look at the Nisse article. Uporządnicki (talk) 03:14, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

That's right. A disambiguation page is not needed in this case because there are only two articles. Hatnotes pointing to the other article are sufficient. See WP:ONEOTHER. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:39, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Well shouldn't the article about the singer still be moved to Tusse_(singer) then. Happy to do that

I'm also considering splitting Tusse off from Nisse as they are sometimes considered different creatures (sometimes the same though). Haugtusser (talk) 03:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

No, the article about the singer should be Tusse. If you're interested in Tusse-that-may-or-may-not-be-the-same-as-Nisse, then rather than making an additional article ("Tusse (folklore)" or whatever), it would be far better if you put your time and effort into referencing the appallingly underreferenced article Nisse (folklore) (using reliable sources, of course) and cutting from it any material that can't be referenced. -- Hoary (talk) 05:37, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't see why the singer should get the page Tusse. Is it only because there are two uses of Tusse? If there were three would you suggest it be moved to Tusse_(singer)? Haugtusser (talk) 18:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Ways to remove a massive amount of articles from a category?

Some time ago I came upon the hidden category Category:CS1 Northern Sami-language sources (se) which automatically adds articles that have the language parameter of citation templates set to "se" or "Northern Sami". The problem is that the top-level-domain of Swedish websites is also "se", and many editors have simply copied that instead of using the correct "sv" for Swedish. For instance, this revision of Buzz Aldrin has a reference tagged as Northern Sami, when it's actually in Swedish. I want to fix all these incorrectly tagged references, but is there a way to do this to a large amount of articles quickly, or am I stuck doing it the manual way? (Keep in mind that some of the articles, like Áillohaš Music Award are indeed tagged correctly) ArcticSeeress (talk) 14:01, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, ArcticSeeress, and welcome to the Teahouse. Are you aware of WP:AWB? I have never used it, and I don't know if it will help you, but it says it is " designed to make tedious or repetitive editing tasks quicker and easier". ColinFine (talk) 14:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

No, I was not aware of that. I'll have to check it out and see if it can help. Thanks! ArcticSeeress (talk) 17:53, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Also consider subcategories, though I'm not sure that would be helpful in this situation, given a quick overview on the specific category itself (See Category:Aviation for an example of this method). Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk / contribs)} 22:03, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

New

Hi, I'm new to this site as far as publishing or editing. I'm currently trying to upload or publish on the site for my school project, but it keeps getting deleted/rejected. Any help or suggestions is appreciated. Thank you. Subba, Dilli, R. (talk) 02:00, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Courtesy: seems to refer to their own userpage, deleted under CSD U5.

hi @Subba, Dilli, R. and welcome to Wikipedia! unfortunately, I am unable to view what the page contained, nor do I know what your school project is about. given the rejection reason, it's because the userpage is focused on stuff that is not related to Wikipedia editing, which is not really allowed in the site (see WP:NOTWEBHOST)

does your school project explicitly state that you need to set up a Wikipedia page (or otherwise edit Wikipedia)? if your school project just wants you to set up a webpage of any kind, you may instead host it elsewhere such as Neocities or Vercel (haven't used vercel tho). happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 02:09, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Subba, Dilli, R. (Ec) Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You edited your user page, which is not article space, but a place to tell about yourself as a Wikipedia editor. New accounts cannot directly create articles and must use Articles for creation. As an admin, I can examine deleted pages, and your text was not suitable article content. It was written as an essay, advocating for a position. A Wikipedia article is written in a neutral point of view, and summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage say about a topic, showing how the topic is notable as defined by Wikipedia. Please read Your First Article.

If you have been assigned the task of writing a new article, that is very unfair to you as a student, as you have limited control over the process. Your teacher should review the Wikipedia Education Program materials. 331dot (talk) 02:12, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Trouble fixing redirect links

Two articles, Lower Macungie Township, Lehigh County, Pennsylvania and Upper Macungie Township, Lehigh County, Pennsylvania, recently had headline changes (adding the county in the heading). I adjusted the links to them accordingly in the various boxes on pages linking to these two pages and to any links to them on various pages. Yet, in both cases, there are still dozens of seemingly properly listed links that are directing to Lower Macungie Township, Pennsylvania and Upper Macungie Township, Pennsylvania despite being fixed. I've been unable to identify the problem and could benefit from expert guidance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keystone18 (talk • contribs) 02:56, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi Keystone18. If I am correct, some pages have redirect links. These links will automatically redirect you to the proper page. We have a policy that if it ain't broke, don't fix it. So, for example, a page linking to Wikipaedia does not need to have the link be corrected to Wikipedia. Hopefully I answered this correctly. Thanks. — 3PPYB6 ^{(T / C / L)} — 03:11, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm aware of the policy. My question is not a policy one but a technical one. When the page name was changed, the associated links to it also were properly changed. But many continue to direct to the old page. Hope you can look at both of these pages and give me some understanding as to why. Keystone18 (talk) 03:18, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

@Keystone18 – As far as I can tell, a page move would not simply mass-edit every page that links to it. For example, many pages continue to link to Kevin McCarthy (California politician) even though the page has been moved to Kevin McCarthy. Unless there is an additional technicality I did not detect, I believe that is the answer. Thanks. Note: I might not be able to respond anymore as it is getting late in my time zone. — 3PPYB6 ^{(T / C / L)} — 03:29, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

If the link is edited to point to the new page, it should do so, and my experience is that this has always been the case--until this. Why are links clearly directing to Lower Macungie Township, Lehigh County, Pennsylvania and Upper Macungie Township, Lehigh County, Pennsylvania directing to Lower Macungie Township, Pennsylvania and Upper Macungie Township, Pennsylvania? Would appreciate if someone could look at the details here:

[1] and

[2]

Keystone18 (talk) 03:38, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

@Keystone18 – Let's take a look at some of the details here. Let's use Pennsylvania Route 309. That article links to both Lower Macungie Township, Lehigh County, Pennsylvania and Lower Macungie Township, Pennsylvania because in that article there are links to both pages. In Pennsylvania Route 309#Lehigh County, the page links to the page with the proper title. But in the section Pennsylvania Route 309#Major intersections, the page links to the redirect page. This could be a technical issue where the software may prioritize one link over the other, and not list that the page links to the properly titled page. If you think this is serious, you may wish to file a Phabricator report about this. Hopefully I answered correctly this time; if I did not answer the point I give my sincerest apologies. Thanks. This is probably a cache problem, as evidenced by Anachronist. Sorry for the confusion. — 3PPYB6 ^{(T / C / L)} — 04:08, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

@Keystone18: @3PPYB6: Try purging the cache of all templates and pages that contained the changed links. It sounds like a caching issue to me. I have a "Purge cache" selection in the "Page" menu. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:22, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

I notice that if authority control does not exist below the boxes, or if it not properly positioned there, that seems to cause a problem with the box link updates. When I fix that, the problem resolves. That solves about 85 percent of this problem. Keystone18 (talk) 04:31, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Problem

A problem about IP addresses. Sometimes I forget to turn my proxy off while editing Wikipedia; My IP address is blocked and I cannot edit. This is normal. But when I turn my proxy off, I find out that the IP address on Wikipedia isn't updating. I cleared the cache for several times, however, the problem still exists. The following day when I tried again, the problem fixed. Can any of you try to explain this? IntegerSequences (talk) 10:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, IntegerSequences, and welcome to the Teahouse. What do you mean by "the IP address on Wikipedia isn't updating"? What are you seeing? ColinFine (talk) 10:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

When I use my proxy, my actual IP address is the same as the one on Wikipedia. When I turn off my proxy, my actual IP address changes, but the one on the editing page on Wikipedia is still the proxy address. IntegerSequences (talk) 10:47, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

@IntegerSequences: What do you mean by "the one on the editing page"? Edit pages don't show your current IP address unless you are logged out and preview your unsaved signature. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:38, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

@ColinFine: I believe they talk about a little known feature in MediaWiki. When you (or the underlying IP adress) get blocked, MediaWiki will set a cookie that tracks this fact for as long as the block and cookie surviving. If you attempt to edit while having such a cookie, MediaWiki will verify if the original block is still in place, and if so loads the original block (it won't trigger any autoblocks, however).@PrimeHunter I believe MediaWiki:blockedtext can show an editor's IP, if the editor is not blocked themselves, but the underlying IP address is hardblocked. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 14:36, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

@Victor Schmidt mobil:, are you sure about this? I was editing earlier today, switched on VPN because I was at an unsecured public connection, tried to make an edit, and was promptly blocked by mediawiki as I was on an open proxy. Turned VPN off, reloaded the page (no changes to cookies) and my edit went right through. (Same browser.) Mathglot (talk) 02:14, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

@Mathglot I need to investigate this further, however, it's possible that it only works for local blocks. Most VPN outbound IPs are simply blocked globally. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 05:37, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Class not showing up on wikiproject template

I finally decided to start up a wikiproject however there is one major problem when I try created the banner for the project the class doesns show up incase you dont know what i mean its the things that say start class, c class, stub class e.t.c I am wondering how do i fix it. It would be great if anyone could identify the issue Template:WikiProject Australian Transport tempalate is here however is mostly incomplete NotOrrio (talk) 22:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

edit: it isnt mostly incomplete the only issues that need fixing are

• Replacing the wikiproject i copied the template from to the wikiproject i created (i can do by myself)
• Getting the class to generate on the template (can't find the issue which is what i need fixing with)

NotOrrio (talk) 22:45, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Listed (to get additional eyeballs on your question) at: WT:PROJECT. Mathglot (talk) 02:09, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Coming over from WT:PROJECT, @NotOrrio: In general, new WikiProjects must be suggested first at WP:WikiProject Council/Proposals, where it could be vetted on its (de)merits before approval. Very often, 2 or 3 editors create a WikiProject which is abandoned soon after. WikiProject is not about putting up banners on every talk page, it aims to centralise efforts of a group of editors to improve articles revolving around a central theme. Unless there is a certain number of participants, it kinda falls short of its aim. And a common question at proposals is: What will this WikiProject achieve that other WikiProjects currently cannot, and why can't it be task force under a parent project. I can help with the set up (last 6 months, I kinda gained speciality lol), but I need to ensure that basic guidelines are being followed. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 08:21, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

If it's a Popular Culture Thing is it OK to not include a Refrence

If I added information about Something I already knew about that not requiring higher knowledge of the subject (Like Medicine, Science, etc.) Like Entertainment, So if I saw an episode on Television, or It was in a video game, is it Ok not to include a reference. Im Following The Username Policy (talk) 22:19, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Im Following The Username Policy, welcome to the Teahouse. You need to be very careful about adding information based on personal knowledge or experience. We have dueling essays about such things (WP:BLUESKY and Wikipedia:POPCULTURE come immediately to mind) and a lot of specific rules about places where adding a reference is not required (MOS:PLOTSOURCE, for instance). The overriding policy is "no original research". Medical topics are one area where sourcing standards are quite strictly enforced. Biographies of living people also have higher standards. Pop culture tidbits should only be added if they're important - that is, if their significance has been discussed by reliable sources. In other words: it's complicated. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 22:39, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

@Im Following The Username Policy: "Popular culture" sections in articles are really just another word for trivia. Many years ago, there was an effort to eliminate trivia sections from Wikipedia articles. To get around that restriction, people started adding sections titled "In popular culture" with basically similar content: collections of cruft that don't fit elsewhere in the article and don't really need to be in the article.

As a general good practice, if the thing you want to add as popular culture doesn't have its own Wikipedia page, then don't add it. If the pop-culture item (like a television show or video game) does have a Wikipedia page, then then if article subject (medicine, science, whatever) isn't mentioned prominently in the pop-culture article, then don't add it. Finally, if reliable sources haven't written about the pop-culture aspect of the medical/science/whatever subject, then don't add it.

Just because you see a mess in one article doesn't justify making a mess in another article.

See MOS:POPCULT for guidance on this. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:27, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Quick answer: No. It is not okay. Subtler guidelines may apply, as others have indicated; but your starting point is "no" on this question. Mathglot (talk) 02:11, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Im Following The Username Policy, I agree with the other editors commenting here. In theory, an "In popular culture" section can be something useful and encyclopedic, if and only if it is well referenced to reliable sources. In practice, I believe that unreferenced popular culture content is a plague on this encyclopedia. Cullen328 (talk) 04:34, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Apart from the above, without a decent independent source that noticed "the whatever was in a bit of pop-cult" and bothered to write something about it, adding it fails WP:PROPORTION (it may do so even with a source, but that is a different discussion). There's pop-cult that is reasonable to mention, for example Ertuğrul has been in 3 tv-series, and Harry Styles has inspired 3 novels, but such pop-cult can be and is sourced in the respective articles. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:53, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

What to do after your article is speedy deleted

Hey guys,

My draft article Draft:PaykanArtCar has bene deleted due to Unambiguous advertising or promotion. As the topic worths a mention and I wanted to give it another try. Could you advise what's my next step should be? If I create a new article with the same topic and title but the content is improved, would it be still deleted?

Thank you!

KP070707 (talk) 11:43, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

@KP070707 Yes, you can try starting a draft again. If it is deleted depends on how you write it. Citing sources, WP:RS, is essential, WP:TUTORIAL has info on that.

Your first (not only) hurdle is WP:GNG, but I easily found [3][4][5], so that should be a fixable problem. Your task as a WP-editor is to summarize WP:RS, independent of the subject, in your own words. And not WP:FLOWERY ones. This is difficult for someone with a WP:COI, but you can try. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:58, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for this @Gråbergs Gråa Sång. As mentioned in the talk page, let me know if there's a good place for me to share you information that I have. KP070707 (talk) 16:50, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

@KP070707: You should definitely NOT rely on [6], which says (even in the URL!) that it is sponsored content. [7] is also shaky - Bloomberg is usually a good source, but that is the "opinion" section of Bloomberg. ("Opinion" sections vary considerably between newspapers, running the whole range between "anyone who pays enough gets to write their own blog" to "single-journalist job, but from a competent staff journalist").

Whenever I see some suggestion that Bloomberg is good or reliable, I remember the report from Bloomberg I saw on TV years ago that said that NASA had sent a probe to the center of the Sun. What NASA did was to send a probe to orbit the Sun over the Sun's north and south poles; that's rather difficult to do--but it's not downright impossible like sending a probe to the center of the sun, and it's hardly the same thing. Uporządnicki (talk) 13:39, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

@AzseicsoK Did the probe return from the center of the Sun? It must have had some fancy heat-shielding. (Maybe they got confused by thinking about the "center of the solar system".) David10244 (talk) 10:13, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Gråbergs Gråa Sång, I am surprised that you would offer the first of those sources; surely that was a mistake? Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 17:01, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

@Tigraan You are quite correct, I missed "sponsored", only saw ARTnews. I'll find some NYT and WaPo to replace it with. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:06, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

On the Bloomberg, IMO it's good enough for a GNG-point. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:31, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

KP070707, when Gråbergs Gråa Sång says that "you can try starting a draft again", take that to mean "you can try starting a draft (but not an article) again". You might ask Deb for comments on your draft. -- Hoary (talk) 12:05, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

There is also a quicker "fix". We can redirect PaykanArtCar to Alireza_Shojaian#PaykanArtCar_(2021). Is that ok with you? You can still work on a new draft. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:07, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

KP070707, I see that you had already asked Deb (but hadn't waited for a response) before asking here. -- Hoary (talk) 12:21, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I've got Deb's reply. KP070707 (talk) 16:52, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

I put PaykanArtCar in mainspace. Feel free to improve. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:10, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Vandalism of wiki profile.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fazal-ur-Rehman_(politician)&direction=prev&oldid=1078741398 this article is vandalized and currently portrays very negative image which is contrary to facts. Can it be rewind to its older version. Alitkk (talk) 17:08, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Courtesy links: Fazal-ur-Rehman (politician); Special:Diff/1078741398 – dudhhr ^talk _contribs (he/they) 17:17, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Alitkk, welcome to the Teahouse. Vandalism has a very specific meaning on Wikipedia, which does not cover this case as you describe it. If you can point to specific non-neutral or unsupported statements in the article, it would be best to start a new discussion about them at the bottom of the talk page, which I see you've already found. Be specific there about the parts you object to and why the sources used (if any) are poor or misrepresented. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:17, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

If someone is blocked for vandalism of profile. Does his work gets revised???

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Toomanyyearskodakblack&action=view this person vandalized it and he has been blocked by checkusers but his editing hasn't been removed or revised. Alitkk (talk) 18:14, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fazal-ur-Rehman_(politician) this page has been vandalized.. Alitkk (talk) 18:15, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Subsectionized. – dudhhr ^talk _contribs (he/they) 18:18, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

If someone has been found to be a non-productive contributor, then the usual thing to do is, indeed, to check their edits and make sure they didn't do anything else inappropriate. Sometimes this gets missed. DS (talk) 18:30, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

That said, those edits were not vandalism. They were a content dispute. DS (talk) 18:37, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

@Dudhhr "Subsectionized." Ha! David10244 (talk) 10:28, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Couple of questions

Hi! I noticed some editors use the word "lede" and I honestly confused as to how the word is used.

Another thing I want to ask is is there a specific notability criteria influencers have to meet like how books and plays have their notability criteria to meet.

I noticed an editor who I really respect was talking about suicide but that matter is taken care of but if hypothetically another editor started talking of suicide and ending their life what action needs to be taken? Wikiwow is just W0W!! (talk) 19:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Wikiwow1102, welcome to the Teahouse.

1. "Lede" is a bit of journalistic jargon - see Lead paragraph#Spelling.

2. Influencers do not have their own specific criteria; they would need to meet WP:NPERSON.

3. See WP:SUICIDE for how to handle various threats of harm. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 19:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Adding to the above, WP:NYOUTUBE may be of interest. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

(e/c) Please see WP:LEDE and WP:NBOOK. Shantavira|^{feed me} 19:28, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

@Wikiwow1102: For bits of Wikijargon that you might not be familiar with (like "lede"), Wikipedia:Glossary is a good resource. Deor (talk) 13:33, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

how to remove IP details from edit history

I made a minor edit to a page today at 'Go Man Go (Radio Show)'. All my previous edits to this page were attributed to to my user name HonestArry. Today they were attributed to my IP address. How can I delete the IP address? HonestArry2 (talk) 05:47, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi HonestArry2. You can request the the IP address be hidden from public view using WP:OVERSIGHT as explained in WP:LOGGEDOUT. There's no way, however, to credit those edits to your "HonestArry2" or any other account as explained in WP:DELETEACCOUNT. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:10, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for that helpful information HonestArry2 (talk) 06:39, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I did something similar by mistake almost a year ago. This helped me. Thanks.Cwater1 (talk) 16:18, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

speedy deletion of Delhi Technical Campus

Hey @DoubleGrazing I have resubmitted the draft for Delhi Technical Campus, although it wasn't a copyright infringement of any kind. Please check it again and let me know if there's a need of any changes to be made. Thanks :) V8V88V8V88 (talk) 09:39, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

It would be wise for you to read the feedback which you have already received, both on the draft page itself and on your user talk page. In particular you need to add citations, see Help:Referencing for beginners. - David Biddulph (talk) 09:45, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

@V8V88V8V88: it certainly was a copyright violation, given that the content was taken from two sources, both claiming copyright.

I saw you had resubmitted it, and I have subsequently redeclined, for lack of referencing. Please see WP:REFB for advice. Also, you need to ensure that the sources you cite meet the WP:GNG notability criteria. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:45, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

As you have seen, the editor has then tried to move another copyright-violating unreferenced draft to mainspace. I've moved it back to draft & you have tagged it as WP:G12. - David Biddulph (talk) 12:14, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

V8 etc. Welcome to the Teahouse. Unfortunately you have plunged straight into one of the hardest areas in editing Wikipedia: creating a new article about something you are connected with. This is a bit like saying "I've just had my first violin lesson, and I'm going to give a concert tomorrow", and then being upset when the critics tell you that you really need to learn how to play before you give a concert. Your first attempt was a copyright violation, and you've got past that one; but, like most beginners, you have written your draft backwards. The very first task in writing a Wikipedia article needs to be finding the sources that will establish that the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability, because if it doesn't, then every single minute you spend writing the draft will be wasted effort, because it will never be accepted. In order to establish notability, you need to find several (usually at least three) sources, each one of which is all three of the following: reliably published, independent of the subject, and contains significant coverage of the subjects. The three sources in your draft at present are probably reliable, but they are neither independent of the campus, nor contain significant coverage of it.

Another way of looking at it is that an article should be based nearly 100% on what people who have no connection with the subject have chosen to publish about it: Wikipedia has very little interest in what the college says or wants to say about itself, or what its associates say about it. ColinFine (talk) 16:33, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

help

i heard somewhere of a wikipedia page being hidden behind a redirect, can anyone give me examples? Allaoii ^talk 19:07, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

@Allaoii: I'm not sure what you mean. Are you referring to an article with a title that currently redirects elsewhere? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:10, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

no i mean a page that was is a redirect but still has info Allaoii ^talk 19:14, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't think any such pages that exist unless you're referring to the redirect categories on redirects. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:15, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

i know it exists because i have visited a page that was previosly hidden behind a redirect and has been taken out of redirect status, im trying to find it again Allaoii ^talk 19:16, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Oh! You're referring to articles that were once redirect but have since been changed into actual articles, right? Do you remember the name of said article (not page)? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:19, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

no, im refering to a article or policy or department of fun thing that served as both a redirect and a (insert what it was cause i cant remeber), and no i dont remember the name Allaoii ^talk 20:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm confused. An article cannot serve as a redirect and also something else at the same time. Most people will never see the other stuff on the redirect since the redirect will automatically take them to where it redirects them to. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

no im saying that it may have been an article but it could also be policy or under department of fun, i dont remeber Allaoii ^talk 20:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

the only thing i remeber is that it was hidden behind a redirect status and is not now Allaoii ^talk 20:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

@Allaoii: We have six million articles, millions of redirects, millions of other pages, and maybe tens or hundreds of thousands of pages which have changed between being and not being a redirect. We are unlikely to guess your page by giving some random examples so I'm not trying. When an article or other page is changed to a redirect, the old content is usually kept in the page history and anyone can restore it although it may be reverted. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

no this had all the info and everything still on it as well as the redirect code Allaoii ^talk 20:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello Allaoii! You could use your browser History to check for recent Wikipedia pages you looked at. With Firefox you can click "History" - "Show All History" & then search by various methods like name, site & date. By searching for "Wikipedia" it could help to find what you are looking for. Take care, LooksGreatInATurtleNeck (talk) 20:53, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

this happened weeks ago it wont be in there i dont even know the name Allaoii ^talk 20:54, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

It would be there though. The only reason it wouldn't be there would be if either you looked at it in a private browsing window, on a computer other than your current one (although I know some browsers now have the ability to have the same browser history across all devices), or you cleared your browser history. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:58, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello Allaoii! Browser history actually goes back quite a long way. :) For instance mine lists the past 6 months, searchable by individual month & also even has "Older than 6 months". Take care, LooksGreatInATurtleNeck (talk) 20:58, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

i dont have the name ill scroll past it Allaoii ^talk 16:37, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello Allaoii! Not sure if it is what you meant but I recently found a page that redirected to another but the redirect page itself, when visited, still contained the edit history of the now defunct page. By clicking View history you could view past versions of the more complete page before it was wiped & turned into a redirect. The page was for Jennifer Candy & now redirects to her father, John Candy's article. To view the page without a redirect click here. This was done to preserve the possibly still useful info in edit history form. Hope this example is of some use! Take care, LooksGreatInATurtleNeck (talk) 20:47, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Approval of Roland Krueger submission

Hi, I uploaded a bio of Dyson CEO Roland Krueger along with references from Reuters and other legitimate news sources, but no feedback. Can someone help?

Thanks,

Trevor Trevorcookhale21 (talk) 17:27, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Extended content

Roland KRUEGER Roland Matthias Christian Krueger, born September 30th, 1965, a businessman and designer, is the Chief Executive Officer of the Dyson Group of Companies and member of the Board of Dyson Holdings. https://www.homeappliancesworld.com/2020/04/01/dyson-appointed-roland-krueger-as-its-new-ceo/ Career He started his career as an automotive designer at Mitsubishi Motors prior to being selected as an initial team member of the smart car (a joint venture between Swatch and Mercedes-Benz), designing the interior of the smart car from 1994 to 1997. He moved from Design to Management after obtaining a Master’s Degree in Business, from INSEAD in Fontainebleau, France in 1998. In 2020 he was appointed CEO of Dyson and Member of the Board of Dyson Holdings after joining the company one year earlier. Before joining Dyson, he was chairman and global president of Infiniti Motor Company (the luxury brand of Nissan) and corporate officer of Nissan Motor Corporation from 2015 to 2019. Prior to leading Infiniti he spent 15 years at the BMW Group in various senior executive positions globally rising to Senior Vice President of the company. Exploration He is the first German national to ski to the geographic South Pole solo across the Antarctic continent in 2013, and can be considered to be one of the most experienced living German polar explorers, having skied to the geographic south pole twice unsupported (in 2013 solo and in 2005 with an international expedition) and having crossed the Greenland Ice Shield on skis in 2002. He was inducted into the prestigious Explorers Club in New York/USA in 2017 due to his achievements in polar exploration. He regularly gives lectures about his expedition experiences and has written a book about his Antarctic Expeditions. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jimclash/2017/04/15/infiniti-president-roland-krueger-describes-his-1000-kilometer-solo-ski-trek-to-the-south-pole/?sh=35c96e5653fe Personal Life Born in Munich / Germany he grew up in a small town north of the city where his father, a nuclear scientist, worked in a university research facility. During his early study years in Design he worked in the USA to gain more experience and after graduating in Industrial Design from the University of Applied Science in Munich / Germany sought an opportunity to go and work abroad. His decision to obtain an MBA in addition to his degree in Design was taken based on his experience working on the smart car. Since then he has lived and worked in countries throughout Europe and Asia. Roland is married to Claudine Chan – Krueger. Links https://explorersweb.com/polar/news.php?id=1334 Rolf and Cecilie: One of Hvitserk's teams reaches the South Pole! https://explorersweb.com/polar/news.php?id=21207 German skier Roland Krueger at the South Pole https://antarctic-logistics.com/2013/01/07/ani-team-at-the-pole-other-exped-updates/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/jimclash/2017/04/15/infiniti-president-roland-krueger-describes-his-1000-kilometer-solo-ski-trek-to-the-south-pole/?sh=35c96e5653fe

Trevorcookhale21 (talk) 17:30, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Greetings! Looks like you want your draft undeleted so that you can continue working on it. Please visit WP:REFUND and follow the directions there. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:33, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Blocking Datacenter IP range

I just discovered a datacenter/colo host IP range that has not yet been blocked from editing on Wikipedia. Who do I contact to block the range? I don't have administrator access to I cannot create the block myself. TheManInTheBlackHat (talk) 16:46, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

@GeneralNotability: This guy apparently found another. Pinging you since you seemed ot be part of handling it. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:48, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Actually wait, TheManInTheBlackHat are you referring to the IPs belonging to Wikipedia datacenters that were brought up at WP:VPT yesterday or something different? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:50, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

No, I don't believe so, I haven't been at the village pump recently. The IP range I'm looking at is 163.123.172.0/24, it looks to belong to a webhosting company that has purchases IPs from AWS. TheManInTheBlackHat (talk) 16:52, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

@TheManInTheBlackHat, a reporting system has been set up at Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies#Reporting - looks like it covers webhosts as well. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:46, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Citing a Youtube video by the person that I am writing about

Hello,

I am creating a biographic article about a living actress. She is doing a certain thing and I want to use as reference her Youtube video where she is doing exactly that thing.

Can this video be considered a reliable source? If not, why?

Regards

Bernhard

Bernhard.rulla (talk) 11:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello @Bernhard.rulla: Thanks for stopping by to ask this question. It can only in very limited circumstances, see WP:ABOUTSELF. Basically, if you are quoting or paraphrasing something the person says about themselves in the YouTube video, then that may be okay. This does not extend to any interpreting or descriptions of what the person in question may or may not be "doing" in the video; which requires independent analysis and should NOT be sourced to the primary source itself. See WP:PST, which states "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." In this case, a reliable secondary source needs to be cited for such an analysis. --Jayron32 12:02, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

[edit clash] Bernhard.rulla, one thing I'd wonder about is just what her "certain thing" is. Let's suppose it's speaking fluent Ainu. There she is, in a Youtube video, fluently speaking Ainu. Good enough, right? But who says that it's fluent Ainu? I wouldn't recognize Ainu if I heard it, and I doubt that you would, either. I'd want a disinterested source who's fluent in Ainu to say that yes, she's speaking fluent Ainu. Are there really no reliable sources that say that, whether on Youtube or elsewhere, your biographee does her thing? -- Hoary (talk) 12:13, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello @Hoary, thanks for your detailed answer. OK, in this case it is a deaf actress who promotes deaf actors being casted for deaf roles. In the video she explains why that is important to her and for my feeling this would prove what I want ot write in the article. Or is it maybe not necessary to prove my sentence "She promotes deaf actors being casted for deaf roles.". Or is it a sentence too trivial for a Wikipedia article and I better should omit it? Bernhard.rulla (talk) 12:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I think that would be okay from a sourcing standpoint. If the Wikipedia article is saying that she supports the use of deaf actors for deaf roles, AND the video is of her saying the same; that would be a a legitimate use of a source per WP:ABOUTSELF for a paraphrase of her own words. --Jayron32 13:20, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

But while a non-independent source like this can be used for such purposes, remember that it cannot contribute to establishing that she meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability. Furthermore, if this non-independent source is the only available source for the claim that she does this work, then it is not clear that the claim belongs in the article at all. ColinFine (talk) 14:36, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

@ColinFine OK, I guess the key word here is "independent source". It means, it cannot be made by neither the person I am writing about nor myself. I need a "third person" source, like a newspaper article or a book written about that actress, right? Bernhard.rulla (talk) 21:56, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

"Independent" is about independence from the subject. A source by you is a different question: it would be usable only if it has been published by a reputable publisher, so that it counts as a reliable source, and you should never add a citation to your own source, as that would be a conflict of interest, but instead you would make an edit request. Such a source might or might not be independent of the subject. ColinFine (talk) 00:21, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

As ColinFine says, what we're looking for at Wikipedia when we say "independent" is that the source is written by someone unconnected to the subject of the article. So, for example, if someone were writing an article about a corporation, the corporation's own website is NOT an independent source. It may be reliable for certain information; things like where the headquarters is located or how many employees the corporation has may be gleaned reliably from the company's own website. However, to merit a Wikipedia article at all, what we need to be shown is that the corporation is notable, which for Wikipedia's purposes, means that enough other people have written about the corporation to demonstrate that it has a wide enough notability to merit an encyclopedia article. Non-independent sources are not forbidden, but they also don't really help establish that a subject merits its own encyclopedia article. We can use them for some purposes once we have established that the article is worth writing in the first place, but we need good, in-depth truly independent sources to do that. --Jayron32 19:38, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Request: can someone make a page on the topic of "comedy propaganda"

" Comedy Propaganda" is one of the biggest tools for propagandists and has long historically served as a vehicle for rhetoric up to this date and considering the historical impact it's had, I think there should be some mention of it on Wikipedia especially since it's relevant to many pages on here. I'd appreciate it if someone could take the time to at least begin the page on the subject. User020 (talk) 15:45, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Anyone who can demonstrate that the subject is notable within Wikipedia's definition can start an article or a draft. See WP:YFA. - David Biddulph (talk) 15:49, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Requested articles. Shantavira|^{feed me} 16:18, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Fwiw, Political satire exists. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:35, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

I figure the better way to start is not with a new article but with a paragraph in Political satire or maybe better in Propaganda techniques. If there are enough references, it can expand to a section and maybe eventually a whole separate article. Jim.henderson (talk) 19:41, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Who can I contact regarding add/modify laws of the war

To protect country sovereign, I have a proposal to the law of war. Do you know which organisation maintaining such this? Do you have an email address? Redcross can't help, UN no response :(. Who can help me? Tng888 (talk) 07:37, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to the "teahouse", where people ask questions about the use and editing of English-language Wikipedia. We can't give advice on other matters. -- Hoary (talk) 09:00, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, your colleague BilCat sent me here:(. She closed my question at "law of war" - Talk Tng888 (talk) 11:30, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

We have no way to modify the active laws of war, sorry Club On a Sub 20 (talk) 20:37, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I mean to contact with lawyers who in charge add/modify the war laws Tng888 (talk) 21:01, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure the only people who can legally add/modify the laws of war are the people in charge of the United Nations. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 21:05, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

@Tng888, as recommended on your talk page, you should contact your parliamentary representative. It is the governments involved who make such rules, not anyone here on Wikipedia. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 21:17, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Wait so the UN isn't in charge of managing the laws of war? I'm being serious here, I didn't know. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 21:24, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

The UN is just a bunch of governments making agreements (sometimes, sort of) with each other. Whatever authority it has derives from them. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 21:31, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

The reason why I contact wiki: Redcross cant help, UN no response after 3 weeks and 2 push! :-(. So I am thinking those who update the site "https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_war" can/should be the lawyers who makes the international war laws.

>>contact your parliamentary representative

I am afraid they will say "we do know NOTHING" and sent me to UN.

PLATO, please forgive me, I try my best for the last 3 weeks...I am quite disappoint by now, no one dare takes responsibility. Yes, c'est la vie, it's tough no you dont had the right connection.

PLATO: “The price of apathy towards public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.” Tng888 (talk) 21:44, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Well then there's nothing you can do. No one here is a lawyer and no one here can alter international law. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 21:45, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

A few of us Wikipedians are probably employed in law work (a huge field of endeavor with many and varied practitioners), but it's certainly not a requirement in order to edit Law of war. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 21:52, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

ok, the last resort I will do is to contact "Geneva Conventions". Let hope this UN site https://www.ungeneva.org/en/contact-us is better than this one https://www.un.org/en/contact-us-0 (they are properly out for BLACK FRIDAY since 7/Nov :-) ) Tng888 (talk) 21:54, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

MANY THANKS FOR YOUR KIND FEEDBACKS/HELP - HAVE A NICE EVENING :-) Tng888 (talk) 21:55, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm kind of surprised nobody has referred the OP to the Reference Desk here (I think Humanities would be the area you want). But as a start, you (OP) might read the articles here concerning international law and laws of war, and see if they give you some idea how they come to be. I haven't done so and I'm not in any way an expert, but I suspect they come about by a lot of nations agreeing to some proposal. While I'm sure lawyers are involved in writing up the drafts and hammering out the details, their doing so does not make what they've come up with a law; there's no group of lawyers in charge of adding or modifying them. As for contacting the Geneva Conventions, as I understand it, the Geneva Conventions is an agreement--a set of documents that many nations (not all) have signed onto. You don't "contact" them any more than you "contact" the law of a country, or any more than you "contact" the Bible. I don't think that writing to the United Nations at their Geneva location will get you any more results than writing to their New York location. Oh, and happily, much as some would like them to be, the United Nations is not yet the benevolent "big brother" world government dictatorship that it fancies itself to be. My guess is, you're going to have to sell your idea (I mean convince them; I don't mean make them pay for it) to the government of your own nation, whatever that might be. If they're sufficiently enamored of your idea, MAYBE your Head of State will start proposing the idea, first to nations friendly to yours, then to the not-so-friendly. Uporządnicki (talk) 14:45, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your insight. Yes, user:Bilcat sent me to the "Reference Desk" yesterday, but before I dig into this, I got the input at the Teahouse.

Found Humanities as you wrote about.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities

I will read more from the site "law of war" Tng888 (talk) 21:05, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

How can I get started?

Hello everyone!

I want to help contribute to Wikipedia but I don’t know where to start because there are so many articles already that I don’t know what I could write about. Is there somewhere I could go to get ideas?

also, I’m trying to make the ad asking for donations go away but I can’t seem to do that. I thought that after I registered an account and donated a few hundred dollars it would stop. Is there a way to turn it off? Bluncktin (talk) 05:06, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Bluncktin. Wikipedia:Community portal describes a lot of tasks that newcomers can take on. Help:Introduction gives information on the mechanics of editing. Fundraising is not the job of English Wikipedia editors. Contact the Wikimedia Foundation about fundraising issues. Here on English Wikipedia, we do not care one bit whether or not you have donated money. Cullen328 (talk) 05:19, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

“Here on English Wikipedia, we do not care one bit whether or not you have donated money.”… that’s a little rude, seeing that I wasn’t suggesting anyone should care or treat me any differently for having donated. But ok, thanks for your welcome to the project I guess. Bluncktin (talk) 21:45, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

@Bluncktin: Welcome to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1172. I believe you, as a new user, should already have a homepage (which differs from your user page). One of the panes is for suggested edits, which will give you some suggestions for articles to edit, and are ranked from being easy to hard to do on the encyclopedia. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:40, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Bluncktin. Creating new articles is certainly not the most important, nor the easiest, way to help with improving Wikipedia. Look at the edit history of any good article, and you'll see that dozens, maybe hundreds, of editors have made improvements to it since it was created. Maproom (talk) 09:38, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Strongly endorse the idea that improving existing articles is an admirable task. Can be copyediting, checking references, replacing old references, adding (and subtracting) content. David notMD (talk) 12:14, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

@Bluncktin, to turn them off you need to go to Preferences → Banners → Fundraising and uncheck the box. 97.113.177.161 (talk) 13:52, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Is there a purpose to links that lead nowhere, and should they be removed?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Horus_Heresy_characters&action=history I made an edit to this page for a link that led nowhere, but I am second guessing the decision because it names an important character. Was it meant to be a link in the first place? Perhaps it was just to highlight the characters name? (It was highlighted blue, and I always assumed that blue highlights always are meant to be links. It was clickable as well). I am still new, have browsed wikipedia daily for years but only started editing today. Thanks in advance. Natcat985 (talk) 19:46, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Please, see Wikipedia:Red link. Ruslik_Zero 20:07, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

The link they are referring to is not a redlink, it's a link to a nonexistent section of the same article. – dudhhr ^talk _contribs (he/they) 20:23, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

thank you for telling me/us Jhawi 3897 (talk) 20:24, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

@Natcat985: It's sometimes a sign that content was removed, maybe inappropriately, so I checked the page history. It turned out to be one of several links which were always broken, added by an IP in 2012.[8] They should all be unlinked if they are still there and broken. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:08, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Same question for me as well Jhawi 3897 (talk) 20:21, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Refs in lede section

Greetings, Teahousers. I apologize that this is a basic question, but I just cannot find what I am looking for and I'm sure one of you can tell me in a flash. My understanding is that the lede section does not need to include references to support all the statements there, because the body of the article has expanded details of each statement with full references. No need to repeat them all, and the lede would be very cluttered with refs. Can anybody point me to where that is stated explicitly, please? Gronk Oz (talk) 02:26, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

@Gronk Oz I think it is stated at MOS:LEADCITE. Jolly1253 (talk) 02:36, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section for guidance on citations in article lead sections. RudolfRed (talk) 02:38, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

@Gronk Oz: fixing wrong ping. RudolfRed (talk) 02:38, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

 Fixed @RudolfRed: - that's it! Thank you.--Gronk Oz (talk) 02:40, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

@Jolly1253: sorry, I missed thanking you. You have saved my sanity; I knew it was somewhere but just could not find it.--Gronk Oz (talk) 02:46, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Gronk Oz, you are correct on the general principle. However, there are significant exceptions. Every single direct quotation requires an inline reference to a reliable source. Also, if any assertion in the lead is contentious and likely to be challenged, it should be supported by an inline reference. Cullen328 (talk) 03:46, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

@Cullen328: thanks for the clarification. The case that caused me to ask is pretty uncontroversial, I think: it is the statement that somebody was awarded an Order of Australia. It is expanded in the body of the article with two citations, so I don't think they need to be repeated in the lede.--Gronk Oz (talk) 01:35, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Gronk Oz, in this particular case, I agree with you, since I cannot imagine that this particular assertion would be contentious. I was simply pointing out that there are a few circumstances where a reference in the lead is appropriate and even required. Cullen328 (talk) 01:44, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Confusion of MOS:DATE in a cite source

I tried searching for this specifically but didn't quite find a question of a recent nature on the matter that spoke of the issue I'm finding.

When I use the Cite - Template option to place a news or web reference in a manual edit, it contains a field for the access date. If you simply click the calendar icon next the field (highlights as "Insert current date"), it places the date in day-month-year format.

I've already had a couple of my early contributions edited so that the access date is month-day-year by citing the MOS:DATE guidelines. By educating myself on how to be a better editor, I'm noticing a surprising number of MOS:DATE edits because of the access date field. But, and I admit I just may not be seeing it, there doesn't seem to be anything that requires such an effort to go full month-day-year in the references, though there is a carve-out that the date style should be similar throughout a page.

Is that really all there is to it then, that the date format throughout a reference should match?

The concern I have is to make sure I'm not making a mistake thus causing extra maintenance work here. It really is easy to click the icon and move on, especially for someone like me who isn't exactly swift of fingers on the keyboard.

Thoughts?

TheGREYHORSE (talk) 20:42, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

@TheGREYHORSE: Yes, that's really all there is to it. Date format should be consistent within an article. Even though I'm American, I don't like our habit of using month-day-year because it messes up list sorting. I prefer YYYY-MM-DD or day-month-year like the rest of the world uses. However, whatever format seems to be established in the article should be used throughout. Some articles include a template at the top, such as {{use dmy dates}} or {{use mdy dates}}, to help establish what the article's preferred format is. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:17, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

@Anachronist: Thanks for that. I had no idea about the templates you listed or what they meant and now I'm better for it. Consider me learned and on board.

All the best!

TheGREYHORSE (talk) 02:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

@TheGREYHORSE: I know I'm a bit late, but those templates also serve to automatically adjust the displayed dates in things like references. For example, you can place "YYYY-MM-DD" in the "access-date" parameter, and the article will spit out an "Accessed MM DD, YYYY" if the "use mdy dates" template is there. DecafPotato (talk) 02:08, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

How do you publicly post an article because the one that I made still has draft in the name?

Mine is Draft:Dino Chicken Nuggets BubblyTree (talk) 01:55, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Courtesy linking Draft:Dino Chicken Nuggets. Additionally, @BubblyTree—I've played the header on your draft. Clicking the "submit draft" button submits the draft for review by an experienced editor to be fully published. See Wikipedia:Articles for creation and Wikipedia:Your first article for more details. DecafPotato (talk) 02:03, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Editors who have accounts for more than four days and ten edits can convert drafts to articles. HOWEVER, if you did this, your article as it exists now would be looked at by New Page Patrol and deleted. All content needs to be referenced. Wikipedia articles are not "How to", which some of your content is. Everything that is your opinion ("These are very basic but taste good.") must be removed. David notMD (talk) 03:42, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Replacing (Deleting) a photo from a page

I am working with a member of the Chicago City Council who is running for Mayor. There is a grainy, unprofessional picture of him as the image for his wiki page. I was able to upload a new one, but now would like to have the old one removed.

How do I do that? BoylanMedia (talk) 22:05, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

BoylanMedia We prefer the term "article" instead of "page", this is an important distinction. Please see your user talk page for ver

BoylanMedia, your comment raises a number of issues, conflict eave those for other editors to respond to. You object to File:Roderick Sawyer (1) (cropped).png, which is a derivative of File:Roderick Sawyer (1).png. And I have to say that I too think both are horrible. (The mistaken aspect ratio doesn't help.) Both are at Wikimedia Commons. If you want them deleted, Wikimedia Commons is where you have to ask. Please read commons:Commons:Deletion requests carefully, and do what it says. -- Hoary (talk) 22:29, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Speaking of photos on Commons - BoylanMedia, the photo you uploaded will be deleted unless evidence of permission is provided. Please see your discussion page on Commons (link). 199.208.172.35 (talk) 22:31, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

I think the OP just wants the image removed from the infobox and replaced with the new one, rather than delete the one on Commons. However, we should not use the new image until it has evidence of permission from the copyright holder to publish it under an acceptable free license. I have removed it from the article for now. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:33, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

@BoylanMedia and others, it does look like the new picture should be deleted. The info at "commons" indica what is the name of the richest man in the world

Edit Article

The Ron Desantis Wikipedia page is protected by an administrator. I cannot add or edit content on the page. What does this mean, how does it happen, and how can Wikipedia claim to be user edited under these conditions? Banjoshawn (talk) 03:52, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

@Banjoshawn: It means the article has experienced instability and disruption, which is typical of articles about controversial people. An administrator's job is to ensure stability, and if there are many disruptive reverts back and forth, that isn't stability. What you can do is propose a change on the talk page, in the form "Change X to Y" or "Add X after Y" or "Remove X" and provide reliable sources to back up your proposal. That is the standard practice on Wikipedia for protected articles. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:57, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

@Banjoshawn: I note also that the article is semi-protected, which should not affect your ability to edit it. Semi-protection applies only to anonymous IP addresses and new accounts. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:08, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, Banjoshawn, you have edited The Hackensaw Boys so much that you can edit Ron DeSantis too, as long as you comply with Wikipedia's Policies and guidelines. Cullen328 (talk) 06:04, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

I would strongly urge you not to do so, however - Topics under discretionary sanctions are quite possibly the absolute worst places for someone unfamiliar with Wikipedia to be learning how to edit due to the entrenched partisanship. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 08:02, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

editing: use of figurative language

Hi I'm @Chilicave and I've been editing bits and pieces of an article. In the article I did notice some figurative language and I was wondering if that was something that is generally not allowed in Wikipedia? Is there a policy that pertains to that that I could read up on to understand the boundaries/limits? Chilicave (talk) 02:32, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

@Chilicave: Do you have examples? Articles should be writen in an encyclopedic tone. See WP:TONE for more info. RudolfRed (talk) 02:55, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for that policy!

As for an example:

"A host of Kaurava warriors attacks Virata, presumably to steal their cattle, but in reality, desiring to pierce the Pandavas' veil of anonymity. Full of bravado, Virata's son Uttara attempts to take on the Kaurava army by himself while the rest of the Matsya army has been lured away to fight Susharma and the Trigartas." This is from the Vijayadashami article and the words that are bold and underlined are of question to me. Chilicave (talk) 03:16, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

@Chilicave, encyclopedic writing should be bland and straightforward. Therefore, it would be constructive editing on your part to rephrase poetic or elaborate passages into their basic narrative. Wikipedia thanks you in advance.

On a side note, I find that such passages are suggestive of having been copied and pasted from elsewhere, so one more reason for you. Quisqualis (talk) 03:47, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

@Quisqualis Thanks for your help! And, thanks for the "copy-paste" awareness tip. Chilicave (talk) 04:10, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Chilicave, while the prose of the article Vijayadashami does need a lot of work, a quick look doesn't show any examples of what might be called gratuitously figurative language. (But it was only a quick look.) Can you point to one or two examples? -- Hoary (talk) 03:01, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

@Hoary, how about "Full of bravado"? David10244 (talk) 07:31, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

David10244, "full of bravado" doesn't worry me. Chilicave, permit me to amiably disagree with Quisqualis. First, I'd hardly call that "figurative" language (it's just a bit cliché-ridden), though I'd wonder if the underlined bit means "to identify the Pandavas", "to draw attention to the Pandavas", or something else. Blandness isn't necessary, though concision and informativeness are definitely virtues (and will generally result in blandness). Secondly, while I too suspect plagiarism, I'd urge you not to simply change the most conspicuous language. If this passage does plagiarize, then making the plagiarism less conspicuous doesn't ameliorate or neutralize the plagiarism; rather, it may obscure the plagiarism and thereby help to preserve it. -- Hoary (talk) 07:41, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

@Hoary He might have really been full of fear; we can't tell for sure without a reliable source. David10244 (talk) 08:03, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Page undergoing repeated vandalism

This page undergoing repeated vandalism. I've undone the obvious damage. -- Doktor Züm (talk) 06:07, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Unless I misunderstand something, Doktor Züm, the recent silliness has been perpetrated by just one IP number -- who I've just now awarded a vacation from editing. -- Hoary (talk) 07:48, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Smiley face! -- Doktor Züm (talk) 09:40, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Repeated disruptive edits

The user @Akashdeep dasgupta has repeatedly both added uncited content and deleted cited content on articles regarding Hinduism, such as Ashwatthama, Kripa, Hanuman, Pradyumna, and several others for the past month. He has persisted in restoring his uncited content after his edits have been reverted, and my communication to urge him to cease this. I would like a neutral outsider to take any action necessary to prevent this in the future. Thank you. Chronikhiles (talk) 08:06, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello @Chronikhiles, Welcome to the teahouse! This isn't the place to report users. However, I would like to add that they should be properly warned using templates at Wikipedia:Template index/User talk namespace. If it continues, after you have significantly warned them, you may report it to WP:ANI or WP:AIV. Thanks, echidnaLives - talk - edits 10:51, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Also, not all of those changes should have been reverted. Some were minor edits that helped the articles, but they were reverted by you. And don't call it "disruptive edits". They are a relatively new editor and they may be unaware of our policies and guidelines. Use an edit summary like "Reverting unsourced additions" and leave a friendly message on their talk page. The inital one you sent is slightly threatening. Remember, WP:AGF and WP:Don't bite the newcomers. echidnaLives - talk - edits 10:59, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. Chronikhiles (talk) 11:31, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Suggestion on publishing a page

Thank you for leaving your comments on my previous query. I have artist page that I'm working on Draft:Aberaam Varma. I'm made some changes based on the suggestions which I received previously. Please let me know if there are any issues with the content on the page.

The notification on the page says " 3,102 pending submissions'. Is there is any way to find estimated time or number for its review? Also, is there any way to expedite the review? or let me know if it is good to wait. Crishna nandyala (talk) 22:28, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Crishna nandyala Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. As you saw, there are thousands of drafts awaiting review by a limited number of volunteers. It is not a queue, drafts are not reviewed in order of submission. There is no way to speed up the process. Do you have a particular need for a speedy review? 331dot (talk) 22:31, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

There are no deadlines on Wikipedia. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:34, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for taking time and leaving your comment. It looks like it has been reviewed now, and has been declined for not having significant coverage. We have youtube videos which suggested moving the article to Wiki as a workaround for quick review, but was not sure if it is a recommended practice. So, it wanted to check the same. Crishna nandyala (talk) 10:43, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Crishna nandyala Unless you are highly experienced in having articles accepted, it is highly recommended that you allow the review process to play out. You are able to move the draft into the encyclopedia yourself, but then it is treated like any other article and would be at risk of being maintenance tagged and possibly nominated for deletion. Would you prefer to find out the problems before the work you spent a lot of time on is placed in the encyclopedia, or after? 331dot (talk) 10:46, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Crishna nandyala, I could decline it for poor referencing. (Would you like me to do this today?) Even the very first titled section of the draft has not a single reference. And here's an example of the "referencing" that you have elsewhere: His next movie 'Raahu' gained attention when the song 'Emo emo emo^[6]' sung by Sid Sriram went on to become one of the most viewed Telugu songs in 2020 on YouTube. References are for the support of assertions (or propositions). What's referenced here appears to be His next movie 'Raahu' gained attention when the song 'Emo emo emo', or perhaps just the song 'Emo emo emo'. Neither is an assertion (or proposition). Where is the reference for the claim that this song went on to become one of the most viewed Telugu songs in 2020 on YouTube? NB I did no more than glance at this draft; it may also have other problems besides. -- Hoary (talk) 22:39, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Crishna nandyala, it is a bad idea to call someone a "philanthropist" without providing references to reliable, independent sources that refer to him that way. That is a red flag for reviewers who see promotional fluff like that all the time. Anything mentioned in the lead section should be described in greater detail in the body. The "Early Life" section is unreferenced. You need to correct these things. Cullen328 (talk) 22:50, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

@Crishna nandyala, If you are feeling pressure to have your article accepted in order to coincide with the streaming of Jhansi, you not only are too late, but also are required to declare your connection to Varma as well as whether you have been WP:PAID to write a Wikipedia article about him. Please edit no further before you answer regarding those two issues on your user page. Quisqualis (talk) 04:33, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Sure, I can confirm that I've not been or will not be paid for this page. I'll get back to you if I face any trouble with declaring this information. Do I have to go through this process for any artist page that I create in future? Crishna nandyala (talk) 11:02, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

You don't have to be specifically paid to make pages to be a paid editor. If the people you are writing about are your clients, that counts as paid editing. Even if you are not paid, you should declare any conflicts of interest you have, and yes, you need to do this for any edits you make that are related to your conflicts. 331dot (talk) 11:08, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm an individual(not a firm), and not related to the user/artist. And I'm not being paid for this article. How do I declare this on the page or any example page for reference. Sorry, couldn't find any example on the web. Crishna nandyala (talk) 11:39, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your guidance! Will try to include more information. Crishna nandyala (talk) 11:13, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

. Crishna nandyala (talk) 10:48, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for taking time, and sharing your comments. The article has been declined for not having significant coverage. I'll try drafting article for a more prominent personality. But will try making all the suggested corrections before moving on. Crishna nandyala (talk) 11:06, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

How do I edit a major article?

I want to edit a page about Kingston, because there are some inconsistensies. But I don't know how, can I get some advice? Jhawi 3897 (talk) 20:20, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Keep in mind that I only recently started my wiki acc, and today is my first time trying to edit wikipedia. Jhawi 3897 (talk) 20:22, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Jhawi 3897, if you mean the Kingston, Jamaica article it shouldn't be a problem. Do you mind pasting the link? It may be that the article is protected. You'll see a little grey lock. You'll have to wait until you have ten edits in four days or post a request in the articles talk page. AdmiralAckbar1977 (talk) 20:26, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

@AdmiralAckbar1977 Hi, but I wasn't meaning Kingston Jamaica, I meant Kingston Ontario! Thanks for tryna help!! :)) Jhawi 3897 (talk) 20:27, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

@Jhawi 3897 the Kingston, Ontario article doesn't seem to be Semi-Protected either. Just click the 'edit' button.AdmiralAckbar1977 (talk) 20:30, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much @AdmiralAckbar1977 very helpful!!! :)) Jhawi 3897 (talk) 20:35, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Remember to create a short Edit summary. David notMD (talk) 01:09, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

@David notMD Ok, thank you for letting me know! (fairly new here and advice is appreciated!) Jhawi 3897 (talk) 01:27, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

@Jhawi 3897: At the risk of stating the obvious, remember that everything in Wikipedia lives or dies on the strength of the sources that support it. Before you edit the article, make sure it comes from reliable source(s), and cite them so the readers know where to go for verification and more information.--Gronk Oz (talk) 01:43, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

@Gronk Oz Ok, I will do that, thank you! :)) Jhawi 3897 (talk) 13:31, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Newbie wanting to correct page I'm locked out of

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

I am too new to Wiki to edit this page. It has many mistakes. Is there a way to edit a copy for review before posting to web? LTSGUNNER (talk) 21:41, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

LTSGUNNER, yes, you're welcome to describe your proposed changes at the foot of Talk:Hyperdispensationalism. Always provide reliable sources. I suggest that you start with a small number of straightforward, discrete proposals. -- Hoary (talk) 22:15, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

yes Jhawi 3897 (talk) 00:03, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

LTSGUNNER, I recommend you to approach this carefully. I see that some people have strong views about topics discussed in that article, albeit topics that I suspect are opaque even to most Christians. You'll do better to discuss one issue at a time. If you propose replacing the article by a modified version of your own, you're likely to encounter hostility. Maproom (talk) 08:21, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for that advice. I will heed it because it is a fiery topic for those that believe in one of the many variations. LTSGUNNER (talk) 14:28, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Citation

I can’t add my citation every time I try the Captcha fails The grandmaster of knowledge (talk) 14:30, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

The grandmaster of knowledge, every time you add a new external link to an article, you must complete a captcha. As such, the source you are using is likely not reliable. Try using a reputable news source, a book, or a journal, none of which have to be online. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 14:44, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

I also trimmed your edit to MBTA subway per WP:UNDUE. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 14:47, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Where i can see my translation of the article?

I have translate about Kayi Tribe few months ago. But icant to see that again. Abu Musya Al Janjuri (talk) 15:49, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Abu Musya Al Janjuri, welcome to the Teahouse. Where did you post this translation? There's nothing relevant in your contribution history. English Wikipedia does have Kayı (tribe), but you've apparently never contributed to it. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:00, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Abu Musta Al Janjuri. The only edits from this account are this one and a piece of vandalism a few minutes ago. The only other edit from your account globally was an edit to id:Nur Fettahoğlu a year and a half ago. Did you do this from another account? Or maybe you forgot to save your work. ColinFine (talk) 16:02, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Help understanding which of my sources aren't valid for the article I'm creating

Hello, the article I'm writing (Draft:Ron Hill (cartoonist)) was denied submission. I presume it's due to some of the sources used for references, so my question is which of the sources are invalid so that I can go back and find appropriate ones. Thanks for the help! Violetssss (talk) 14:57, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

@Violetssss Welcome to the Teahouse. The issue is not so much that your sources are invalid but that in total they do not show that Hill is sufficiently notable in Wikipedia's sense. The decline notice on your draft gives further links that explain what's needed and a link to specific help desk about article creation. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:21, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Reference questions

1. When writing the translated title in a reference, should it be in the same case as the original language form, Title Case, or Sentence case?
2. Should the location of publication be wikilinked?

Thanks. – Olympian ^loquere 10:23, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

@Olympian The guidance on 1) is at WP:Manual of Style/Titles of works#Translations, which in the example it quotes is Title Case. MOS:DL covers linking of publication titles but I can't think of any reason to link locations unless, perhaps, they are particularly obscure places. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:37, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I just read the mentioned guideline – not sure if I misread it but it seems to say if the foreign-language work isn't known by an English name, to use sentence case translation instead: "Where the work is not known by an English title, give the translation in parentheses without special formatting in sentence case: … Il Giornale dell'Architettura [The journal of architecture]." – Olympian ^loquere 11:54, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

@Olympian Yes, my bad. I saw that the Italian name was title case and failed to see that the English one was sentence case. At least you checked! Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:23, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Flag User to Site Admins

I've discovered a user who isn't here to build an encyclopedia and just wants to start drama. Where do I flag this user to a site admin? TheManInTheBlackHat (talk) 16:32, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi @TheManInTheBlackHat! If the user is actively vandalizing, you can report them to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. If you have a content dispute with this user, you can discuss on a talk page or make a post to the Dispute resolution noticeboard. Otherwise, you can post at Administrators' noticeboard/incidents. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 17:09, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi

Hello, how can I become prominent? 12.155.53.225 (talk) 18:08, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

@12.155.53.225 - Welcome to the Teahouse! It's not clear what you mean by that question; do you have a question about how to use and edit Wikipedia? casualdejekyll 18:13, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

You have made eight edits since 28 Nov 2022. All have been blatant vandalism. You have been progressively warned on the 12.155.53.225 Talk page. David notMD (talk) 18:23, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Can Other Users Edit Drafts?

hey i'm new to wikipedia and i made a draft on the ps6 and it got me thinking... Can People Edit Other's Drafts? KoopaFan68 (talk) 22:58, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes. ██ Dentsinhere43 is a new Wikipedian. 23:07, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, if they are improvements. And if a draft is in another person's "userspace" (perhaps in their "sandbox"), you'd better be very sure indeed that you're improving it. -- Hoary (talk) 23:10, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

@KoopaFan68 Yes you are able to edit other people's drafts :) Jhawi 3897 (talk) 00:31, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Jhawi 3897 submitted your draft. This was a bad, bad, bad thing to do. Jhawi should apologize and promise not to do that again. David notMD (talk) 03:25, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

@David notMD Did I do something wrong? I'm sorry. Jhawi 3897 (talk) 13:33, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes. You submitted someone else's draft to AfC without asking that editor or making any attempt to improve the draft. This wasted the time of the Reviewer who looked at it and then declined it, and perhaps irked the creating editor. David notMD (talk) 14:07, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

@David notMD Oh my Gosh I apologize x10. I don't really know the rules and stuff here :| Jhawi 3897 (talk) 14:16, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Jhawi 3897 We all go through a steep learning curve. In addition to having many of my early edits reverted, I was almost indefinitely blocked on suspicion of being an undeclared paid editor. David notMD (talk) 18:13, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

yup @David notMD I myself have had some articles edits deleted, and wow, I didn't know that those things could even exist, also, thank you very much for being kind as I am geting familiar with being a wikipedian. ☮🐸 JOE€Đ𝒾ⓣ𝐒𝔀𝐢𝔨ιρ𝒆Đ𝒾Δ ☝🎄 (talk) 18:37, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Rand Paul's Page

Hello,

I am trying to edit Rand Paul's introductory paragraph. It says he became one of Trump's biggest supporters in the Senate. Yet, he voted with Trump the least of any Republican Senator not named Sue Collins or Cynthia Lummis. My data is from 538 and Nate Silver. Any advice on how I should go about changing the article? I am very new. Jdrico6 (talk) 19:15, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Jdrico6, welcome to the Teahouse. Rand Paul is semi-protected and you are not yet autoconfirmed, so you can't edit the article directly yet. You can make a semi-protected edit request on the talk page - Talk:Rand Paul - if you wish; clicking on "View source" at the top of the article will provide instructions. You will need to provide a reliable source that backs up the change you want to make; you should not base anything you add on your own opinion or your own research, only on what is said in a reliable source. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 19:26, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Jdrico6 (talk) 20:18, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

DONATIONS

Several years ago this Canadian mailed a US$100 Money order to a Wikipedia address in Calif. and received a written acknowledgement. I sent another US$100 to the same address again a couple of years later but received no acknowledgement. These were voluntary contributions. I resent having to now give life history and personal info when making a voluntary contrib "a la" "Terms and Conditions" or so called "Privacy". You might get another contrib if I am given an official address to which to send it and receive acknowledgement. Y'all should appreciate and respect real privacy and personal information. You should offer the anonymous (mail) option. Until such time, I am not interested in being part of someone's data base just for making voluntary contributions. I look forward to see a revised POP-UP DONATION solicitation. 2001:569:5515:7100:B94B:164:1FE9:1713 (talk) 20:15, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Please go to https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/Ways_to_Give for how you can mail a check. Further inquiries about donations should be directed to the Foundation at donate at wikimedia dot org. 331dot (talk) 20:21, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

To expand on 331dot's reply a little: posting here you are addressing a bunch of volunteer editors of Wikipedia. Few (if any) of us have anything whatever to do with the donation system, so even if we want to help you, we can't, apart from sending you to the right place. ColinFine (talk) 21:20, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Lower case vs upper case

Why do you reference Black people with a lower case b? Black people, Black Men, Black Women. If you are using the word to describe a people then it should be capital just or you should use lower case to reference all other groups of people. 98.204.19.163 (talk) 22:01, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi IP user, welcome to the Teahouse. This is covered by our Manual of Style here - consensus was that both styles are allowed, though upper case may be more appropriate on occasion. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 22:18, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

A color name is an adjective, not a proper noun. We don't capitalize "white person" either, as far as I know. I didn't know about that guideline, however. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:21, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

How do I edit my account info?

I'm trying to find a place to edit my account information but for some reason I cannot find where to do that, can I get some advice? Jhawi 3897 (talk) 14:19, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Which info? Do you mean Special:Preferences? - David Biddulph (talk) 14:22, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

@David Biddulph I mean my username, and userboxes and stuff like that Jhawi 3897 (talk) 14:30, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Like basicallly username, and usrboxes, and my own info. ☮🐸 ڶỖｅ€Đ𝒾ⓣ𝐒𝔀𝐢𝔨ιρ𝒆Đ𝒾Δ ☝🎄 (talk) 14:34, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Jhawi. You cannot change your username, except by formally requesting a change at WP:CHU. If you mean your signature, I see that you have already changed it , to something that is in my opinion not acceptable - see WP:CUSTOMSIG/P.

If you are talking about your User page, then you can create it and start editing it. For information about userboxes, see WP:userboxes. ColinFine (talk) 14:42, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

@ColinFine Thank you so very much! ☮🐸 JOE€Đ𝒾ⓣ𝐒𝔀𝐢𝔨ιρ𝒆Đ𝒾Δ ☝🎄 (talk) 15:43, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

@Jhawi 3897: I suggest you change your signature to something else not using a mix of multiple different special characters. The above linked guideline state that it should make it easy to identify your username (which it does not). Your current signature can also cause accessibility issues due to the mixing of different special characters ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 22:54, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Paying for a company that has gone under

I started seeing this bank debit and this month I decided to look it up and it says that they are and have been out of business for a couple years the website is WWW.Pets.com And so I'm wondering how do I get ahold of them to get my money back Please Help Thanks Donna 2600:6C40:1400:D687:5434:270F:D5A:7F62 (talk) 22:28, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi IP user. The Teahouse is place to ask questions about using or editing Wikipedia. We can't help you with other matters. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 22:33, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Pets.com has been out of business for over 20 years! You have been a victim of fraud that has nothing to do with Wikipedia. Take it up with your bank, or with your Attorney General. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:43, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

That URL was acquired by PetSmart in 2000, which is still very much in business. Agree that the OP needs to talk to their bank about unrecognized charges. RudolfRed (talk) 23:19, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

PetSmart owns the domain name merely as a convenient redirect because short-word domain names are extremely valuable, but PetSmart doesn't do business under the name Pets.com. Any charges referring to that domain name would be fraudulent. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:48, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Approving Draft

I have had a draft of a new article in limbo for several months. Is there any way to expedite or check on the status of publishing the article? ParkPlaza40 (talk) 18:16, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Hey @ParkPlaza40, welcome to the Teahouse! It looks like you did not submit the draft. I've added a template to the draft now, so you can click the "Submit the draft for review!" button when you feel it is ready. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 18:18, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Amazing, thank you!!! ParkPlaza40 (talk) 18:19, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

@Ingenuity I just submitted and tagged the account for review. Is there anyway to expedite this? ParkPlaza40 (talk) 18:26, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

@ParkPlaza40: unfortunately there isn't a way to make it be reviewed faster. There are currently several thousand drafts awaiting review, so it could take weeks, or months before it is reviewed. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 18:28, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

ParkPlaza40, vast swathes of your draft are unreferenced and the references that you do have are improperly formatted. Please read Referencing for beginners. You should be using inline references. Cullen328 (talk) 00:05, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Wikitext Subtracting Variables

I'm trying to create a template that will subtract a variable. For example, the template will subtract a variable given from a set amount, for example {{mytemplate|5}} would print out 0, because it's logic is subtracting the given number from a set number. Is there any way to do this? TheManInTheBlackHat (talk) 02:13, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

See {{Sum}}, I think it is what you are asking for, but your example of subtracting 5 from some unknown number is confusing. RudolfRed (talk) 02:19, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, is there any simple way to do this on another MediaWiki instance? I was reviewing the code behind the sum function and it seems very complex. TheManInTheBlackHat (talk) 02:46, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

@TheManInTheBlackHat: According to Wikipedia:Lua you can use the Scribuntu WikiMedia extension to enable Lua. The sum template seems to basically just invoke the Lua math module's sum function. I am not sure if that would be considered simple or not. RudolfRed (talk) 03:01, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Help with a draft page that was declined

Hello teahouse community, I made some edits to a page that had previously been declined. It was declined again (I'm really new here, my apologies for that) and I made some more edits and have removed some links to unreliable sources. I'm quite apprehensive about submitting it again, as I really don't want it to be declined and possibly deleted. Would it be possible to advise whether there's anything else I can do to help my chances of attaining a successful submission? The draft page in question is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Clare_Manchon Thanks in advance for any suggestions you can make. Gill-liv (talk) 22:29, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

@Gill-liv: I haven't checked out your draft yet (Tho I am doing so right now), however I just wanted to clarify that your draft will not be deleted if it's declined again. It would only get deleted if you haven't edited it for 6 months or if it's clear that the draft is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 22:47, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

@Gill-liv: First, have a look at the criteria for inclusion at WP:MUSICBIO. Exactly which of those criteria does this person meet? Second, please identify which of the numerous sources you cite meets all three requirements described at Wikipedia:Golden rule?

The people who declined your draft were unable to determine answers to those questions. If you can fix the draft accordingly, and remove the crufty unnecessary citations that do nothing to confirm notability, then you can resumbit it. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:48, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Anachronist - I removed the links to unreliable sources (IMDb and also Discogs). I have not re-submitted the draft since I removed those links. Now that it's been clarified to me that the draft will not be deleted unless I do not edit for 6 months, I will re-submit. Thank you very much for helping me. Gill-liv (talk) 23:29, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying @Blaze Wolf. Gill-liv (talk) 22:57, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Gill-liv, the first thing a potential reviewer is likely to do is to check for references that help to establish the subject as notable. I've looked at the first five:

1. is an interview with her, and so not independent
2. also an interview
3. the same source as 1
4. says nothing at all about her
5. is about her music, not about her.

The potential reviewer might lose interest at this point, and decide they have a better use for their time than wading through the other 25 references looking for evidence of notability. That won't be a decline, it'll just mean that your draft has been left in the waiting list. If you don't mind how long it takes for a review, then I guess that's fine with you. But if you'd like to see it accepted sooner rather than later, and you have some references that do help with notability, you could make the reviewer's job easy by getting rid of most or all of the others. Maproom (talk) 23:36, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

@Gill-liv: Removing two low-value sources isn't enough. You didn't answer my two questions. The answers will determine whether or not the article will ever be accepted. Which criteria in WP:MUSICBIO does Claire Manchon meet? And which sources meet the requirements of significant coverage, reliability, and independence as described in Wikipedia:Golden rule? You have a lot of sources, but as Maproom pointed out above, many of them do not meet those three requirements and are basically junk for the purpose of determining notability. If I reviewed the article now, I would decline it. It needs work. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:43, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

My apologies, I didn't realise you wanted me to answer the questions in the chat, I thought you reply was guidance for me to think about whilst editing. As I just said to maproom I will revisit tomorrow as it is late here now. Gill-liv (talk) 23:52, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you @Maproom I'll review the citations again tomorrow (it's late here now). Gill-liv (talk) 23:48, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

@Gill-liv: Yes, my questions were intended to give you something to think about, but your answers would also help me see where the notability can be found while I review the draft. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:36, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Maproom, I've neither read the draft nor looked at any but one reference, but I gather that the subject is a musician. If so, then a source that's about her music (rather than about her), if substantial and reliable, would I think be evidence towards [Wikipedia-style] notability for her. (Personally, I'd much prefer it to some "human interest" story padded with material about a subject's pet(s), husband(s), house, relationship with Jesus, fave TV shows, and so on.) [Counts the references to the fifth.] If the source is this at filmmusicreporter.com, then its problems are that it's insubstantial and attributes material not to "Clare Manchon" but instead to "Clare & Olivier Manchon". -- Hoary (talk) 05:16, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Regarding my article that wasn't accepted.

Hello. Please answer a few questions of mine.

1. I wrote an article about a fairly reputable personality and have used reliable sites that mention his accomplishments. However, do I need a reference fully dedicated to him?
2. The personal is a close friend of mine, and I do have his personal details not mentioned anywhere else. What can I do in such a situation?
3. How many edits can I get before the approval?

Your answers will be valuable for me and my work. Thank you. Content LisnuTech (talk) 04:50, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello, LisnuTech.

1. You must furnish references to sources that each meet three standards: they must be reliable, they must be fully independent of this person, and they must devote significant coverage to this person. It does not appear that any of your references meet those three standards.

1. You must disclose your conflict of interest. Absolutely nothing that you have learned from your personal relationship with this person can be included in the draft article, unless verified by a reference to a published reliable source. Please see No original research, which is a core content policy.

1. You can make as many edits as you want, including improvements to the draft. But edit count has no influence on acceptance of your draft. Cullen328 (talk) 05:12, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Content LisnuTech, if Bijay Sapkota is an entrepreneur, student rights advocate, and youth leader based in Australia [who] is known for his term as National President for Council of International Students Australia (CISA), NSW International student of the Year for 2016, NRNA youth of the year award, and his advocacy for international students in Australia, among many others (my emphasis), then I'd expect to see articles about him in Australian newspapers, magazines, and/or websites. If you can't cite these, then I'd suspect that in reality he's little known (as are the huge majority of students, of course), and that he fails to satisfy WP:PERSON. Your job is to demonstrate that he does satisfy WP:PERSON. -- Hoary (talk) 05:29, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Archiving a talk page

Can anyone help me archive my talk page or teach me how to do it? Thanks!`~HelpingWorld~` ^(👽🛸) 03:59, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

HelpingWorld, Help:Archiving a talk page. -- Hoary (talk) 06:31, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Collaborate?

can someone collaborate with me to in this page Chief Ministership of N. T. Rama Rao. I think this is one such article that is having a scope of becoming GA if we can make the content somewhat more neutral and change the writing style with good grammer (most important). And I am trying my best to bring in more citations. Looking forward for interested editors. 456legend(talk) 12:55, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Why does this article exist if N. T. Rama Rao also exists, and covers both his film and political career? David notMD (talk) 13:28, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

N. T. Rama Rao is only having the content of his film and political career but Chief Ministership of N. T. Rama Rao is covering the things done during his tenure as Chief Minister which is not part of the coverages in political life.

This page was already nominated for deletion long back as per the history I observed but the consensus reached was this what I now said. And this is in line to the Premiership of Atal Bihari Vajpayee and Premiership of Narendra Modi. 456legend(talk) 13:36, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Understood. I hope you find a collaborator. David notMD (talk) 13:50, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Editing Heading/title

Someone created a wiki page for me a while back (decades) with the title 'name (film maker)'. I am working much more in other areas (theatre) now. How can I delete/change the 'filmmaker'? (I'm new to this and decided to clean up/update the page.) Quebec Scot (talk) 14:27, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

@Quebec Scot I note that essentially the only article you have ever edited is Michael Mackenzie (filmmaker) so I assume this is what you mean by "a wiki page for me". If you read WP:OWN you will soon realise this doesn't belong to you and is in fact Wikipedia's article about you not your page because Wikipedia is not social media. By policy, you should not be editing that article at all since you have an obvious conflict of interest. Instead, if you think that there are changes that are well-sourced, you should make suggestions via an {{edit request}} on its Talk Page. One of these requests could be to move the article to a new title. However, the main purpose of the bracketed part of the title is to distinguish you from other Michael Mackenzies, not to give a full account of all the things you may have done in your career. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:07, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I shall refrain from editing. Quebec Scot (talk) 15:10, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Pinging Theroadislong who has been working on the article and may not be aware of the COI. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:10, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi Michael,

In view of all this perhaps it's best simply to remove the 'Michael Mackenzie (filmmaker) wiki page. I'm not sure why the page was started, I'm pretty sure I don't make the 'notable' standard and updating seems complicated. I realise the process might be complicated. Have you any advice?

Best

Quebec Scot. Quebec Scot (talk) 16:23, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

@Quebec Scot, the deletion process is indeed a bit complicated, especially for someone unfamiliar with it and with Wikipedia's policies in general. If this is something you wish to pursue, reading Wikipedia:Deletion policy is the place to start. There will be a lot to take in. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I'm pretty busy so the prospect of proceeding is a little intimidating. Might I tap you for info if/when I go ahead? Quebec Scot (talk) 15:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

@Quebec Scot, the deletion process isn't something I personally have much experience with, but others here at the Teahouse probably do. If you make a new post here when you have further questions, you'll probably get the answers you need (or at least be pointed to where you can get the answers). 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Quebec Scot (talk) 15:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

@Quebec Scot Wow, someone saying they don't meet the notability criteria. Usually we get the opposite, from people who are extremely not notable. David10244 (talk) 10:17, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi David10244 and thanks for picking up on my dilemma. So viz. the page in question it seems there's two options. 1) delete the page or 2) clean it up so it meets Wiki standards. It seems 1 is pretty complicated. 2 would seem to require pairing it back to a minimum with just minimal/legit links. What that requires is unclear to me (e.g. is IMDB a legit link?). Any suggestions? Quebec Scot (talk) 22:42, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

@Quebec Scot Although the subject of an article has very little say in its content, and generally cannot get it deleted if the subject is clearly notable, I have sometimes seen requests like yours, here, resulting in an admin agreeing with you and deleting the article. I gave no idea if that will happen here or not. Now that you have given your opinion that you are not notable, there's not much else that you can do (as far as I know). Maybe an(other) admin will see this and agree. Good luck. David10244 (talk) 08:10, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

To answer your last question - IMDb is not legit in the sense that it is not a reliable source by our standards (see WP:IMDB). 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:01, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Question about Arbitration Committee elections

On my arbitration vote page I was only shown 12 candidates, how are these candidates selected? Is there a user nomination period I missed or are these candidates personally picked in being able to run for elections? Bobisland (talk) 15:27, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Bobisland - the candidates are self-nominated. Announcements go out in various places when nominations are opened, see for instance here. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:32, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

So the votes are done by users and the users with the most votes become the nominations? Is there a way to see how many votes each nominee got? Bobisland (talk) 15:44, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

@Bobisland, no - there is no voting until the current stage in the process, which is the election. Someone who wants to run just has to make a statement to that effect and answer questions from other editors. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:46, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

I tried refill it doesn't work properly

I tried to refill link on Draft:List of foreign Frauen-Bundesliga players it doesn't seem to refill links from the Bayer 04 Leverkusen and Bayern Munich websites properly and the link ends up malformed why is that? Dwanyewest (talk) 15:03, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Refill doesn't pick up archive.org links well. You will have to use the original links. If the original links are 404-ed, then you will have to manually key in the {{Cite web}} template and parameters for the bare references. – robertsky (talk) 16:04, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

begining

could you please tell me the best thing to gain experience for a beginner i would love to boost my experience but i lack the knowledge of where to start Ducklan (talk) 17:47, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Please consider taking a look at our introductory tutorial or reviewing contributing to Wikipedia to learn the basics about editing. Working on existing articles is a good way to learn our protocols and style conventions; see the Task Center for a range of articles that need your assistance and tasks you can help out with. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:50, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

CREATE NEW PAGES

I NEED HELP ON WHAT TO PUT ON MY PAGES THAT I CREATE Ducklan (talk) 16:22, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

@Ducklan: Hello Ducklan! First, please dont TYPE IN ALL CAPS LIKE THIS, as it can be seen as shouting. Second, I'm confused as to what you mean. Your only page creation so far is your sandbox. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:24, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

I am working on creating pages and i was wondering if you had any advise as i don't quite know how to fill them.

p.s sorry for the all caps i didnt realize it was on till after : Ducklan (talk) 16:27, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

@Ducklan: That's alright, I've made that mistake before. The answer to your question would depend on what you want to write an article about. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:28, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

@Ducklan: WP:YFA is a helpful page to read on how to make your first article. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:33, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

thank you ;) Ducklan (talk) 16:36, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Ducklan, and welcome to the Teahouse, and to Wikipedia. In my experience, new editors who try to create new articles right from the beginning have a miserable, frustrating time. It's like coming out of your first violin lesson and arranging to give a public recital: you can't do it, and probably won't even understand what people are telling you you're doing wrong.

I always advise new editors to spend a few months learning how Wikipedia works by making small improvements to some of our six million existing articles - most of them need it (and that's not an exaggeration). I remember when I was a new editor, I desperately wanted to find a new article to create, to "make my mark". Now I know that that's not the only, or the best way to improve Wikipedia. If you find a few articles that interest you, and you learn to research and make improvements to them , you will probably be adding thousands of times more value to Wikipedia than if you try to create a new article before you are ready.

When you are ready to try it, please start by reading your first article. ColinFine (talk) 16:37, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

It may appear as a nuance, but encyclopedias have articles, whereas social media has pages. Wikipedia's articles are not owned (no "MY"). Once created - or even while in draft stage - anyone can edit as long as content is properly referenced. David notMD (talk) 17:43, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

oh sorry i called it my because i was in the process of creating it. thank you for the correction Ducklan (talk) 17:45, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

References, references, references! If you cannot find valid references about a topic, then you will not succeed in creating an article. If about a person, what the person writes about themself, or said in interviews or press releases, are not valid references. David notMD (talk) 17:52, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

My sandbox :)

Hi, how can i find someone to review my sandbox? The Power is There at Your Command (talk) 03:33, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

@the power is there at your command: User:The Power is There at Your Command/sandbox only has one reference. you need at least two or three independent, reliable sources that cover the subject significantly. 晚安lettherebedarklight 05:24, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

ill add them in the future, i cant at the moment. dont worry, i wont eit the actual article until i get the sources. thanks. The Power is There at Your Command (talk) 05:38, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

• edit

The Power is There at Your Command (talk) 05:38, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

The Power is There at Your Command, you're approaching this exactly backwards. An acceptable article cannot be based on "what you know", it has to be mostly a summary of information from published sources that are Reliable and are independent of the subject, and the information has to be cited to those sources so as to make it verifiable by readers. Finding all the necessary sources to verify everything you've already written will likely be difficult-to-impossible, just as (to borrow an often-used analogy) you can't first build a house and only afterwards insert good foundations under it. (OK, there's Winchester Cathedral, but that needed heroic efforts — "Don't forget the Diver. Blblblblblbl!")

What you should do to save yourself a great deal of possibly wasted effort is to put what you've already written to one side, find some information in reliable sources, and start building your draft only using summaries of that information. As you progress, you can start shaping the draft in the way you prefer by rearranging the already-cited information, and looking for further good sources to add to the mix.

Yes, it will take longer before the outlines of the article you envisage begin to appear, but in the long run it will be far more likely to be approved when reviewed. There is no hurry, Wikipedia has no deadlines. Also, sorry to learn that you're unwell: take it easy and don't worry about any of this until you're better. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 176.249.29.80 (talk) 06:41, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

176 is right. See WP:BACKWARD.   Maproom (talk) 08:20, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

no i had a source, but i didnt bookmark it. i havent went back and looked for it yet. The Power is There at Your Command (talk) 20:54, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Neutral editors

Requesting help with editing the /e/OS page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki//e/_(operating_system) especially the Reception and Controversies sections. At present, it is a compilation of cherry-picked comments and primary sources from blogs. Biased and one-sided views that are not exactly something that should be allowed on Wikipedia. An RFC by @Newslinger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:/e/_(operating_system)#Survey_(3G_phone_sales) did not move ahead with the cleanup. As an employee of /e/OS, I am unable to make the changes myself. Would be great if some neutral editors would help with the edits and clean up, or point me in the direction where such help can be requested.- Mnair69 (talk) 22:29, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

The Teahouse isn't really the place to ask something like this. Please propose the changes you want to be made on the talk page of the relevant article. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 22:45, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

and if said talk page isn't active enough, you reach out to relevant WikiProjects (they are listed at the top of an article's talk page). DecafPotato (talk) 01:55, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @DecafPotato & @Blaze Wolf - Mnair69 (talk) 07:54, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Mnair69. I have an IT background and no knowledge of /e/. Just letting you know that I'll be looking at that article, deleting anything from unreliable sources (in my opinion), and removing anything unsourced. I anticipate a very much shorter article. Cheers. -- Doktor Züm (talk) 10:20, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @Doktor Züm for helping out. Mnair69 (talk) 22:12, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Need help with biased editing of a article about Battle Of benadir.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Benadir#cite_note-Sep%C3%BAlveda,_1542-1 Theguywholearnhistory (talk) 23:29, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Theguywholearnhistory, welcome to the Teahouse. That article is semi-protected due to disruption. Until you are autoconfirmed, you can make edit requests on the talk page, Talk:Battle of Benadir. Be very specific about the changes you want to make and provide reliable sources to back them up. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 23:37, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Describing files

Hi, I'm writing an article in a draft titled Draft:The Legend of Dark Witch: Chronicle 2D Act, and I'd like to describe the image on the left as the following: "Screenshot of Heaven's Garden in The Legend of Dark Witch: Chronicle 2D Act" I think it sounds a bit off, but what do you think? GooseTheGreat (talk) 20:36, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi @GooseTheGreat, welcome to the Teahouse. I think that's too much information - since it's a (draft) article about the game, I don't think there's a need to specify in the caption that the image is from the game. You could simply title it "Screenshot of the Heaven's Garden area", or perhaps just "Heaven's Garden". 199.208.172.35 (talk) 23:42, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. GooseTheGreat (talk) 00:38, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

@GooseTheGreat, you will want to make sure that the screenshot you intend to use is free of copyright, as Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons cannot use copyrighted material, except under certain very specific conditions. Commons:Help desk can guide you over the rough spots. Quisqualis (talk) 01:47, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the info as well. GooseTheGreat (talk) 02:42, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Citing sources

I recently added to an entry and added a source by following an example on the same page only to have it rejected - what is the correct format for citing a source please? Springrash (talk) 16:20, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Um, that's not what happened. Springrash. You added unreferenced contentious material to Jimmy Pursey twice - which is a serious breach of the policy on biography of living persons, and JezGrove rightly reverted. Then you tried to add it again with a reference, but (as the big red message said) you omitted the closing </ref> and so the reference was malformed. You then removed it yourself - which was a good move, if you didn't understand what was wrong. ColinFine (talk) 16:25, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

You also got the parameter name url= wrong in the citation (you had ur=) and the URL itself seems to be faulty. ColinFine (talk) 16:28, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Additionally, you can use the visual editor to avoid these problems—its toolbar has a "cite" button that does the parameters automatically, you just need to fill in the information. DecafPotato (talk) 20:29, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

The 2017 Wikitext Editor would be better imo since it still has the cite button but doesn't have the issues of the visual editor. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:34, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Greetings @Springrash:! If you are referring to Jimmy Pursey, it looks like your format was correct, but it looks like perhaps the website you cited doesn't qualify as a reliable source? - UtherSRG (talk) 16:27, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

@Springrash, Wikipedia does not contain everything about a subject, and you should take a look here, as a caution is not a criminal conviction. Happy editing. Quisqualis (talk) 02:35, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

@UtherSRG I also noted that the closing </ref> was missing, but the edit would have been reverted anyway. Quisqualis (talk) 02:38, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Fair, though if the source were decent, then the formatting error would have been fixed instead of the cite removed. UtherSRG (talk) 02:51, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Article Help with Notability of the Person in the article

I've attached lots of links to talk page of the article to get support with and as well I noticed an article was deleted a long back with the same title due to notability. Article: Draft talk:Annamalai Kuppuswamy Kindly Help. SanoSirius (talk) 14:24, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

As explained in that Talk Page, YouTube is not a reliable source, and most videos have copyright issues. See: WP:YOUTUBE. -- Alexf^(talk) 15:28, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

(that's just linking to YouTube videos, WP:RSPYT explains why it is an unreliable source) DecafPotato (talk) 15:35, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

SanoSirius, it is possible that some of those YouTube links are to official channels of reliable publishers, in which case they may be used as sources. But since you haven't given any useful information about them, we can't tell without watching them, and I (for one) have no interest in doing so. If you believe that some of the links meet the golden rule, then give us the information we need to decide whether they are worth watching: author, title, publisher, date. If the publisher is a reliable source, and the author and publisher are unconnected with Kuppuswamy, then they might contribute to notability, otherwise they are a waste of everybody's time for the purposes of a Wikipedia article. ColinFine (talk) 15:54, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

To add on to/clarify what everyone else has said, we generally can only cite YouTube videos as sources if (1) the video in question is produced by an outlet we would ordinarily consider to be a credible source and (2) it is uploaded to that outlet's verified YouTube channel. Videos that do not meet both these prongs are useless as sources (no editorial oversight at best and copyright violation at worst). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 15:58, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

This subject has a history of AfD, re-creation, salting and submission under various titles. May not be notable, I suppose. Quisqualis (talk) 03:23, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Userbox regarding to Userbox on date of birth

Hi, I'm considering to add userboxes on my user page, but I believe telling the date of birth and the age in years months and days might seem uncomfortable to others including myself. Is there a way to add user boxes to just add a similar user box but just tell the age in just the year itself? Thanks. Ivan Milenin (talk) 02:16, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

User current age, Try this I do not know if this will work but its the closest thing to it.`~HelpingWorld~` ^(👽🛸) 05:08, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

@Ivan Milenin: I do not believe {{user current age}} will work exactly in this scenario, because when one of the parameters is not specified, it will default to whatever that parameter has in the current date. (That means, if you only specify the year, it will take the month and day of the months from the date someone looks at the template, and as such might be a year off in some cases. To give an Example, if someone born on April 1st uses {{user current age|year=1980}} and looks at his userpage on January 1st 2022, the template will report "This user was born 1 January 1980 and is 42 years, 0 months and 0 days old"). I don't currently know if there is an elegant way to write a custom implementation based upon {{birth year and age}}, but I feel it might be possible. Victor Schmidt (talk) 06:50, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Quinton Reviews

Hello, I would like to be credited as the person that made the Quinton Reviews page as I've made it first and it was rekindled by somebody else. I did a good job on the original version and it's unfair how that person is credited, but mine, which I've worked hard on and risked getting blocked from editing twice for not doing "right", is just thrown out the window. I'm not being rude, I am just asking if I can be credited. Thank you.

-Arthur Jump Drjump! (talk) 15:37, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Drjump!, welcome to the Teahouse. Where are you asking to be credited? The page creation history cannot be changed, and there is no place in articles themselves or on their talk pages for crediting a creator. You can take credit for the article on your own user page if you wish. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:04, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Can you leave the parentheses I put in the edit permanently? Drjump! (talk) 16:35, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

If you mean this [9], no, that's not how it's done on this site. Like 199 said, if you want to mention that you started Quinton Reviews first on your userpage, that's fine. Click the redlink in your signature, write and publish. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:40, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Just remember that no one owns a page. Club On a Sub 20 (talk) 16:15, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

This [10] is probably the closest to "credit" we have. This [11] wasn't sufficient per WP:NPERSON and WP:BLP. Next time, more work on the kind of sources WP finds acceptable! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:31, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

I have credited myself, just keep it there. Thank you. Drjump! (talk) 16:47, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

If you keep doing stuff like this, you may be blocked again. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:01, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

@Drjump! You shouldn't give orders to other editors, like "just keep it there". These are experienced editors, and they are well aware of Wikipedia policy... David10244 (talk) 08:14, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

The article Quinton Reviews isn't great. It purports to be about a YouTube channel but is mostly about its owner. If you edited it to be about its purported subject instead of about Hoover, the credit for that would be clearly yours. Maproom (talk) 18:28, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Returning confused user

I just came back a year. What happened to the fun box I used to know and love? (as opposed to looking like something else I have mixed feelings about...) You know, the one with a huge plethora of buttons that all seem to have gone missing...

I hope I'm asking in the right place...

DarklitShadow (talk) 21:07, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

DarklitShadow, you've given links to Wikipedia's article on a 15th-century English statesman, and to a Microsoft article about Microsoft Office. I, at least, have no idea what you're asking about. This is a place for inexperienced Wikipedia editors to ask for help with editing Wikipedia. Maproom (talk) 21:19, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

The first shows my last edit from before I took a break close to the end of 2021. I'm referring to the the update for the box I just typed this reply inside of... DarklitShadow (talk) 21:23, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

@DarklitShadow, are you referring to the Visual editor? Twinkle? The reply tool? 199.208.172.35 (talk) 21:27, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

The reply too and the buttons above I think... DarklitShadow (talk) 21:29, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

That was rolled out last year, @DarklitShadow, at about the time you left on your break. The old-school way of editing conversations still works, if you prefer it. I'm not sure what else you could be referring to - did you have any custom discussion features installed on your account? 199.208.172.35 (talk) 21:38, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

The last time I edited on here, I remember it looking like this [12] DarklitShadow (talk) 21:48, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

That looks like an older version of the default Vector skin, @DarklitShadow. It seems to have slightly different icons and colors than the screen I get when I click "Edit", but mostly the same buttons - have you clicked Advanced (or Special Characters/Help/Cite) to get the extra options? 199.208.172.35 (talk) 22:12, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes. DarklitShadow (talk) 22:32, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Are you referring to the edit window specifically? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 22:42, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi, DarklitShadow! I agree with 199.208, it looks like the normal "2010" WikiEditor, but with different older? custom? icons. Check that you have "Editing mode: always give me the source editor" at Preferences – Editing, and "Vector legacy (2010)" at Preferences – Appearance. But that won't get you the coloured icons, only the black ones. ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 08:33, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Jack Pop

Article has been made, is the Teahouse closed? Drjump! (talk) 01:40, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

There is no article in Wikipedia called Jack Pop, are you referring to Draft:Jack Pop?`~HelpingWorld~` ^(👽🛸) 02:42, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

@Drjump!, please make sure everything in your draft is sourced in a reference to a reliable source. Quisqualis (talk) 03:16, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Teahouse never closes. It's all volunteers all the time. David notMD (talk) 04:41, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

This is a worldwide project, Drjump!. Teahouse hosts in California and British Columbia may be falling asleep when other hosts in the United Kingdom are waking up and hosts in Australia and New Zealand are deciding what to have for dinner. Those are just examples. People from all over the world participate when they want to. Cullen328 (talk) 08:54, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Signing up for Wikipedia, one of the best choices I've made so far. Drjump! (talk) 05:07, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Dystopia Daily

Can you review my article? Drjump! (talk) 17:02, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

@Drjump!: Hello Drjump! You don't have an AFC template on your draft, however if you were to submit it then it would be declined since you have not shown that the subject is notable. Every single one of your sources in your draft (Draft:Dystopia Daily) is a link to a Youtube video. Youtube can never be used to establish notability as it is user generated (see WP:RSPYT for more details). ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:12, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Everyone has a free pass to go on and edit certain revisions then, I did the best I could. Drjump! (talk) 17:46, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

@Blaze Wolf: Saying Youtube can never be used to establish notability is incorrect. As it says in the summary column:

Content uploaded from a verified official account, such as that of a news organization, may be treated as originating from the uploader and therefore inheriting their level of reliability.

Emphasis mine. An editor is going to find themselves incredibly limited to using videos from official verified accounts, and Wikipedia tends to lean towards text sources anyway. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:54, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Be that as it may, using only YT as sources is certainly insufficient. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:03, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Hence why I said using YT is incredibly limited. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:43, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

@Tenryuu: I'm not sure I follow? That simply just states that videos from verified official accounts are reliable. Doesn't say anything about Youtube being able to be used to establish notability. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:11, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

My take on it is that notability is derived from a subject being discussed in multiple independent reliable sources. The statement that a YouTube video can, under very particular circumstances, be a reliable source means you can use appropriate YouTube videos as some of your multiple independent reliable sources, to demonstrate notability just as much as to provide subject-matter for the article. Basically if The Times says something is important, it is, whether they say it with proper editorial oversight on YouTube or in print. But if Joe Bloggs says it's important, whether he does it on YouTube or in a self-published book, it's equally irrelevant. (But the vast majority of YouTube is self-published and not reliable in the Wikipedia sense.) Elemimele (talk) 23:32, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

@Blaze Wolf, @Drjump! Small point, but at the moment, the refs don't ALL point at YouTube; one is from Reddit, and one is from Twitter. Of course, those are equally useless. David10244 (talk) 09:05, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Dystopia Daily with Daniel Howell

Hello, my Dystopia Daily article has been declined. I will leave it up for editing so people can revise it into something better. Draft:Dystopia Daily

I feel like this article should be published and used for certain purposes as to give Howell's show a personalized article for people to look at. Drjump! (talk) 18:15, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

@Drjump!, there's no need to start a new section - I've combined the two. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:17, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

What do you mean? Also don't combine the Daniel Howell article with that one. Just edit revisons. Drjump! (talk) 18:24, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

The IP means the sections here on The Teahouse - UtherSRG (talk) 18:28, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

@Drjump!, "[so] as to give Howell's show a personalized article for people to look at" sounds a bit like promotional intent, which isn't what Wikipedia is for. "Getting the word out" in order to make the show notable is like putting the horse in front of the cart. Normally, subject notability must precede the publication of an article. We already have an article on the YouTuber Daniel Howell, but it doesn't mention the show your draft describes. You could add on to that article.

PS: Have the Guardian or BBC, Independent, Times, etc. written in depth about the show? Those sources would be reliable sources. Quisqualis (talk) 02:12, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

No, nobody has written in depth about DDWDH, I'm probably going to delete it and redo (and rename it) as Dystopia Daily with Daniel Howell instead of just Dystopia Daily. But also, no articles were written by bigger people. Drjump! (talk) 05:05, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

No WP:N, no article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:03, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

New "The Flash" logo movie

Upload this image for the page of "The Flash (film) please. Link:https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=472614671737241&set=a.441896974809011 201.188.151.124 (talk) 04:27, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

There is already a logo on The Flash (film). We do not normally pull logos from Facebook when there is an official website. And, as a matter of policy, we do not use high resolution versions of non-free logos or other images, for reasons related to copyright law. Cullen328 (talk) 05:45, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

IP has been blocked as a proxy, tho they were here in good faith. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 12:46, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Help on my newly created articles

I'm new to this wiki and I used to edit in Bengali Wikipedia. I've so far translated two articles Abhik Anwar, and Hosne Ara Talukder in this wiki from the Bangla version, and I'm on the way to do more.

While I think Hosne Ara Talukder is mostly fine but might still need some touch. And help is much appreciated on Abhik Anwar. Please make any corrections if there's to be made. As I'm new there might be some errors. I'd appreciate help regarding those.

Thanks. Sourabhossianrabbi (talk) 05:59, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Sourabhossianrabbi, make sure that your translations are accurate and the subjects meet the enwiki WP:GNG. Notability is different across different projects. The translation seems to be pretty on point so far Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 14:52, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for help

how can I add template in source edit differ from visual edit — Preceding unsigned comment added by AfricPrudy II (talk • contribs) 14:57, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

hi AfricPrudy II and welcome to the teahouse! you may add templates in source editor using the puzzle button in the top bar, which I believe would bring up the same graphical user interface as used in the visual editor. alternatively, you can always type the templates yourself, although that'll require famillarity with the template you're using (or the template documentstion in another tab). see A quick guide to templates for more. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 15:04, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

How to link ORCID Id with a few of my Wikimedia Commons photo contribution?

I want to link my ORCID Id with a few specific Wikimedia Commons image file that I contributed. Is there any option so that Wikimedia commons registers my ORCID Id? RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 16:50, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello, RIT RAJARSHI, and welcome to the Teahouse. I have no idea of the answer, but I know that you will be likely to have more success asking at Commons. Try C:COM:Village pump. ColinFine (talk) 17:16, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Brian Polcyn page

Hello,

I was looking around to see what info you had listed on Brian Polcyn. I found a place holder page via the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charcuterie:_The_Craft_of_Salting,_Smoking_and_Curing which i found through https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Ruhlman the co-author of the charcuterie book. because i have contact directly with Brian Polcyn and Dylan Polcyn his handler My question is this, how can I pass this information to you to get this page edited

regards, Michael Tesser MTspiel (talk) 14:53, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

MTspiel, see WP:COI for information on dealing with a conflict of interest. You may start the article yourself, but it is highly discouraged. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 15:04, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick reply,

I definitely dont want to cause a COI. Just looking to see who is willing to add information to a blank page that currently exists MTspiel (talk) 15:36, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

@MTspiel, no article currently exists on Brian Polcyn. Someone would have to write one. This can be rather time-consuming, especially if WP:reliable sources with significant coverage are difficult to find (see Help:Your first article for an idea of what is involved in creating an article). You can request that an article be written at WP:Requested articles, but the backlog there is huge and nothing may ever come of the request. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:40, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Michael, I found a profile/bio at https://savordetroit.com/brian-polcyn/ but we'd probably need more source material for a decent encyclopaedia article. Brian has a VIAF ID (4339627), so he does qualify for a Wikidata item: Brian Polcyn (Q115569780). ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 09:01, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

links

nominations

https://www.jamesbeard.org/chef/brian-polcyn

co-authored books

https://www.penguinrandomhouse.ca/authors/270735/brian-polcyn

Detroit Free Press Article

https://www.freep.com/story/entertainment/dining/sylvia-rector/2015/04/30/polcyn-exits-restaurant-business/26592425/

Podcast featuring Brian Polcyn and michael Ruhlman

https://www.thespecialsaucepodcast.com/podcast/brian-polcyn-and-michael-ruhlman-on-why-failure-is-the-key-to-success/

Brian Polcyn former restaurants

Pike Street Restaurant (1987)

Chimayo (1990)

Acadia (1993)

Five Lakes Grill – Cinco Lagos (1995)

Forest Grill (2008)

Brian Polcyn featured on Anthony Bourdain No Reservations, Season 6 Episode 15. U.S. Heartlands MTspiel (talk) 20:07, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

MTspiel, the Detroit Free Press article is an excellent source. Cullen328 (talk) 20:22, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Someone changed the Brazil National Football Team to be inaccurate.

Where the list of biggest wins and losses as a team is located, under biggest losses it just says "None, Brazil is the best country." Instead of listing the 1920 6-0 Uruguay game and the 2014 7-1 Germany game. 199.47.32.4 (talk) 20:45, 3 December 2022 (UTC) Well now the biggest loss section is just completely gone — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.47.32.4 (talk) 20:47, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

That was vandalism by a Brasil fan. The section in that information box is now correct as "Biggest defeat". Thank you for noticing. If you see another vandalism in any article, you may note it on the article's talk page so that someone may fix it. You are allowed to fix vandalism, but in this case it was a little bit tricky for a new editor to fix. Quisqualis (talk) 21:02, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Interpretation of topic ban

Hello Teahouse folks. Would a sanction of "...is topic banned from deletion discussions, broadly construed" mean that someone must not edit articles that are currently at Articles For Deletion? Thank you, MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:26, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello, MrsSnoozyTurtle. I suggest that you ask the administrator who imposed the topic ban. That person has a better understanding of the context. Cullen328 (talk) 22:31, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

@MrsSnoozyTurtle - in addition to what Cullen said, which I also believe is the best course of action, it's hard to verify what administrator imposed the topic ban or if it even exists due to the lack of easily accessible archives of your User Talk page. Archiving is super easy and I highly recommend it. casualdejekyll 22:54, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Edits

This is a statement not a question. To whomever that sent me a message telling me I tried to edit something; I did not. If I did it was in error. Believe it or not. Jdray9 (talk) 14:05, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

This is your only edit on Wikipedia, you might have seen a message whilst logged out which would not necessarily have applied to you? Theroadislong (talk) 14:15, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Or perhaps other than English Wikipedia? David notMD (talk) 18:55, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Nope ColinFine (talk) 01:17, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Multiple Sandboxes

Hello! Is there a way to get Multiple Sandboxes, without the pages being deleted? Thanks! Jimslim85 (talk) 23:06, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi Jimslim85 simply create the title you want, beginning with User:Jimslim85/ enclose in double square brackets e.g User:Jimslim85/Sandbox2 and then click that link and it will say "To start a page called User:Jimslim85/Sandbox2, type in the box below. " follow the instructions - remembering to save it - Arjayay (talk) 23:11, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! Jimslim85 (talk) 23:16, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Jimslim85, your sandbox pages will not be deleted, as long as they are being used to improve the encyclopedia. Cullen328 (talk) 01:37, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

@Jimslim85 - I note that the content of User:Jimslim85/sandbox appears to describe an alternate history. Per WP:FAKEARTICLE, such content cannot be hosted on Wikipedia, not even in your sandboxes. I suggest using some other service, like Miraheze. (Also, Jeremy Corbyn would never run for president. Neither would Pete Buttigieg have Donald Trump as his running mate. Your alternate history is not very realistic.) casualdejekyll 01:51, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Why aren't featured articles (semi-)protected?

I know this isn't the right place to ask (and I should know better) but why aren't featured articles (as in, the ones on the Main Page) protected for vandalism? I mean, they're sitting ducks, so wouldn't Wikipedia be its best interest to protect them for a little while (at least tomorrow until 00:00)?

Again, this is probably a perennial question, but I legitimately do not know. Explodicator7331 (talk) 18:25, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Explodicator7331, welcome to the Teahouse. It is indeed a perennial proposal - see Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Protect Today's Featured Article on the Main Page. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:28, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Explodicator7331 (talk) 18:30, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

There's a bot that had a trial to see how effective semi-protecting TFAs would be and what the effect would be. The trial finished and is currently waiting for an RFC to be started. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:37, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Explodicator7331. One of the main reasons to show an article on the main page is to encourage new people to improve that article. Yes, there is a risk of vandalism but it is a long standing principle that we don't pre-emptively protect articles against hypothetical future vandalism. There are plenty of editors who revert main page vandalism and enough administrators to promptly protect main page articles that are subject to a wave of vandalism. Cullen328 (talk) 08:38, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

I remember when Synapturanus danta was DYK - not even TFA, it was DYK!, it had multiple vandalistic edits in one day. I feel like some form of policy protecting things linked from the main page would be a good idea, but that it would also be opposed by the community as a whole and therefore is a non-starter. casualdejekyll 02:00, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

As I said a bot has been tested for it and waiting on an RFA. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 02:23, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Actor (or Voice Actor) born "January 17, 1952" years active: "1967-present"

There was an actor or a voice actor with a Wikipedia page born "January 17, 1952," and his "years active" on it said "1967-present (1967–present)," but now I can't find the name of the actor, I thought I ask this question so that other Wikipedia admins would direct message me on here. Alexkrzywicki1 (talk) 00:25, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

None of the entries for 1952 births in January 17 says it's an actor or voice actor. Are you sure you have the date right? (Of course the person may not have been added to the right category). ColinFine (talk) 00:38, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

@Alexkrzywicki1, It may be a long shot, but you could try asking this at the WP:Reference desk, entertainment section. Any other keywords you can think of, such as genre, the person's sex, geography, movies vs TV, animation vs live, type of character played, would all be helpful to those helpful people. Quisqualis (talk) 02:41, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Discord??

Does wikipedia have a real discord? or is that made by fans? The Power is There at Your Command (talk) 05:40, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

There is an unofficial one, see Wikipedia:Discord. Official means of communication should be on-wiki or on IRC. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 05:44, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

ok. good night. The Power is There at Your Command (talk) 06:20, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

I've been controller hacked can someone loop me back to 2016 november.

Ive been controller hacked would someone one please loop me back to november 2016 192.36.202.254 (talk) 19:59, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Is this question about Wikipedia? If not, you may ask at the Reference desk, with additional details to enable them to understand your problem. Quisqualis (talk) 22:22, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

The reset button is behind your left ear. ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 06:49, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Adding images under public domain

Hi! I am currently working on an article for my art history class and I'm trying upload images of art pieces that are under the public domain. I'm uploading them through the Upload Wizard option but it is asking me for the exact day, month and year the image was taken. What am I supposed to put on there if I am not sure of that information? Marieaburto (talk) 20:53, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello Marieaburto. Even though an art piece is in the public domain, a photo or drawing of that piece of art may be copyrighted. You may want to read Wikipedia:Copyright, which provides links to other copyright articles. Best wishes on your article draft. Karenthewriter (talk) 21:16, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

@Marieaburto, if you don't know, you may put the year or even the century, if you know it. If you get an error message, you can contact the Commons:Help desk. Quiqualis (talk) 21:27, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Marieaburto. Copyright law is complex. My understanding is that a photo of a two dimensional work of art such as a painting that is in the public domain cannot be copyrighted. On the other hand, a photo of a three dimensional work of public domain art such a sculpture can be copyrighted. This is because there is an element of creativity involved in selecting the angle, lighting the object properly, perhaps selecting a backdrop, and so on. You should be uploading public domain content to Wikimedia Commons. Cullen328 (talk) 22:43, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Marieaburto! Hit the pencil button to change from calendar picker to free text. ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 06:57, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Changing my banking information on my Wiki account

Hello -- I have a new bank. How do I change that information for my wiki account? Harrywt (talk) 06:21, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi Harrywt. Are you talking about donating to the Wikimedia Foundation? Your phrasing makes me slightly concerned because you said your wiki account. I don't really know much about them but there's scams out there where people will claim they can do things for you on Wikipedia if you pay them. For your sake, I hope that's not the case.

But if you're talking about donating to the WMF, I'd suggest emailing donate@wikimedia.org on how to change your banking information. Surprisingly the FAQs don't cover this [13]. I'd also suggest looking into if you really want to donate, honestly. There's some threads at Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF) that are more critical about the fundraising campaigns. Ultimately it's your choice, though. Does this help at all? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 07:02, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Harrywt, your wiki editing account can optionally have an email address but we don't store your banking details. Recurring donations are managed separately, see https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cancel_or_change_recurring_giving. ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 07:04, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

How to create Extra Sandbox ?

Please I would like to know How to create Extra Sandbox ? Knpower23 (talk) 11:57, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Knpower23, click on User:Knpower23/Extra Sandbox, edit, "publish" (which just means "save, publicly"). -- Hoary (talk) 12:03, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Knpower23 You can iust change the "/sandbox" part of the urlto whatever you want(eg. sandbox2) and it would become another new sandbox Roost^T_C(please ping me when replying) 14:22, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Deletion Sorting

I am LordVoldemort754. I am active in deletion discussion so I want to know that Is there is any gadget in preferences which can help me to add deletion sorting easily and fast in any deletion discussion. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 15:53, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

@LordVoldemort728 See User:Enterprisey/delsort. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:55, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for very urgent comment. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 16:05, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Can I add script in any namespace which starts from User:LordVoldemort728/ or I can add script in the User:LordVoldemort728/common.js and User:LordVoldemort728/vector.js only. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 16:31, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

@LordVoldemort728, sorry, not my area of expertise. I used the ScriptInstaller Enterprisey recommended, I remember that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:58, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 17:02, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

How to use this script User:FR30799386/copyvio-check? ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 17:07, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

My wikipedia page not found

Hi wikipedia team, I am not sure that I am at the right place. It was so proud to have my wikipedia page here. For the last year there is my Wikipedia page named Jino Kunnumpurath and I do not know who created it. but now it is not found, I have contacted many colleagues who have wikipedia page about this. and they said the same that they do not know that who created their articles. and some of them told me that wikipedia team create articles it self. I am so thankful to you all to create my article. Now I cannot find it on google and even in Wikipedia. What happened ? I have searched in google and youtube for the solutions and I came to know that there is an option to request undeletion. but I cannot raise a request because it is showing that only wikipedia's registered users can only request for it. Somebody please help me to recover my page? Jino Kunnumpurath.

This is so confusing and I am not sure about all these things. I came here because I found that this is a way to contact Wikipedia team, if this is not the way. please guide me how can I do it. Thank you.

Regards Jino Kunnumpurath Jinokunnumpurathofficial (talk) 13:49, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

It is possible that an article existed but was then nominated and processed for Speedy deletion (see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion). A Teahouse host who is also an Administrator may be able to confirm this. David notMD (talk) 13:56, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Not under this user name. No article or page was deleted. Filters did not stop any posting from this account as of this writing. Maybe user has written under another name? -- Alexf^(talk) 14:55, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Was created by sock. log 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 14:57, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

@Jinokunnumpurathofficial, the post above means that the article was created by someone violating Wikipedia's rules (see WP:SOCKPUPPET). They were blocked and their work was deleted. A request for undeletion may be denied, but you can still try making such a request at WP:UNDELETE. Please see WP:COI if you intend to do any writing about yourself or related subjects on Wikipedia. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:24, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

So, the article cannot be restored ? :( Jinokunnumpurathofficial (talk) 08:53, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Please help me on this. I am not experienced. I got little bit idea Jinokunnumpurathofficial (talk) 08:51, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello Jino Kunnumpurath, and welcome to the Teahouse. This is a place for new or inexperienced editors to ask for help, so it is the right place for you to come and ask. The "Wikipedia team" that you refer to is thousands and thousands of volunteer editors - including you and me - who work on what they choose when they choose. With few exceptions, anybody may create or work on any article - but editors are discouraged from working on articles about themselves or about subjects they are closely involved with - which is why the articles about you and your colleagues were created by people you didn't know.

Unfortunately, some editors are irresponsible and break Wikipedia's rules: the editor who created the article about you was one such, and so the article was deleted. As I am not an admin, I can't look at the deleted article, and see what its quality was. As others have said, it is possible that an admin would restore the article, though it will probably need some work to bring it up to standard, and ideally somebody unconneced with you should do that work.

Please understand that, though you were "proud to have [your] Wikipedia page", Wikipedia's articles are not for the benefit of their subject. If you meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, then we want there to be an article about you (though it will not be your article, or for your benefit, except incidentally). If you do not meet these criteria (most of us don't) then there cannot be an article about you.

A point about your user name: while I believe that the name you have chosen, "Jinokunnumpurathofficial" is acceptable under Wikipedia's rules, please understand that "official" has absolutely no standing in Wikipedia. As I said, (almost) anybody can edit an article, whether they use their real name (as I do), a made-up name (as many editors do), or choose not to create an account at all, and edit without being logged in (so they will be identified by a number).

On the other hand, all information in a Wikipedia article should come from a reliable published source: personal knowledge or recollection is not accepted unless it has also been reliably published, whether it comes from the subject or anywhere else. Therefore whether your account is or isn't genuinely used by Jino Kunnumpurath is irrelevant (except for the question of editing with a conflict of interest), and again "official" means nothing to Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 15:49, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for this detailed explanation. So I got something about how wiki works. I chose this because jinokunnumpurath username was not available. Anyway could you please help to get the article back. Jinokunnumpurathofficial (talk) 08:56, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

The user name User:Jinokunnumpurath is not in use. And you were told earlier in this thread how to request undeletion of the article. - David Biddulph (talk) 09:04, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

yes, I requested an undelete option as an editor suggested above. any help from your side. Jinokunnumpurathofficial (talk) 13:49, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

@Jinokunnumpurathofficial: I can understand how disappointing it must be to find that the article of which you were so proud has gone. Unfortunately, many people who would like to see themselves on Wikipedia have similar experiences, and very often don't understand why. However, I shall try to explain some of the issues concerned, in the hope of helping you to better understand the situation.

• The article was deleted because it was created by an editor who was found by a checkuser to be evading blocks on other accounts. (A checkuser is someone who has access to Wikipedia's technical logs, so that they can check on the editing history of people who use more than one account.) The checkuser described the account as "part of a spam ring". I don't have access to the technical logs, but as an administrator I do have access to the deleted editing history of the various accounts involved, and there are such striking similarities between the editing of the person who created the article about you and the editing of some of the other accounts that even without seeing the technical evidence, I have no doubt whatsoever that there is a connection to the other accounts, and that the account in question was being used to evade blocks. I don't think there is any reasonable likelihood at all of the deleted article being restored.
• Trying to get an article about yourself on Wikipedia is strongly discouraged, as you will see if you read Wikipedia's guideline on conflict of interest. I note that you have set up an account for the sole purpose of getting coverage after yourself following the deletion of an article which was created by someone described as "part of a spam ring", but that you say you don't know who created that article.
• In order to be considered notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia, a subject is required to satisfy certain notability guidelines. Obviously you can read those guidelines if you wish to, but unfortunately there are rather a lot of them, and they are rather long. (In my opinion Wikipedia has far too many policies and guidelines, and most of them are far too long, making it difficult for new editors to know what is required.) However, the central point of the notability guidelines is quite simple: to be considered notable, a subject needs to have received substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. I have checked the references which were given in the article, and I have also made my own searches for information about you. Nothing I have found comes anywhere remotely near to indicating that you satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines. You are to be found on such sites as IMDb, instagram, facebook, deezer, spotify, and so on, but none of those is of any value at all in establishing notability. Anyone at all can set up a Facebook account and write about themselves; anyone at all can publish their own work on instagram, deezer, spotify; anyone who has ever done anything whatever in the film industry can have a page about themselves on IMDb. Likewise, someone's own web site, interviews with them, write-ups of press releases, pages on web sites with connections to the person in question, and so on and so on do not indicate notability.
• You are, of course, free to take whatever steps you choose in order to try to establish yourself as the subject of a Wikipedia article, including requesting restoration of the deleted article, paying someone to write an article for you, or whatever else, but my honest advice to you is that you would be better advised to put your efforts instead into seeking publicity for yourself in other places. As I have already said, the likelihood of the deleted article being restored is virtually nil, and because of the failure to satisfy Wikipedia's notability standards, any article about you is likely to be deleted, so any time and work you put into seeking publicity on Wikipedia is likely to be wasted.

I don't know how helpful what I have said may be to you. Obviously it is not likely to be welcome to you, but I think it is actually more likely to be helpful to you to let you know what the situation is, rather than give you false hope by encouraging you to put time and effort into what is virtually bound to end in failure. JBW (talk) 17:11, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Improving a stub

I'm new and have corrected a few typos so far, this question is more involved than typos!

While reading "A walk through the year" by Edwin Way Teale, I wanted more information about one of his entries about an Italian naturalist, Donati, who collected seeds. Wiki has a page for Vitaliano Donati that is marked as a stub. Teale's book (my wording) states:

all of Donati's possessions including seeds gathered from Africa were stolen before his trip home. The thief found a packet addressed to Carl Linnaeus which contained the seeds and sent it on to Linnaeus in Sweden. The ship Donati was on in 1762 was wrecked and all drowned. [if the thief hadn't taken the seeds and sent them on, they would have been lost]

I don't know where Teale got his information but I'd like to add this nice tidbit about the seeds to Donati's page, which simply says that Donati died traveling on a ship in the Indian Ocean. It doesn't say it was wrecked and all was lost including all people.

Is there anything I can add to the current page now? Where would you suggest I find documentation to add the ship wreck information and connection to Linnaeus and seed packet? There are notes in the back of Teale's book, but none relating to Donati or Linnaeus. Teale died in 1980.

Thanks so much for any help!! Ctterminator (talk) 17:32, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Since Teale was a respected professional in the field who published things, his publications can be used as sources; you can put the tidbit in, citing Teale as your source. If you are in two minds about the reliability, and think Teale might have been speculating, you can always say "according to Teale....", in which case Wikipedia is correct even if Teale gets disproven! We don't have to find sources-for-sources, only sources-for-Wikipedia. Elemimele (talk) 17:45, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, Ctterminator. Edwin Way Teale was a respected naturalist who won a Pulitzer Prize. His book should be considered a reliable source for Donati's sad fate. Feel free to expand Donati's biography, citing Teale's book as your source. If you can find additional sources, that would be even better. Referencing for beginners may be worth reading. Cullen328 (talk) 17:52, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Propose delete [Category:Radical theology]

Hi, Propose delete [Category:Radical theology]. Lacks Wikipedia:Notability as a well-defined term. FatalSubjectivities (talk) 15:31, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

@FatalSubjectivities, see WP:CFD#HOWTO. It's probably much easier with twinkle. WP:N is about articles, but you may be right anyway. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:50, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello, FatalSubjectivities. Categories are not articles, and do not necessarily need to satisfy notability requirments: they are meant to be an aid for navigating Wikipedia articles.

The two questions are, Is this category likely to be useful? - i.e. is it a category that people are going to see as natural for the subjects in it; and Is it appropriate to put subjects in this catgory? This second question is important where the category might be contentious (eg the national, religious, or sexual identification of individuals), but not in many cases. I guess here it is possible that it would be, in that there might be disagreement as to what theological matters are "radical": in that case, it would be wise to confine it to subjects whose sources describe them as radical. ColinFine (talk) 18:50, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

season 2 will be filmed in Romania ?

the filming of season 2 will take place in Romania ?? EduarddRichardd (talk) 04:30, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

@EduarddRichardd For these types of questions, you should visit WP:Reference Desk. Roost^T_C(please ping me when replying) 04:55, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

the filming of wednesday season 2 will take place in Romania ?? EduarddRichardd (talk) 04:34, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a place for asking questions about something that isn't related to Wikipedia, please use google.com ██ Dentsinhere43 is a new Wikipedian. 05:49, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

@EduarddRichardd and Dentsinhere43: WP:Reference Desk is exactly for asking questions about something that isn't related to Wikipedia. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:36, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Wednesday (TV series)#Future says the producers are open to the possibility of a future series. No doubt when a Season 2 is reported in reliable media, the article will be updated. But we don't have a crystal ball, @EduarddRichardd. ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 07:50, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

But, yeah, Reference Desk is the preferred venue for this kind of Q&A. ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 07:53, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

What show? Cwater1 (talk) 20:14, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Talk page

Hello, I am an unregistered IP with a question on talk pages. More than a month ago, I have made new sections in talk pages or edits to talk pages that say that a specific change should be made (They are backed with reliable sources, at least I think so. Also, the edits were on a different IP address)

The pages are these pages: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Big_City_Greens#Tilly_older_than_Cricket (I was the IP) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Transuranium_element#%22All_Synthetic%22 (I made the section and wrote it)

It has been, as I said, more than a month, and nobody has responded to the edits i made in the talk page. Should I be bold and make the changes I want anyway, or should I close the discussion and not do anything? And if it is the first option, should I notify that I made the change in the talk discussion? 

Thanks,

2601:600:9080:A4B0:E17F:37BC:DEDE:4979 (talk) 20:44, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

I would say, yes, Go for it. But be prepared for the possibility that somebody who either didn't see the discussion or didn't think about it enough to argue, will revert you, in which case invite them to join the discussion: see BRD. ColinFine (talk) 21:43, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

cant log in

my account is @The Power is There at Your Command, I got logged out, I dont know when, but i noticed when I went to remove content from my sandbox. Now I cant log in. I dont know why this stuff always happens to me 😭. Im getting a message that It wont let me log in to prevent hijacking. 50.234.77.34 (talk) 19:32, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Try another browser, or try deleting wikipedia.org and wikimedia.org cookies in your current browser. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:53, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Let's stop stupid sexist comments

Hello, I recently read the biography of one English woman singer. I was shocked to read the comment about the difference in age (9 years...) between her and her "younger" boyfriend/husband. There are so many men with women 20 years younger!! I think it's high time this sort of remarks/comments disappear from Wikipedia pages. Cheers, Cris 62.39.207.192 (talk) 18:09, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Please tell us which page you are referring to and it can be addressed. Theroadislong (talk) 18:19, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Vague threads like this help nobody; we're not psychic and don't innately know what article you're referring to. Details are important if you hope to get anything resembling a useful answer. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 18:23, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

@ Cris, many of the source materials used in writing Wikipedia's articles are older and/or inappropriately sexist. If an article is edited by a user who doesn't notice the sexism, that particular prejudice will find its way into Wikipedia. I recommend noting this deficiency on the talk pages of such articles, with a suggestion as to how you would rephrase the passage, and allow about 10 days before modifying the article's text yourself. Quisqualis (talk) 19:59, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

There is a fundamental problem with older subjects where we may be forced to use older biographies and articles. The old sources will write with the social norms and moralities of their time. We cannot change what our sources say. In some cases, having a younger husband would have been seen as quite scandalous. We need to report factually how this affected the person's life, albeit without supporting a stupidly sexist viewpoint, but we might be stuck with a source that does support the stupidly sexist viewpoint because it was written at a time when this viewpoint was considered respectable and normal. All we can do is distance ourselves by choosing our wording: "According to X's biographer, Y, she destroyed her career and social chances by marrying an inappropriately young partner, and was obliged to spend the rest of her life living in a shoebox north of Sheffield". We don't even have the option of adding "a partner considered inappropriately young by the moral standards of her age", because we'd have to find a source to indicate what the moral standards of her age actually were, and even then, we are running the risk of building our own moral discussion (see WP:SYNTH) instead of merely reflecting what X's biographers genuinely said. It is hard to discuss moralities with which we do not agree, while remaining neutral and true to sourcing. It requires a very careful balancing act of wording.

But having said all the stuff above, which applies to historic figures, if you come across stupid bits of sexist trivia that aren't really a major part of someone's life, by all means trim them out of the article. Magazines love to put in these little bits, which have the feeling of two people having a gossip over an office coffee ("Oooh, and you should see her boyfriend! I mean, I shouldn't say, but have you looked at his ears... I mean, well..."). These are "human interest" additions, not necessarily relevant to someone's life and career. We're a nice boring encyclopaedia that's not obliged to try to appeal to the inner gossip. We can safely remain factual. Elemimele (talk) 10:51, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

A search found this in Medina (singer): "From 2012 to 2014 she dated and lived with Danish singer Christopher, who is 9 years younger." She is Danish so I'm not sure it's the one you read. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:10, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Red-line in Distinguish statement

I just augmented the Distinguish statement in the article for the band Dum Dum Girls, and my addition is red-lined. I stand by my edit-how do I remove the red-line? Pete Best Beatles (talk) 22:03, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Pete Best Beatles - I've corrected it to what I assume you want. As explained at Template:Distinguish you need to enter "text =" and then wikilink the relevant sections - Best wishes - Arjayay (talk) 22:18, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, that's exactly what I intended. Didn't know about the template article. -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 23:28, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Newby Queries

As you may well have gathered, I am very new to this. It is my intention to re-write the existing Wikipedia page about RAF Locking. I have sought t understanding the editing process and have a number of questions. Hopefully this is the right place to ask.

1. Having noted the need to cite every entry on the page, I am surprised that the item about the RAFLAA monument has no referencing. How could that be? It is not a problem, I will have a citation appropriate to this entry.

2. On the subject of citations, I shall be drawing heavily on the content of a book. I understand that each citation needs to list the page number. Is this strictly necessary given that the book has a very adequate index?

3. I expect to undertake editing over several sessions, probably on successive days. Can I simply save my work after each session? Does this save to sandbox? When I’m eventually ready, I presume I press “Publish”. Will this cause my work to become available to the public or will it now pass through a process of validation?

Any guidance would be most welcome. Thanks Stephen Pemberton Stevepem (talk) 11:21, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Stevepem Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If you notice something that lacks a reference, and have one, please add it. As this is a volunteer project, things like that slip through the cracks often. Yes, page numbers should be provided for as complete a citation as possible. "Publish changes" should be interpreted to mean "save", it used to say that, but was changed to emphasize all edits are visible to the public. There is normally not a "validation" process(unless the article is Pending Changes protected). You are welcome to either add edits one at a time when you are able to make them, or you could do something like draft a large edit in your sandbox first. It's up to you. There are also ways to mark an article as under construction, or indicate a large edit is in process. 331dot (talk) 11:35, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello Stephen, and welcome to the Teahouse, and to Wikipedia. Thank you for wanting to improve the article RAF Locking. To answer your questions:

1. . It is a policy that every claim in a Wikipedia article be verifiable from a reliable published source, but it is not policy that every statement must actually be cited. However, a lot of editors (including me) take the view that if you're going to put information in, you must have a source for it (otherwise you can't be confident that it is appropriately verifiable) so why not put it in? So those who review new articles and recent changes often require full referencing. In the past we were less careful about this, and there are many seriously underreferenced articles (though on a quick look, RAF Locking looks reasonably well referenced), but improving the referencing of an article. is always a welcome change.
2. . It is strongly preferred to give the page, to assist a reader in checking a reference. You can use a named reference and the {{sfn}} template to avoid repeating the whole reference. See WP:REFB.
3. . The best way to do this is to make incremental changes to the article, updating the public article as you go. If this won't work you can copy part or all of the article to your sandbox, work on it there (every change to anything in Wikipedia is public, which is why the "save changes" button is now called "publish changes"; but your sandbox won't be found by external searches, only by people who know to search inside Wikipedia, and the article won't be changed. Then when you are satisfied, you can copy your change back to the article.

A couple of caveats:

1. Copying within Wikipedia is permitted, provided the source is acknowledged; so you should record the copying both before and after, normally in the edit summary: see copying within Wikipedia.
2. If you will be working on your sandbox for more than a few hours, it would be worth putting the {{under construction}} template on the article, to warn other editors.
3. If you are making substantial changes, it is probably a good idea to discuss them on the article's talk page first.

ColinFine (talk) 11:36, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. One addition: the guideline is that it should be reasonably obvious what each citation supports (WP:CITEFOOT). In this article it's unlikely you'll be saying anything contentious where the citation needs to be very close indeed to the contentious statement, even attached to a particularly contentious word. You might have a short paragraph of text summarising information taken from within a few pages of a book. In this case it is sufficient to have a single inline citation for the paragraph rather than repeating near-identical citations sentence by sentence through the paragraph. I.e. you can say "The sun is the thing at the middle of the solar system. It's hot. It's big. It's round." and put a single citation at the end, rather than four individual references to successive pages of the same book. Of course if anyone reverts or complains that you're not supporting the information, you should then put in the individual citations because it's become contentious, but in reality so long as the reader can readily verify everything you've written, you should be okay. And I would recommend working on the actual article in situ rather than in a sandbox; it is generally helpful to make a lot of small changes rather than one enormous change, because then if anyone disagrees, they can discuss it with you edit-by-edit, and revert individual bits that they don't like, rather than having to deal with a massive fait accompli in one lump. Elemimele (talk) 11:56, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: RAF Locking.

You say: "It is my intention to re-write ..." then "I expect to undertake editing over several sessions, probably on successive days. Can I simply save my work after each session? Does this save to sandbox?" When I’m eventually ready, I presume I press “Publish”. Given that the article already exists and looks to be decent (if perhaps a little brief), then the general practice it not to re-write. Rather, do a series of small, self-contained edits, one detail at a time, making gradual improvements. And you can do them on the live article. But if you are unsure, then use your sandbox to practice those small edits. Make good use of the "show preview" button to check their effects before you save/publish them. Hope that helps. Feline Hymnic (talk) 13:36, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

@Stevepem One additional note, if the book you have is self-published (by any author), it does not qualify as a reliable source in Wikipedia, and neither would an unpublished manuscript. If the book has been written by you and published by a quality publishing house, see WP:CITESELF. Quisqualis (talk) 00:42, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Visual editor and JSTOR articles

Using Visual Editor to add a JSTOR URL to a citation for an article from The English Historical Review I notice manual edit doesn't appear to have a specific field for journal names and volume details. Is the the only way to include journal details and JSTOR using Visual Editor to delete the citation and use automatic edit? Mcljlm (talk) 16:56, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Mcljlm. Using the source editor gives you much more flexibility than the Visual Editor. See Template:Cite journal which I have used many times. Cullen328 (talk) 17:39, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Will the JSTOR and article details appear Cullen328 if I delete the citation and use automatic edit? Mcljlm (talk) 18:12, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

@Mcljlm, you can use the Visual Editor and it will show the fields for {{cite journal}}. Choose "Cite" then "Manual" then "Journal". At the left there will be a list of all the template fields. Click the box beside "JSTOR" (near the bottom of the list) and it will appear on the right to be filled in. Enter the "jstor" number there and the template will generate a link to the article. Do not use the "url" field for this. StarryGrandma (talk) 19:47, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Clicking Journal leads to all fields being empty. After filling in the details the citation appears as:

Douglas, David (May 1946). "The Earliest Norman Counts". The English Historical Review. 61 (240): 130. JSTOR 555396 – via JSTOR.

Adding "page=" in front of 130 results in: Douglas, David (May 1946). "The Earliest Norman Counts". The English Historical Review. 61 (240): p.130. JSTOR 555396 – via JSTOR. {{cite journal}}: |pages= has extra text (help).

Adding |page= infront of 130 results in |page=130. JSTOR 555396 – via JSTOR.

Should the template appear with details? What do I need to so that p. appears in front of 130? Mcljlm (talk) 23:01, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

@Mcljlm, what it should look like is this when you save it:

Douglas, David (May 1946). "The Earliest Norman Counts". The English Historical Review. 61 (240): 129–156. JSTOR 555396.

For a journal article reference the pages are usually the pages that the article occupies. It can be just the pages you are citing, but in either case there is no way to have it say pages in the format that "cite journal" uses. StarryGrandma (talk) 23:18, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Is there anyway I can include JSTOR and p.130 without using Source Editor which I don't understand well enough to use? If not perhaps you StarryGrandma or someone else could add the JSTO URL to citation [2] in the 2nd paragraph of William Longsword. Mcljlm (talk) 01:02, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

@Mcljlm, I have done so. Sorry that our referencing system can be so confusing. StarryGrandma (talk) 01:08, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

@StarryGrandmaThanks. Interestingly, in my attempts there were times when there was a hyperlink from the title to the article; not sure how that came about. Now readers will need to know the link is in the JSTOR . Mcljlm (talk) 01:59, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Editing so {{ADVERT}} can be removed

Hello! I recently edited American Society of Ophthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. I don't think its ready to have the advert tag removed but I wanted to know if anyone could to a look and let me know if the changes were in the right direction? Thank you! Martiansizzle (talk) 01:53, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Disclaimer: I am fairly new at Wikipedia. It seems your article is sourced / supported only by its own corporate website. You have to find many more independent reliable sources to establish the notability of the organisation. Hope this helps. Lord Alan B'stard (talk) 02:30, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I am fairly old at Wikipedia, Martiansizzle. This edit of yours was definitely an improvement. As for where to go from now, Lord Alan has pretty much the right idea; however, you don't need many more independent reliable sources; you merely need some independent reliable sources, perhaps no more than three. -- Hoary (talk) 03:08, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Help needed for Draft:Ronnie Lahiri

Help needed at Draft:Ronnie Lahiri Lord Alan B'stard (talk) 22:36, 4 Decemr 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Lord Alan B'stard. Please identify the very best three to five sources that are reliable, that are fully independent of Lahiri and that devote significant coverage to Lahiri. For the benefit of other editors, there is extensive discussion of this draft at User talk: Robert McClenon. Cullen328 (talk) 22:44, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

User:Cullen328 From our last discussion I need clarity on fully independent, significant etc. as these seem to be applied arbitrarily. I have tried to give as few sources as possible to support the statements in the articles so as to avoid the tag of reference-bombing. As far as I can see all the sources I have cited are independent of Lahiri (no discernible Conflict of Interest) and are reliable ones. The only unreliable source I have used is "Republic World" which is on a Wikipedia blacklist of some kind. The discussion at User talk: Robert McClenon has been also moved to the talk page of Draft:Ronnie Lahiri Lord Alan B'stard (talk) 23:15, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

@Lord Alan B'stard, returning to the original topic here, you have been asked to "Please identify the very best three to five sources that are reliable, that are fully independent of Lahiri and that devote significant coverage to Lahiri". That's a vital question which only you can answer, as you have read them.--Quisqualis (talk) 23:25, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

User:Quisqualis As I explained, I don't understand the meanings of these terms ... as used in Wikipedia ...Lord Alan B'stard (talk) 23:31, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

@Lord Alan B'stard, Sorry, for clarity on the independence of sources used to establish notability, seeWikipedia:Independent sources. Quisqualis (talk) 23:34, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

The sources are independent of Lahiri who is one of the most notable films producers of India. For eg. the first source in the article, its a 30 minute news documentary feature on the duo anchored by a top independent film critic of India on a leading TV news channel which captures their significant body of work and interviews them. I have not used any of the interview statements by the duo. So why is this not reliable and independent of Lahiri etc.? The reviewer implied it was paid news/marketing without any proof. Lord Alan B'stard (talk) 23:39, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

This discussion would be better taken to the Reliable sources noticeboard, as you're not seeing that PR professionals (of which you might be one) release updates on their clients, which certain, low-quality publications pick up to populate their pages with "news". Wikipedia editors can spot this, based on timing coincidence, wording and other factors. That is why we doubt so many of your sources. A lot of "news" gets endlessly cycled around the Web this way, until it is superseded by the next PR release and the articles it spawns. The Indian news media (are you listening, Times of India?) are not too scrupulous about using a PR release or promotional announcement as the basis for a news article. Such sources are, at base, not independent of the subject. Quisqualis (talk) 00:15, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I am not a PR professional. I'm a legal professional. Also AFAIK I haven't used low grade media sources. So I take umbrage at some of your aspersions. Please pick out which of my citations are the really bad ones so I can learn. Lord Alan B'stard (talk) 00:39, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

@Lord Alan B'stard, You really seem to believe in your guy. If he's really all that, it may just be WP:TOOSOON for an article right now. Also have a look at Other stuff exists, for why one poor article does not merit another. Quisqualis (talk) 00:20, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

User:Quisqualis I have no WP:COI for this article. I'll have the same learning issues for whichever article I start next. So better to learn on this one. Lord Alan B'stard (talk) 00:35, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Since it is implied I have some connection with this person, which BTW I don't, the background is like this. About 17 days back the Supreme Court of India ordered the release of the 6 assassins of Rajiv Gandhi. As part of my legal research I saw the film on the assassination ie. Madras Cafe and made an edit there to redlink the producer. I then decided to write a stub article, which got unfortunately got reverted and put to draft. That is why I am here over the weekend. Lord Alan B'stard (talk) 00:55, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I have spent a fair amount of time trying to explain to Lord Alan B'stard the type of sources that establish the notability of a topic. I told them at the very beginning of our interaction that they should transform the bare URLs in their draft into complete references with bibliographic information. They did not do so. At the very beginning of this discussion, I asked them to identify the best three to five sources about this person. They did not do so. Instead, they went to an article Kalpataru Day about an Indian topic that I had edited and expanded twelve years ago and gutted it, removing every single reference, including a scholarly book published by the University of Chicago Press. Then, they gloated about their article gutting on my talk page. This is clearly retaliatory editing, and I do not appreciate it. Cullen328 (talk) 03:08, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I strongly object to the word gloating. I was according you the courtesy, as original author, of informing you of my actions.Lord Alan B'stard (talk) 05:41, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

ASSIST. WIKIPEDIA. with. the. sales. of RAYMOND. CHOW. art,drawings, prints. paintings. raymondchow.com

CAN I. RAYMOND. CHOW. ARTIST. OF. 63 PLUS. YEARS. professional. artist raymondchow.com assist. in. soe. art sale on. line 2 assist. WIKIPEDIA. of. which I am on, included. as. RAYMOND. CHOW. artist. description? 156.34.53.216 (talk) 11:12, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello. I am afraid I'm not sure what you are asking (and your very very unconventional use of full stops (periods) after almost every word makes it hard to decode). But it sounds as if you are asking if you can use Wikipedia sell your work. The answer is an absolute and resounding NO! Please see NOTPROMO. ColinFine (talk) 11:22, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

This seems to be about Raymond Chow (artist). I note that its section "Commissions and collections" is completely unreferenced. -- Hoary (talk) 11:51, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Also, the "Career" section is very poorly referenced. David10244 (talk) 08:18, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Proof of Fermat's little theorem.

Dear member, it's been a while since I visited this site.

I have written a proof of Fermat's theorem.

I am quit insecure.

It would please me if a mathematician reviews my proof and lets me know if my proof is valid and correct.

I'm grateful for any help I can get.

An answer on this page would be fine.

Yours Censirely yours Wim Coenen.

Wim Coenen (talk) 12:44, 4 December 2022 (UTC) https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gebruiker:Wim_Coenen/Kladblok#Proof_of_Fermat's_little_theorem Wim Coenen (talk) 12:43, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Proofs of Fermat's little theorem instead. Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:01, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Dear Shantavira,

I’m aware of the existence of the article in Wikipedia..

The existing proofs in this article differ from my proof, as my proof is a proof by mathematical induction.

I will not ad my proof to the proofs of Fermat’s little theorem, unless I'm absolutely sure my proof is valid and correct.

Hence my request to you to review my proof more closely.

Thanks in advance, Wim Coenen (talk) 14:45, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

If you are not confident in your proof, you could suggest it using the article's talk page. Most Teahouse editors are unlikely to be experts in that branch of mathematics, but editors who have that article and its talk page on their watchlist will hopefully have the relevant expertise. If you don't get a response there, you could try a relevant WikiProject. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:18, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

@Wim Coenen Whether your proof is correct or not, it cannot be included in any article in Wikipedia unless it has already been published elsewhere in a reliable source. By policy, Wikipedia does not publish original research. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:25, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Turnbull's reply is key - English Wikipedia requires that content (your proposed proof) is published in a reputable publication that can serve as a reference. I suppose you could post the link at the discussion page of Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics but any confirmation you get there would not be justification for adding your proof to the existing article. David notMD (talk) 16:32, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

@Wim Coenen Right, Wikipedia is not the place to first publish new mathematics, and it's not the place to get mathematicians to look at new (original) research. Plus, you asked almost the exact same thing, here at the Teahouse, in December 2021. Back then, it was an analytical proof; now it's proof by induction. Apparently the answers a year ago were not clear enough. Some of our editors are mathematicians, but don't look to Wikipedia to verify mathematics of this kind -- look for a reputable publisher for peer review, and submit a paper for their consideration. David10244 (talk) 08:22, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Quinfobox

I added an infobox to Quinton Reviews, I would like my *proper* credit now. Drjump! (talk) 13:02, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Teahouse#Quinton_Reviews. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:13, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

@Drjump!: "proper credit" is not really a thing on Wikipedia; any edits you make to an article will be visible in the article history. --bonadea contributions talk 14:03, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

@Drjump!: The history here appears to be that you created a draft Quinton Reviews in October, subequently abandoned (rejected?), then someone else created Quinton Kyle Hoover in November. You credit yourself on your User page for Quinton Reviews, which is your own business. There is no place within Wikipedia where article creators are acknowledged other than going back to the beginning of article View history to find the first edit. For Quinton Kyle Hoover, not you. Recently, you attempted to add a second Infobox to Quinton Kyle Hoover - twice - reverted twice. Please do not do that again, as that would be considered 'edit warring', which could lead to you being temporarily blocked. David notMD (talk) 15:58, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Everything I wrote was true. It's called a reboot. If this edit war continues, let's just delete the entire thing. Drjump! (talk) 19:25, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Oh, and one more thing to end the madness. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Quinton_Reviews_(American_web_series) Drjump! (talk) 20:22, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

No, there is no independent notability for the Youtube channel. I suggest that you spend a bit of time, a few months at least, editing existing articles before you jump into article creation. --bonadea contributions talk 21:04, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

@Drjump! You already asked this -- were the answers hard to understand the first time? You are getting the same answers this go-round, because the policies have not changed. And the article won't be deleted on your say-so. David10244 (talk) 08:33, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Question moved from top

How do I make a comment or criticism of Today’s Featured Picture? Wis2fan (talk) 04:50, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Wis2fan, and welcome to the Teahouse. I guess it depends a bit on what kind of comment. If it's about the picture itself, you can pick on the picture, which will take you to its description page, and then pick on the "Talk" tab. I'm not sure how many people will look at talk pages on images, though. If it's about the subject or creator of the picture, either the caption or the description page should have a link to the subject or creator (if there is a Wikipedia article about them). If it's about the featuring of the picture on the main page, perhaps Talk:Main page.

As always, discussion on any talk page should be about how the relevant Wikipedia page can be improved, rather than anything extraneous to Wikipedia. If you have a question about the picture, then the reference desk might be appropriate. ColinFine (talk) 10:02, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Moved from top of page David10244 (talk) 08:08, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

How can I search in the Teahouse?

I cannot find a search field for the contents of the Teahouse, only for the "Help pages". Bernhard.rulla (talk) 09:44, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello Bernhard.rulla (talk)! At the top of this page, on the right & below Contents is a search box called "Most recent archives". You can use that to search the most recent archived pages of the Teahouse. Hope this is of use! Take care, LooksGreatInATurtleNeck (talk) 09:54, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Bernhard.rulla (talk) 10:03, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Not sure how to get around the "Could not determine if this image is suitable" error.

Hi all,

First time editor here, so forgive me if this is a silly question.

I am trying to improve the page for the NSWRFS by adding the missing images of epaulette insignias that correspond with the different ranks. There are already about 5 or 6 images of different epaulettes, with about 9 or so missing.

I have some decent quality graphics of the missing ranks insignias that would fill out the table nicely, but I am unable to upload them because of a "We could not determine whether this file is suitable for Wikimedia Commons" error.

The NSWRFS is a state government firefighting agency, and I see no reason as to why there would be an issue with uploading these images. I understand that the error also says to only upload photographs that you have taken yourself, but I could name many articles that use digitally-made renders no worries.

I'm sure there must be something obvious I'm missing, please help me out.

Cheers

NotConga (talk) 05:20, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

@NotConga: Did you create the images you are trying to upload? If not, what source did you get them from? It sounds to me like there was a problem with the information you provided about the images, leading to that error message. Wikimedia Commons can host images that are public domain, or released by the copyright holder under an acceptable free license. What is the copyright status of these images? Somebody created them, after all, and that person owns the copyright regardless of whether the object portrayed is not copyrighted. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, NotConga. I suppose that you must be talking about New South Wales Rural Fire Service. Please give the complete name of an article that you want to discuss. The issue probably relates to copyright. Very simple designs are not subject to copyright protection. More complex designs involving greater creativity are subject to copyright protection. So, you need to find out whether or not the New South Wales Rural Fire Service retains copyright to their original designs, or whether they release the images into the public domain. In the United States where I live, the US federal government releases every photo and image created by their own employees while on the job into the public domain. On the other hand, many state and local government agencies retain copyright. So, you need to check with that agency. Cullen328 (talk) 05:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

NotConga, you have now uploaded copyrighted images to Wikimedia Commons including a copyright symbol. This is completely wrong. Copyrighted content is not allowed on Wikimedia Commons in any way, shape or form. You do not have the authority to freely license copyrighted work. This is a legal issue. Please correct your errors. Cullen328 (talk) 06:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Cullen328 Hey mate, did a bit of googling and the such, and this says the content licensed under CCA 4.0 along with a statement to use as attribution, which I used and attached to the images. I made the changes and went to a make a cuppa, which is why I didn't reply for a while, my bad.

Not quite sure what the issue here is, especially considering there's already six(6) uploaded images depicting other various rank insignias. I'm not the most knowledgeable about the specifics of copyright, just trying to improve an article. Please let me know if I've missed a step or something else obvious, genuinely do just want to help.

Cheers NotConga (talk) 06:55, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

NotConga, that page you linked to specifically excludes the State's Coat of Arms and any other symbols, logos or trademarks of the State of NSW or any Department or agency of the State (unless incidentally reproduced in using an unaltered document under the Creative Commons licence) from Creative Commons licensing. You cannot upload any such excluded symbols to Wikimedia Commons. Cullen328 (talk) 07:08, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Yeah righto, my bad then. Just a bit confused now about how the person who uploaded the other six reference images got away with it. Should they be removed? Additionally, is there a way to circumvent this issue? If I take a physical photo of the epaulettes or recreate them in photoshop, would that still be subject to the same restrictions?

Also, if the coat of arms is and logo of the organisation is not licensed under Creative Commons, how can it be displayed on its page the way it is? This is all quite confusing, and to be honest, is starting to seem like a great waste of my time. NotConga (talk) 07:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

NotConga, of the other six images, five of them are exceptionally simple designs of basic geometric shapes and text in a common font. Such images are not protected by copyright. The sixth has a crown that was probably first published over 95 years ago and would be in the public domain. As for the logo at the beginning of the article, a low resolution version is permitted for identification purposes under our policy on use of non-free images. See WP:LOGO for more information. Cullen328 (talk) 07:55, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

@Cullen328, I have liaised with with New South Wales Rural Fire Service communications, and they have approved the usage of the insignia for the purpose of public information via Wikipedia.

I do not want anymore trouble with this matter, so is there anyone I require to show proof to in order to have this approved?

Cheers NotConga (talk) 02:25, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

NotConga, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Please also note that the NSWRFS cannot limit the usage to the purpose of public information via Wikipedia., Freely licensed material can be used by anyone for any purpose whatsoever. Cullen328 (talk) 02:47, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

@Cullen328, thanks for the link mate, just a bit confused about which part of the article relates to my problem. Please forgive my ignorance, I have never been very literate in legal-ese. For reference: I am trying to donate images that have contain copyrighted materials but that have been cleared for use on this site via email. NotConga (talk) 10:14, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

NotConga, when you write cleared for use on this site, that is a problem. Only the copyright holder can freely license the image and that will allow the images to be used by anyone on any website or any publication for any purpose without asking for permission. Attribution is the only requirement. This is a binding legal transaction and you and the agency need to understand the legal-ese. Cullen328 (talk) 16:56, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi, everyone, RFS states The NSW Rural Fire Service supports and encourages the reuse of its publicly funded information, and endorses the use of the Australian Governments [sic] Open Access and Licensing Framework (AusGOAL). … All NSW Rural Fire Service material on this website is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence, except as noted below. [14] If the images appear on the website, then we're probably ok. I'm not familiar with the pocketbook app (e.g. mentioned at this file description ) Publications other than the website could have different licensing. The seal with the burning tree design does appear on the site: does that mean derived designs, like an epaulette that bears the burning tree, would be ok? @NotConga, Cullen328, Anachronist. ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 07:34, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Pelagic. Did you read further down on that page where it says that it specifically excludes the State's Coat of Arms and any other symbols, logos or trademarks of the State of NSW or any Department or agency of the State? You can't just read the first paragraph or two. Cullen328 (talk) 08:14, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Cullen328. I saw the sentence but may have misconstrued the "agency" part. Though RFS is established by statute, it's not AFAIK a Department of the NSW government. I wouldn't have thought it an Agency either, but could well be wrong. "Other symbols or logos" does seem quite broad: I imagine the intent is to rule out impersonation or false claims of endorsement/affiliation, but it could knock out reproduction of any logo-bearing materials. ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 10:16, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Uploading photos

I uploaded a photograph and I got a copyright strikes.

I have permission for the material I am uploading and it's about the work of a musician.

What can I do so that I am not banned by my mistake?

(All my edits contain solid information and the musician will check the wiki page once I am done.

Thank you in advance for your time. Ratfae (talk) 21:31, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Ratfae, and welcome to the Teahouse. You uploaded the image to Commons, so it is there that you should address the issue. The message telling you it has been deleted is on your User talk page in Commons, c:User talk:Ratfae, which is separate from your user talk page in English Wikipedia. That notice explains the problem, and has links to pages that explain in more detail.

But in summary, "I have permission" is not enough. Commons requires that all material uploaded to it is freely for anybody to reuse for any purpose, commercial or not. In practice, that means either that it is in the public domain because it's old enough that copyright has expired; or that the copyright holder has explicitly released it from all copyright and put it in the public domain (unusual, but the US Federal government, for example, does this with some material); or that the copyright holder has explicitly released it under a free license such as CC-BY-SA.

What this means in your case is that the copyright holder of the picture (who is probably the photographer, not the subject) needs to tell Commons formally that they release it under a license which will allow anybody to alter or reuse it for any purpose as long as they attribute the source. If the copyright holder is willing to do these (you cannot do it for them) you need to get them to follow the procedure in donating copyright materials. ColinFine (talk) 21:53, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

thank you for your quick and crystal reply. I uploaded a selfie, so the photographer and the musician was 1 person but I will discuss that with him once more for fear that I will be banned by my mistake. If you wouldn't mind I go on asking another question. I am going to upload infos and resources and texts to the same articles within the next days and it will take me some time before those are properly done with the links, the references etc Is there a time limmit on that? I get notifications that my article is not "reliable" but I am not done with that yet and it will take me some time to put all that work in order.

Thank you in advance once again for your time and patience Ratfae (talk) 22:02, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

@Ratfae If you are asking whether you can add to the article "in the next days" and then add references after "some time", that is not advisable. You could, but your new info might be deleted as unreferenced. Wikipedia has no deadline, so you should gather the reliable references first, and add the material and the references at the same time. David10244 (talk) 08:41, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

thank you for your reply Ratfae (talk) 08:45, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

A couple of further points: you will not get blocked or banned for an honest mistake, unless you keep on doing the same thing after you have been told.

What is your connection with John Philip Shenale? The way you talk about him above strongly suggests that you have a conflict of interest. This doesn't prevent you from editing material about him in some circumstances, but you need to understand the implications.

Further, you appear to have created John Philip Shenale Discography directly in mainspace, with no independent sources at all. Please read your first article and notability to understand why this was a very bad idea, and why the article is likely to get removed - if somebody thinks that Shenale meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability, then they might move it to Draft space; otherwise they will probably delete it. Frankly, unless you (or somebody) finds suitable independent reliable sources for John Philip Shenale, then both pictures and discographies are a waste of everybody's time. ColinFine (talk) 22:03, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

I am new to this and I am still trying to figure it out. I have seen the remark about a reliable source outside wikipedia and I added an external link for it at the bottom of the page which has gathered his credits. it's ALLMUSIC https://www.allmusic.com/artist/john-philip-shenale-mn0000815023/credits Ratfae (talk) 22:22, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello again, Ratfae. The consensus is that Allmusic is reliable for reviews , but not for biographical details (see WP:ALLMUSIC) so, though while it may help, it is not going to be enough on its own. In any case, all you are citing it for is a list of attributions. To establish notability, we require several sources, each of which is all three of reliably published, independent| of the subject, and contains significant coverage of the subject - see WP:Golden rule. This is for establishing that Shenale is notable - I'm not sure how we apply notability to standalone discographies; but please have a careful read of WP:discography and pages linked from there.

I'm sorry that you're having a difficult time. Frankly, I always advise new editors to spend at least a few months learning how Wikipedia works by improving existing articles before trying the challenging task of creating a new article.

I notice that you haven't replied to my question about your connection with Shenale. This is important. ColinFine (talk) 23:04, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

I thought that I replied to that question earlier on but I guess that was a reply to someone else who asked me the same question. I am not a family member, I am not his employe or employer, I am not in the music industry, I have not been paid for what I am writing on wiki and I have not put any personal opinions about his music or whatever subject I have edited or I will edit in the future. (I think that I may have talked with 3 different persons so far. I am not done with the edit. I added Discogs as a refference and I will add more the days to come. I have not prepared a text which I copy and paste. I add things as I gather them from google) I live in Europe and it's way after midnight so I am about to go to sleep. If you have any more questions I will answer them tomorrow. Ratfae (talk) 23:18, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

"I uploaded a selfie, so the photographer and the musician was 1 person" Are you saying that you are the subject of the article? Quisqualis (talk) 01:03, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Quisqualis, that's not the impression I got. I took it to be a selfie taken by the subject. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:26, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Ratfae, Based on User_talk:Ratfae#Managing_a_conflict_of_interest it seems that although no money or employment is involved, you clearly know the subject and are in touch with them. This seems like a conflict of interest to me. The subject's opinion of the article doesn't really matter in this case, as long as it's factually correct and suitably sourced, as ColinFine outlined above. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:29, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. As I mentioned at an earlier reply, I won't try any more edits. (I have replied to different persons and at some point I got confused and I was mistakenly assuming that everyone was aware of my previous replies here.) Don't worry. Everything is ok. Ratfae (talk) 11:07, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

If Draft:John Philip Shenale Discography ever does become an article (the "discography" of whose title would be lowercase), then its content should be in earliest-to-latest chronological order. That's the reverse of the order that it's in now. See Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Chronological_ordering. -- Hoary (talk) 01:21, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

The photograph was taken from his facebook and it is public so that everyone can see it. It was his selfie. I can send you the link if you want, I am not JPS. Ratfae (talk) 06:50, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

You need to read again what ColinFine told you at 21:52 yesterday. It isn't enough that everyone can see the photo. For it to be used on Wikipedia the copyright holder needs to release the copyright so that anyone (not just Wikipedia) can use it. See WP:Donating copyright materials. - David Biddulph (talk) 07:06, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I have read what he told me and that's why I didn't try to reupload this photo or any other because so far I haven't come across one that meets the requirements. Ratfae (talk) 07:46, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Two different statements basing on the same internet article

Writing an article I use one newpaper article as reference for two different statements. Should I provide the citation to the same article for

1. both of these statements (same citation appears two times in the reference list)
2. only to the first statement and leave the second statement without citation

... ? Bernhard.rulla (talk) 10:02, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello again, Bernhard. Normally you should put the citation on both statements (though there is a degree of editorial discretion). But you don't have to repeat the citation - see WP:NAMEDREF for how to reuse citations. ColinFine (talk) 10:11, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello Bernhard.rulla (talk)! You can use the same reference more than once, it just needs to be named & then can be used for multiple refernces. The reference will end up with a,b,c etc. that will point to the different sentences using it. There's a Wiki page about doing this here. An example of its use:

Lorem ipsum is pseudo-Latin.

Lorem ipsum sometimes called "Greeking".

==Example References==

References

Edit: ColinFine (talk) beat me to it!

Hope this is of help! Take care, LooksGreatInATurtleNeck (talk) 10:35, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Bernhard.rulla Bernhard.rulla (talk) 11:08, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Refer to an existing ref

Please let me know how can I refer to an already existing ref on a page. I tried <ref name="refname 1,2" /> but the ref. changes into 5 and 6 Avandenheuvel (talk) 11:44, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi Avandenheuvel, welcome to the Teahouse. The existing ref must be named, not just have a number. See Wikipedia:Citing sources#Repeated citations. If you still have problems then save your attempt and link the page. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:25, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Avandenheuvel and welcome. To clarify what PrimeHunter said: the first time the source is cited needs to be given a name, and then later uses can refer to the name. (I put your sample ref above between <nowiki> and </nowiki>, because otherwise the unclosed ref swallowed the rest of your question, and indeed the rest of the section). --ColinFine (talk) 12:33, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

how to publish my wikipedia

Hi, I would like to know the process to appear my wikipedia article when searching. I have published my wikipedia article, but it did not appear when I search on Google. How can I do with this and what next step should I do to have the result? Thank you. Drhao (talk) 03:27, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

User page is wrong place for an article, also not in English, so nominated for Speedy deletion. David notMD (talk) 03:38, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi I mean, I would like to provide a famous doctor profile on Wiki. How should I do the next step. For example , I would like to create a page like this for a famous people (https://vi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_Strange). Thank you Drhao (talk) 04:38, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

@Drhao: See WP:YFA and WP:AFC. You are attempting to write an autobiography, which is strongly discouraged here. You should not try to write about yourself. If you do, WP:AFC is the only venue available to you because you have a strong conflict of interest regarding yourself. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:04, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

He is not talking here about an article on himself (ie. his deleted user page). He now wants to write an article on some famous doctor. He is unable to grasp the concept that Wikipedia articles are written collectively and not owned by the originator. Lord Alan B'stard (talk) 05:31, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

His statement above "I have published my wikipedia article" refers to the user page that was an autobiography about himself, in which he portrays himself as a famous doctor. It is reasonable to assume that is what he wants to publish. That is apparently his purpose here. Even if he wants to write about some other doctor WP:AFC is the proper venue for him. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:40, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Dr. Phan Thanh Hào now exists, in Vietnamese, with no references. It was submitted to English Wikipedia via AfC and Declined. Drhao advised to consider Vitenamese Wikipedia. David notMD (talk) 12:54, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Pronouns for a robot

Do we use singular they or neuter (it/its) pronouns for robots? Ricciardo Best (talk) 09:51, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Ricciardo. I guess it depends how far you are humanizing it/them ;-) But normally I would expect it. ColinFine (talk) 10:04, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

@Ricciardo Best, welcome to the Teahouse! In the context of a Wikipedia article, I would say it depends on how the sources refer to it. For example, Amazon Alexa uses it/its, but C-3PO uses he/him. casualdejekyll 14:49, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia picture database

As I have understood, all picture files (jpg etc) at Wikipedia are uploaded to a picture database and from there linked into an article as needed. Question: how can/do I access the picture database in order to search it for available photos? Bernhard.rulla (talk) 09:56, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Bernhard.rulla. There is no single database. The largest repository of media files for the many Wikimedia websites is Wikimedia Commons, which contains about 50 million files, mostly photos and other images, but also including video files. Everything there is either in the public domain or is freely licensed for re-use by anyone for any purpose, although many files require attribution. You can go there and use its search functions to find what you want. But also, each individual language version of Wikipedia has the option to allow the upload of certain non-free images with restrictions. Typically here on the English Wikipedia, they are low resolution versions of things like corporate logos, movie posters, book and album covers, iconic historic photos, portraits of people who have died, and the like. These are low resolution images to protect copyright, and are harder to find unless you know exactly what you are looking for. There are legal limits on re-use of these images, and normally, they are only used in a single Wikipedia article. Cullen328 (talk) 10:28, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Bernhard, and welcome to Wikipedia. Most pictures (and other media) used in Wikipedia are held in Wikimedia Commons, which is another Wikimedia project like Wikipedia, with files, categories, user pages, searches, etc. If you go to Commons:Help it should get you started.

A minority of media used in English Wikipedia is held in English Wikipedia itself, usually because the items do not meet Commons' criteria of free licensing. One way to find them is to look at Category:Wikipedia files; or you can do a search, setting the Namespace to "File" (see Help:Searching). ColinFine (talk) 10:09, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Bernhard.rulla (talk) 10:45, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

All that said, Commons isn't as sorted, categorized, and tagged as it could be. Because it's a project run by volunteers doing it as a Fun Hobby. It's a work in progress. DS (talk) 16:27, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Commons is like a view into an alternate history where Wikipedia never became popular. Spooky. casualdejekyll 16:42, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Aligning Userboxes

I'm trying to align userboxes like the ones at the start of this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Userboxes but I can't figure out how, can anyone help me? 1Little Danny (talk) 16:35, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

@1Little Danny: Welcome to the Teahouse! This sort of thing is most often done with the confusingly named Template:Babel - it is not limited to babel userboxes and can be used with any userbox. You can also do it with

<div style="float:right;">
{{Example userbox}}<br/>
{{Other example userbox}}<br/>
{{Third example userbox}}<br/>
</div>

etc, etc. See, for example, how I've done it on my user talk page. casualdejekyll 16:46, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much! 1Little Danny (talk) 16:49, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Puffery in sources

Could someone please clarify for me exactly how editors should handle wp:puffery when it's cited? For example, if a source specifically calls something "the best" or "one of the best" or uses other such terms expressions. A recent article I've seen uses "It was considered one of the best". Is that a sufficiently neutral tone? Is one source sufficient for such a claim? Or would it be preferable to remove that kind of adjectives? MaxRavenclaw (talk) 15:25, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to the teahouse, @MaxRavenclaw! Per MOS:PUFFERY, a construction like "x source said that y was one of the best foobars in the industry" is a better idea, but the best idea is to approach why the source proclaims something the best and talk about that [typically the noteworthy achievements of the subject of the article] instead. casualdejekyll 15:37, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you. So would you say that my edit here [15] is good? MaxRavenclaw (talk) 15:53, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

@MaxRavenclaw: Yes, I would say that that is an appropriate and neccesary edit. casualdejekyll 15:57, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Before removing puffery derived from sources, we have to make sure that it really is puffery. For example, in our article on Shakespeare we have " He is widely regarded as the greatest writer in the English language and the world's pre-eminent dramatist". This is not puffery, and it would be wrong to remove it; it is an encyclopaedic fact supportable by any number of reliable sources that he is widely regarded as the greatest writer in the English language. (We're perhaps a bit anglocentric in the rest of the sentence, where perhaps the Germans would make a case for Goethe (amongst others) and the French might feel a bit aggrieved about Molière). But the point is this: there often was a thing or person widely regarded as "the best" of something in their time, and we have to remember that a neutral tone shouldn't prevent us from telling it how it is. But always provided the opinion is a reflection of a good range of solid sources. Elemimele (talk) 16:53, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

When was the watchlist introduced?

I can't find it at Help:Watchlist. Ovinus (talk) 00:26, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

@Ovinus, try the Reference desk for this. Quisqualis (talk) 00:59, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

@Quisqualis - the variety of help noticeboards around makes it quite confusing. My personal stance is that we should help anyone with a Wikipedia-related question who shows up here. The reference desk is one of the most archaic and confusing areas on the site and I really don't think it's helpful to direct people there when it's perfectly possible to help them here. casualdejekyll 16:16, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

That help page was created in 2004. So just before that, i'd assume. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:55, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Watchlist help was created in January 2003‎.[16] That's the oldest watchlist mention I found. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:36, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

There are comments in the talk page archive going back to 2002 see here. Polyamorph (talk) 12:40, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

It seems Brion VIBBER is the person to ask Polyamorph (talk) 12:42, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

It predates mediawiki, it was added way back in the Phase 2 "php script" days. I think it was added here [17], September 29, 2001. Here's a feature request thread from March 2002 where they added the functionality of automatically watching talk pages when you watched an article and automatically watching articles you edited [18]. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 18:13, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Citeseerx links appear to be broken

This is not especially new, I've just slowly realized that I'm not just particularly unlucky in encountering this problem. It appears that every link shown as an explicit "citeseerx" link is broken. As an example, in Citeseer#Further reading, there is a CiteseerX link which displays "This page could not be found". Typically you can locate the relevant content with a CiteseerX search, but that's kind of annoying. How does one pursue getting this fixed? Fabrickator (talk) 17:50, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Since the link seems to be generated inside {{cite book}}, I'd start by asking at Template talk:Cite book. If you get no joy there, try the WP:Village pump. It would be helpful if you'd investigate on the Citeseer side how the URLs have changed, and whether there is a simple fix. ColinFine (talk) 18:06, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

@Fabrickator: It's discussed at Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 86#citeseerx links are ALL dead. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:21, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: Thanks for the reference. FWIW, archived Citeseerx links (archived prior to October 2022) seem to work okay (at least some of the time), e.g. https://web.archive.org/web/20220318075714/https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.30.6847 ... Fabrickator (talk) 20:01, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Fair use image with two people in it: one of living and the other is deceased

Suppose I upload a fair use image where the subject is a deceased person. I upload a fair use image that contains the subject of the article plus a living person. Would this be in violation of the WP:BLP policy? I don’t have a particular article in mind. I’m just asking just for reference. Interstellarity (talk) 17:15, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Interstellarity. As far as I can see, the only relevance of BLP to images is Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light, which is presumably not at issue here. But you also ought to consider the NFCC, particularly "Minimal usage". Perhaps it would be appropriate to crop the image to remove the living person - or perhaps it wouldn't. It all depends on context, and why the image meets the "Contextual significance" criterion for non-free use.

(By the way, I suggest not using the phrase "fair use" in talking about images in Wikipedia, because our criteria are not quite the same as "fair use" as it is usually understood. say "non-free images".) ColinFine (talk) 18:03, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Interstellarity. If you are uploading the photo under the terms of Non-free images #10, then the living person should be cropped out before uploading. Cullen328 (talk) 18:21, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your answers. Based on what you said, living persons are not allowed in non free content. Exceptions would be handled on a case by case basis. Interstellarity (talk) 20:31, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Approval

Hello. I have a article I have created and I want to get it approved and made into a page. I need help getting an image in, but go onto my page and you will see my sandbox link. You will see my page. Thanks a bunch! User:Robins bird talk 21:23, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: User:Robins bird/sandbox Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 22:04, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

@Robins bird@Sungodtemple, it appears that the scaly leg article represents another term for or manifestation of scaly foot. As it contains a lot of how-to information and not a lot of reliable medical sources, it might best be turned into a WP:redirect to the scaly foot article. Quisqualis (talk) 01:29, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Scaly leg has been an article since 2004 and is currently a redirect to Scaly foot. It would probably be better to improve the Scaly Foot article. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 08:58, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Okay, thanks.

User:Robins bird talk 22:10, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I will say that the scaly leg article is a more in-depth "zoom in" for lack of words on the scaly foot article. The Scaly Foot article is more of the general, all types of mites look at the condition. My article was more or less for the single variant of the disease. I appreciate the feedback, and I will try to help improve the preexisting article and edit in my sandbox less. Thank you!

User:Robins bird talk 22:22, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

How to delete a user page

I made User:NotDragonius/November 2022 Franch invasion of Thorgon a while ago just as a personal project, but today I shared it with someone and it's now constantly being changed by them. How can I delete this page? NotDragonius (talk) 22:35, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

@NotDragonius: You can add {{Db-userreq}} to the page for an admin to delete it. RudolfRed (talk) 22:57, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

You can blank your user page, or you can ask for it to be deleted by pasting {{db-U5}} at the top, and an admin will come along and delete it. Normally, you could use {{db-user}}, meaning that the author has requested deletion; but that option is not available if anybody else has edited the page: I think that in this case, since the content is contrary to the purposes of Wikipedia, {{db-U5}} is more appropriate, because that's what WP:U5 means. ({{db-userreq}}, which is what RudolfRed suggested you use, is the same as {{db-user}}, and not appropriate in this case, I believe).

Oh, and please don't create hoaxes on your user page again. See WP:UPNO. --ColinFine (talk) 23:03, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

@ColinFine: WP:U1 says "Personal user pages and subpages (but not user talk pages) upon request by their user." Can you help me learn why this not appropriate? There is no mention of it being limited to who has edited it. Maybe you mean WP:G7. RudolfRed (talk) 23:18, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

You're right, RudolfRed. I was thinking of WP:G7 - or, rather, I assumed that WP:U1 had the same restriction as G7. My apologies. ColinFine (talk) 00:37, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Also, that garbage image will have to come off Commons. DS (talk) 02:22, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

@NotDragonius, @DragonflySixtyseven: For the record, Wikipedia:FAKEARTICLE seems to suggest that this is {{db-hoax}} anyway. casualdejekyll 02:33, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Could humans somehow adapt to new planets / satellites (like Titan)?

Could humans somehow adapt to new planets / satellites (like Titan) with genetic functions like adaption to consume it's metan, plants, or maybe animals? 149.0.135.107 (talk) 19:12, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The Teahouse is a place to ask questions about using or editing Wikipedia, it is not a general question asking forum. You could try the Reference Desk. 331dot (talk) 19:13, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi @149.0.135.107, welcome to the teahouse! This is a place for questions about using and editing Wikipedia. General knowledge questions are better suited for the Wikipedia:Reference desk, or your search engine of choice. casualdejekyll 19:14, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Though, note that each Reference Desk says at the top We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate, so you would need to recast your question to ask people to point you to published discussions on the question, rather than ask the question as you have above. ColinFine (talk) 19:22, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Titan (at least on the surface methane oceans) is unlikely to have life like ours[19] and no celestial object other than Earth has been found with life, although organic molecules like tholins have been found on many. I do apologize if I stepped out of bounds in terms of being able to answer items. ✶Mitch199811✶ (talk) 03:53, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Article creating

Can any one of you tell me how to create a wikipedia article please? Sheevpalpa4 (talk) 03:57, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

@Sheevpalpa4: see WP:YFA and WP:AFC. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:37, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

How do I fix this?

At the first paragraph of Family History Research Wiki#Reception, there are individual statements with 5-7 inline sources piled up and one with even a dozen! How can this be fixed? Hoping to consolidate/conglomerate them somehow. Any advice on the matter would be much appreciated. Thanks, WeWorkGuest (talk) 02:43, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi WeWorkGuest. While there's really no limit as to how many citations can be added in support of a particular bit of article content, some people feel that more is always better and end up doing something called WP:REFCLUTTER. It's perfectly OK for you to be WP:BOLD and assess the situation in terms of WP:RS and WP:RSCONTEXT, and then you can trim the number of citations to eliminate any redundancies or poor quality ones. You can also be WP:CAUTIOUS as well and start a discussion about the matter on the article's talk page. There's not really one "correct" way to fix something like this, but as long as you leave a clear edit summary for any changes you make, others will at least no why you made them. If you do trim things down and then are subsequently reverted, you should start a discussion about the matter on the article's talk page and try to resolve any differences of opinion that way. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:00, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

IF Wikipedia mostly does not allow blogs as refs, how about deleting the 12 blog refs? David notMD (talk) 04:15, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

To put this in context, the article was proposed for deletion, and the addition of an enormous quantity of low-quality sources was a response to save it (here: [20]). The technique worked, because the PROD-proposer removed their deletion tag. But it doesn't reflect how an article should look. If you want to make a statement "This resource has been discussed by expert how-to-book authors" the ideal source is a secondary source, such as a newspaper article that says "this winter we got interested in genealogy and found that a whole collection of interesting how-to books were directing us to the Family History Research Wiki". Popping down the local library and rounding up every how-to book you can find, to check whether they refer to the wiki is bordering on original research, and the books themselves are actually primary sources for that statement, not secondary. But mostly it's not very helpful to the reader: if the reader actually wants a complete bibliography of how-to genealogy books, a literature-list would be much more readable than a set of numbered inline citations. Elemimele (talk) 07:50, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Problem with non-notable filmography

I'm working on Lauren Giraldo, a notable social media personality whose filmography is, annoyingly, mostly unnotable. There are a lot of non-notable web series in her filmography which I cannot reliably source; the obvious choice would be to remove them, but if that's not a complete filmography, should I just name the section "Selected filmography"? Additionally, her part in the indie film Hope Springs Eternal as Zoe is mentioned by reliable sources, but her character's name is unmentioned. Do I just not include the name of her character? And what about her shows which are covered by reliable sources, but do not have their premiere or end dates? — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 08:27, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi Vortex3427. "Non-Wikipedia notable" and "not reliably sourced" are not generally the same thing, at least in my opinion. Article content doesn't necessarily need to be Wikipedia notable for it to be included as explained in WP:NNC, but it does need reliable sourced. Maybe try asking about this at Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers and see whether the members of that WikiProject might be able to help you sort this out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:40, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Most of the items on the list haven't been published in reliable sources, as they are self-published online web series. — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 08:42, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Are user pages meant to be serious?

A simple enough question, but just in case it's meant to be serious, is it, or am I allowed to be silly on my user page? Sorry if this is a stupid question. I just don't want to unknowingly break rules. 1Little Danny (talk) 19:20, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello, 1LittleDanny, and welcome to the Teahouse. No, it's not a stupid question. The answer is that a certain degree of light-heartedness is allowed in user space, but remember that our primary purpose is creating an encyclopaedia: nothing else. See WP:UPYES for more information. ColinFine (talk) 19:24, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

This helps clear things up, thank you for your quick reply. 1Little Danny (talk) 19:30, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

@1Little Danny - WP:USER is the relevant policy. TL;DR: User pages are a freeform space to write about your wiki activities. Be silly, be serious, it doesn't matter. Don't be promotional, don't be uncivil. casualdejekyll 19:28, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! I want to make sure that I'm not breaking rules, so if I am, let me know. 1Little Danny (talk) 19:29, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

@1Little Danny: My own user page has featured elements of silliness for almost the whole time I've been here (nearly 16 years), and no one has complained yet. Just don't go overboard. Deor (talk) 15:39, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

The only thing you should not do is make it seem like you're an admin or part of the WMF when you aren't as that is not permissible. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:42, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Why are images inverted?

My Wikipedia skin is the regular Vector 2022, dark mode. When I see emojis, the colours are inverted like this: . Why? סשס Grimmchild. He/him, probably 10:24, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

This is a leftover of how the dark mode gadget works: as you might have figured out, it inverts the colors before applying some color fixes. Clearly, this in specific was either missed or found to be unneeded to fix. Perhapes Wikipedia talk:Dark mode (gadget) can help you? casualdejekyll 14:45, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I dunno, I personally like the orange-red emoji. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 15:47, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Oops, I forgot to ping @Grimmchild. I'm a little rusty at this! Welcome to the Teahouse! casualdejekyll 14:46, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

ISSN: Should I list it when the magazine didn't have it yet in that issue?

I've noticed that a magazine I've been citing to (namely The Rainbow (magazine)), which ran monthly from July 1981 to May 1993, began publishing its ISSN number in the February 1984 issue. I've also noticed that looking up that ISSN number in WorldCat (0746-4797) shows the entire run of the magazine going back to 1981, thus including the issues before The Rainbow apparently received its ISSN number.

So my question is: is it appropriate to list a magazine's ISSN number when you are citing to an issue of the magazine from before it received that number? Carney333 (talk) 15:35, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Carney333, and welcome to the Teahouse. Since the purpose of a citation is primarily to assist a reader in getting hold of the source, and you say that WorldCat doesn't distinguish issues before the ISSN, I cannot see any reasonable argument not to include it. ColinFine (talk) 16:28, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Personal Sandbox Clearing

Does the personal sandbox ever clear itself? I'm going to make something that may take a while to come to fruition, so I need to know if it clears. 1Little Danny (talk) 16:56, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

No. Only the general sandbox at Wikipedia:Sandbox gets wiped periodically. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 17:03, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

@1Little Danny: User sandboxes can be blanked or deleted in rare cases if they contain disallowed content like copyright violations. If you want room to work on multiple Wikipedia-related things then you can make multiple sandboxes or subpages, e.g. Special:MyPage/sandbox2 or Special:MyPage/Draft article. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:27, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello again, LittleDanny. Nobody is likely to touch any of your personal sandboxes, unless you do something naughty in one of them (such as a copyright violation, blatant advertising, or a personal attack), or unless you request deletion by putting {{db-userreq}} in the top. ColinFine (talk) 18:58, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

@1Little Danny: As others noted, your sandbox is generally safe. You can check out WP:UPYES and WP:UPNO for things you can and cannot put in your user pages (including your sandboxes). UtherSRG (talk) 19:18, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Wednesday ad sound file

Hello! In the Wednesday article I would like to insert a sound file of a spotify ad of Wednesday. The thing is I don't know how to incorporate it into any the article sections. Thank you! RoseWaterSkies (talk) 15:14, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not include advertising in any form. You would need to demonstrate how that would objectively improve the article. Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:39, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia frequently includes advertising. Sports stadiums are routinely identified by their sponsored, commercial names, even though they are almost always less useful geographical locators than their official names. HiLo48 (talk) 19:54, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

@HiLo48: For that matter, there are articles mostly about advertising, like Burma-Shave. Shantaviraj's second point is right, but their first could have been phrased better. Frankly, I want to know what an ad for Wednesday would sound like... it's better than Tuesday? casualdejekyll 20:01, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello, RoseWaterSkies, and welcome to the Teahouse. To add to what Shantaviraj has said: you are wanting to add non-free content to an article, since the ad will undoubtedly be copyright (we usually think of this in terms of images, but it applies equally to video and sound). Wikipedia has tight controls on the use of non-free media: it must satisfy all the criteria in the non-free content criteria. Criterion no 8 is: Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding: this criterion is often invoked for adding covers of books or albums to articles, and indeed it is used for the poster already in the article: File: Wednesday Netflix series poster.png. But it is hard to see how you could justify adding an ad in this way - and, furthermore, adding another non-free item to the article would probably fall foul of criterion 3a: Minimal number of items. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information.

If there happened to be enough significant independent discussion of the ad (as opposed to the film) to make it notable, then there could be an article on the ad, (like the John Lewis Christmas advert), and then it might be appropriate to include a screenshot or an audio clip; but not for the article on the film. ColinFine (talk) 16:24, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

The best reference maker

I would like to be able to make full references (title, author, access date, etc.) automatically from just a "bare" URL. What would be the best tool for that? Firefox plugin "Wikipedia-References-Creator" is pretty good and does exactly that. What other alternatives are there? MahaNakhon (talk) 17:54, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

@MahaNakhon, see Help:Citation tools for a list. StarryGrandma (talk) 20:03, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Articles in other language Wikipedias

What should I do if there is an article in another language Wikipedia that doesn't exist here? Is there a way I can mark it for translation or something similar? Lilliraune 18:49, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Lilliraune, welcome to the Teahouse. The options are outlined here - basically, you can either translate it yourself, add it to a list of requested translations, or ask a translator directly. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:55, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Do note, however, that English Wikipedia has more robust standards and enforcement of same than most other projects. A 1:1 translation (i.e. a translation without otherwise altering the article's content and context) isn't often an option. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 20:35, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Referencing to non-English sources

Hello, is it allowed to reference to/cite non-English sources? It would be interesting to me being a native German. Best regards! Bernhard.rulla (talk) 13:32, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes; see WP:NONENG. - David Biddulph (talk) 13:49, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Bernhard.rulla. German language sources are perfectly acceptable when English language sources about the topic are lacking. But if sources are readily available in multiple languages, then English language sources are preferred on the English Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 16:46, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Bernhard.rulla (talk) 16:53, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

It can also be very helpful to readers if you give a translation of the titles. If you're using the Visual Editor, click on the citation to edit it and a menu will pop up; search "title" and you should be able to find the one for "translated title". Please leave the original German titles in the "title" field! It's very hard for people to follow up on sources if the titles are silently translated. -- asilvering (talk) 20:42, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Paid employment banner

Hello! I am currently updating a page for a former boss of mine, just because the last time any additions were made was in 2017. I disclosed my employment, but it looks like another current employer, (who doesn't have an account) made edits so there is a banner stating that there are undisclosed edits made. Is there anything I can do to get it taken down myself? Or do I need the other employee to state that from his IP address he is receiving payment? I am a new editor so learning wikipedia can be pretty confusing. Thanks! Gsmouritzen (talk) 16:37, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

The other IP, if he is a mercenary, shouldn't be editing as an IP, full stop. IPs are ephemeral enough that any disclosure on one is meaningless and so they need to get their own account. As for taking the banner down, that's unlikely to happen, especially since the undisclosed edits remain in the article's history. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 17:08, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Yup, there's nothing wrong with editing as an IP per se, but editing as an IP with a conflict of interest is not great because it's impossible to make the required disclosure. Until everyone who is suspected of being a paid or CoI editor has disclosed their CoI or payment (or of course denied it!), the banner has to stay. Personally, I'd recommend tiptoeing away from that article and hoping no-one notices it exists: to me, it reads like a resumé/CV, is overly promotional, and ripe for some serious culling/neutralisation. Elemimele (talk) 17:25, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

It's not impossible, but they'd have to fully disclose in every edit summary and/or on the talk page every time a related edit was made, which would be quite a pain. A user page template is much easier. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:34, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Courtesy: Article in question is Eduardo Dolhun. David notMD (talk) 20:58, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Notability of Michel Campillo

I was looking to start the AfD process for Michel Campillo as he doesn't seem to meet the notability guidelines for academics and was initially written by a user with a history of creating poorly-written biographies. However, as a relatively inexperienced user, I just wanted a second opinion before doing so. Thank you. Sgubaldo (talk) 17:30, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

@Sgubaldo: Welcome to The Teahouse! So, when deciding the best thing to do is pull up the most relevant notability policy and go through the items in that policy and see if any of them match the claims in the article. In this case, the relevant policy's list of items is at WP:NACADEMIC. Once you've gone through the list and have not found any of them to be a match to something in the article, you have another decision to make: whether to go through formal AFD, or whether to simply PROD the article. A simple PROD may be all that's needed, is a little easier, and is less drama-inducing. If the PROD is contested and you think the notability question has not been answered, then elevate it to AFD. UtherSRG (talk) 19:25, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Sgubaldo (talk) 19:41, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

He passes WP:PROF: [21]. So I doubt you can get this deleted at AfD. -- asilvering (talk) 20:47, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I should have read that more carefully. I'll improve the article instead. Sgubaldo (talk) 21:07, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Walk me through my first entry...Please?

Hello,

I am trying to create my first entry, introducing Wikipedia to Mikaela Davis, Harpist.

I attempted to begin a Topic. Is this how one goes about making an entry for review or am I being led down an obscure path? If not then can someone please step by step me? thankfully? Also, when an initial entry is made...How long does it take to get approved and searchable? Thank you for our time. Championgabay (talk) 20:49, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Championgabay Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You edited your user talk page, which is for communication with you. New users cannot directly create articles, and must use Articles for creation. The process does take time.

Do you have a particular interest in your work being searchable, such as an association with this person? 331dot (talk) 20:52, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Once you have created a referenced draft via Articles for creation, you then submit it for review. In time (days, weeks, sadly even months), a reviewer looks at it an either accepts, declines or rejects. If declined, reasons why are given. You can fix and resubmit. If accepted, there is a period of up to 90 days before outside searches such as Google can 'see' the article. David notMD (talk) 21:24, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

@Championgabay - Welcome to Wikipedia! I've created Draft:Mikaela Davis for you as a place to work on and finish your article before submitting it. Before you continue your work on the draft, however, I must tell you that we have rules about what is and isn't accepted as an article for the encyclopedia. The standard for inclusion as a separate article in the encyclopedia is the General Notability Guideline, which states that topics are presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, or, in normal person English, when it has received coverage in sources such as books, articles, newspapers, scientific journals, etc. On Wikipedia, factual statements about living people must be cited to a source - otherwise, anyone could write whatever about anyone, and that's a recipe for disaster, as I'm sure you can guess. The relevant policy is Biographies of Living Persons, or BLP for short. Thankfully, these two requirements are kind of a two for one deal: if you have the sources for notability, you can use them to cite the factual statements in your article.

Not every topic meets the GNG. Don't be discouraged! Feel free to edit other articles, or create an article on another topic. For example, my first accepted article was Synapturanus danta. There are plenty of articles that you or anyone else can write. If you have any particular interests, you might want to join a Wikipedia:WikiProject, which is an open group of editors that coordinate articles on a specific topic. If you have any questions about all of this, feel free to drop me a message on my user talk page and I'll help you as soon as I can. casualdejekyll 21:46, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

One on one virtual assistance

Greetings! I am new to Wikipedia and wanted to see if Wiki offers live guided assistance that will walk through a Word draft I created and allow me to solicit their direct feedback/input? Love2TravelGuy (talk) 18:21, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Love2TravelGuy, welcome to the Teahouse. There is no such service on Wikipedia, but there are WP:IRC and WP:Discord servers where Wikipedians hang out and might - if asked nicely - give you some tips. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:24, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks so much for this insight. Whom could I email to make such a suggestion? Love2TravelGuy (talk) 18:27, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

@Love2TravelGuy, the only people I can think of would be the Growth team over on MediaWiki. Generally, business is not conducted via email on Wikipedia, and we don't have a suggestion box as such. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:32, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for this! Also, does Wikipedia have an LMS that allows for new user orientation with an intuitive/interactive walk through of the product? Love2TravelGuy (talk) 18:41, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't know what the acronym LMS stands for. We do have Help:Introduction and WP:ADVENTURE, which are new user tutorials. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:46, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

This works and thanks so much (and apologies in advance for all these questions!) :) I appreciate all input. Will check this out now. And LMS - Learning Management System (apologies for not spelling that out initially). Cheers! Love2TravelGuy (talk) 18:52, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Make sure to log into your account. We can see your IP address. To redact see WP:OS. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 22:12, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Editing wrong information

I am a linguist, and work on Ossetic and Circassian dialectology, as well as fieldwork on the underdescribed languages of northern India (Bhadarwahi, Kishtwari). However, when I edited information in for Ossetic, they were edited out for lack of citation by people who know nothing about these languages. In many cases, it is hard to provide explicit citations because some of it is my own work or through conversation with colleagues, not from published sources (which, in the case of the minority languages I work on, aren’t numerous). E.g., the phonology chart for Bhadarwahi is simply wrong. It is based on Dwivedi’s grammatical sketch, but Dwivedi absolutely misidentifies the phonological contrasts in the language. I want to correct it, but feel that my edits will be taken down again. How to go about editing? I had quit Wikipedia after the incident with Ossetic, but want to come back. Mitannijsko-Arijskij (talk) 17:49, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Mitannijsko-Arijskij, welcome to the Teahouse. The simple answer to your question is: use published sources. If there are none, don't add the information. WP:Verifiability is non-negotiable. If you want to cite research that you yourself have published, it's a bit tricky in that you have a conflict of interest, but not impossible. WP:SELFCITE has further information. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:54, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I understand that, but what if the published sources are simply wrong? Or misinterpreted? Should the wrong information remain on Wikipedia? I’d say even if one is not allowed to edit correct information in, the wrong information should be deleted. Case in point is Dwivedi’s description of Bhadarwahi phonology I mentioned earlier (and this matter is known among us Indo-Aryanists who work on the northern langages). And notwithstanding Dwivedi’s being wrong, even some of the things that are correct in his grammar have been misinterpreted, e.g., his <ç> (which is meant to stand for IPA /t͡s/) has been misinterpreted as IPA /ç/ and presented as such. This stems from notational misunderstanding more than anything else. Mitannijsko-Arijskij (talk) 18:05, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

what if the published sources are simply wrong? Or misinterpreted? Should the wrong information remain on Wikipedia? - That's a complicated question that depends on the quality of other available sources. If the only verifiable source on the question of, for example, "what consonants and vowels are used in Ossetian" is a work from 1964, then it looks like the journals need to catch up. That's an issue you take to someone in the field to get them to publish a new source, as Wikipedia can only say what's already sourced. casualdejekyll 18:22, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

As for <ç> vs /t͡s/, it sounds more like the correct thing to do is to add a note to the table saying it uses Dwivedi's symbols, not the IPA - if thereś no source for the IPA symbols, we can't add them. casualdejekyll 18:24, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

@Mitannijsko-Arijskij - the standard of inclusion for information on Wikipedia is Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. No citation? No inclusion. Even if it's the truest truth that was ever true. casualdejekyll 17:55, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

You win the internet today with your quote:
No citation? No inclusion. Even if it's the truest truth that was ever true.
MahaNakhon (talk) 18:04, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Aw, thank you. I'm just trying to help. casualdejekyll 18:05, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, this is frequently a huge problem with the credibility of wikipedia and I find the "if there aren't better sources, tough" attitude that a lot of editors take to be extremely counterproductive. Here's my advice: yes, the incorrect information should absolutely be deleted. No, wikipedia should not have old and incorrect information simply because it was believed to be correct in 1960 and no specialist has bothered to write otherwise for 60 years since it's completely obvious to specialists that it's wrong. Our commitment to verifiability is supposed to guard against falsehoods and hoaxes; it's not a suicide pact. However, you will continue to run into the problem you have here if you make changes that add unsourced material (don't do this at all, no matter how sure you are that it is true!), and probably also if you simply delete material without explanation. Most of the people who do this are vandals or don't at all know what they are doing, and other editors have no strong reason to believe you are not one of those people, so it is very easy for them to err on the side of reverting your edits even if they are very sensible. Instead, explain the problems with the article on the talk page, using whatever sources you have to support your position. Leave it for a bit to give other editors who are watching the page time to chime in. If (when...) no one objects after a week or so, make your deletions/rewordings and refer to the talk page in your edit summary (eg: "removing WP:OR, see talk page" for wildly incorrect source interpretation/ventriloquism, or "removing extremely dated information, see talk page"). If someone objects, it is now their responsibility to talk it over with you on the talk page, and you stand a much better chance of getting somewhere. I also recommend looking for related Wikiprojects on the Talk pages and joining them. -- asilvering (talk) 22:16, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Matthew de Lacey Davidson

•  Courtesy link: Draft:Matthew de Lacey Davidson

Hello I am confused why this article was rejected. It is not dissimilar to other articles (like that of Donald Ashwander) and it does not use promotional materials, and uses acceptable sources such as composer's organizations and academic org's. You can't apply rules of popularity to modern classical composers - otherwise even Salieri would never qualify to be in Wikipedia. This seems arbitrary. Please advise. ABMR01 (talk) 19:04, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello, ABMR01. Your draft was declined, not rejected. There is a major difference. A person is considered notable and therefore eligible for a Wikipedia biography if and only if they are the subject of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources that are entirely independent of the person. These are not "rules of popularity". This is a very well established principle that has helped make Wikipedia one of the most popular websites in the world. Cullen328 (talk) 19:11, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Cullen328, this rather surprises me. WP:Notability (music) says "Musicians or ensembles [...] may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria." There are twelve of these. The ninth is conveniently succinct: "Has won first, second or third place in a major music competition." Unfortunately it doesn't say how "major" is defined; but let's imagine (i) that everyone agrees that such-and-such a music competition is "major", (ii) that a single short article in the NYT says that Joe Schmoe got third prize for it on three occasions, and (iii) there's no reason to suspect that the article was a hoax or joke or similar. My understanding is that Joe is thereby "notable" and therefore merits an article, regardless of how little evidence there is of interest in him beyond that one NYT article. -- Hoary (talk) 13:00, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Hoary, earlier on, that guideline says, Rather, these are rules of thumb used by some editors when deciding whether or not to keep an article that is listed at articles for deletion. An already existing article about a topic that meets one of those standards cannot be speedy deleted for lack of notability but it can go to Articles for Deletion. The community can decide (and often does) that the topic lacks significant coverage and should be better covered, for example, in a list article "Winners of Prize X" instead of a freestanding article. Meeting one of those rules of thumb is an indicator, not a guarantee of notability and eligibility for a freestanding article. As to whether or not an award is "major", certainly there are awards that generate an enormous amount of coverage in the music press and the general press for their winners, but awards do not fall neatly into binary "major" and "minor" categories, and there is a continuum or spectrum of the importance of awards. An editor who wants their topic to be deemed notable has a motivation to call a middling award major. Other editors should treat such claims with skepticism and ask for evidence. In most cases, winners of truly major music awards are already notable before their wins. Back to your hypothetical: It seems highly unlikely to me that the New York Times would regularly cover a specific annual music award but that specialist music sources would ignore it and its winners. Cullen328 (talk) 16:23, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Cullen328, I know, my example is farfetched. But it's conceivable. "Joe Schmoe, Poland's Favorite Manxman" could refer to some annual Polish competition, little known in the US (let alone in/on Man) but verifiably (thanks to the Polish press) Big In Poland, in which the unassuming Joe (who stays in Holiday Inn, where he eats take-out) has got three podium positions on the trot. Yes of course you are right about Wikipedia editors' inflation of middling to "major". (Yet puffery is so pervasive in drafts (and articles) that I'm not so troubled when I see "major": after all, it's a relatively innocuous alternative to a miscellany of more or less nauseating options: "prestigious", "iconic", "legendary", and so forth.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:04, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Thatguy1987 said: 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 music-related topics). 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. (emphasis mine).

Your sources are primarily, well, exactly that: primary. Wikipedia isn't interested in what somebody says about themselves: we want to create articles based on what people unrelated to the subject of the article say about them. An article such as yours which is entirely based on what the person (i.e., de Lacey Davidson) has written about themselves cannot be verified to be true, and more importantly for Wikipedia's purposes, cannot satisfy WP:GNG. casualdejekyll 19:13, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

As for Donald Ashwander, the New York Tines published an obituary after his death. That is the type of coverage we are looking for, although it need not be an obituary. Cullen328 (talk) 19:19, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

As a side note, I think the AFC process can be frustratingly vague about their declines. A new Wikipedian needs more then a paragraph of explanation sometimes, and that's okay! That's the entire point of the teahouse! But would it really have killed the reviewer to drop you a link to Wikipedia:GARAGEBAND? casualdejekyll 19:20, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

As for Antonio Salieri, that article has 69 references to exceptionally high quality sources. It is all about the quality of the references. Everything else is secondary to reference quality. Cullen328 (talk) 19:23, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

@ABMR01: Also, have a look at WP:COMPOSER. These are the "rules of popularity" for composers. He must meet one of those criteria. This isn't negotiable. It is not clear, after looking at your draft, which of those criteria are met by Matthew de Lacy Davidson. The most important criterion is having significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the person, but lacking that, one of the others would also suffice to suggest that he may be notable. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:21, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

How to change quotation marks to italics?

In the Bibliography to Abraham Lincoln, Eric Foner's book (not article) is in quotation marks instead of italics, and I can't figure out why or how to change it. Maurice Magnus (talk) 01:09, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

@Maurice Magnus, it is using the "cite journal" template instead of the "cite book" template. I have fixed it. StarryGrandma (talk) 01:13, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

@StarryGrandma Thanks. I see that all you had to do was change the word "journal" to "book." Maurice Magnus (talk) 01:32, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

How do I change my username?

I accidentally made a spelling error in my username and didn't realize it. TheBigSomker (talk) 03:30, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

You can follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Changing username. Sarrail (talk) 03:35, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

The only contribution of "TheBigSomker" to Wikipedia has been the question above. Therefore simply forget it. Sign up as "TheBigSmoocher" or whatever single username you wish, and use that. Simple. -- Hoary (talk) 03:37, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Makes sense actually and thanks! TheBigSomker (talk) 03:42, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Academic quality

I remember at some point a few months back seeing an article (likely a Featured Article) that had been listed among a select group of articles that were of academic quality. Like, a rung above FA. Do we have such a project? Krisgabwoosh (talk) 02:59, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Not that I've heard of, Krisgabwoosh. Are you perhaps thinking of an A-class article (a rung above GA)? But the A class is little used. -- Hoary (talk) 03:39, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Found it Hoary! It was Hilda Rix Nicholas, which is part of the WikiJournal of Humanities, evidently a wikiversity project. Thanks for the help, though. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 04:13, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for educating me, Krisgabwoosh. I'd never heard of this journal, or indeed of any other WikiJournal. -- Hoary (talk) 06:10, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

What in the world happened at this page?

See the version of DCOR I reverted here. Any analysis or commentary would be much appreciated, because I have no idea what that was about, just simply restored the obvious stable version (a redirect). WeWorkGuest (talk) 06:27, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

This was, I think, the work of either an incompetent spammer (forgetting to link to the website where readers were supposed to squander their money) or a troll (who'll be more amused the more words we expend here on the silly business). PDFTT. -- Hoary (talk) 06:38, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

How do I correct the coordinates of an article with no Coords entry?

The article on the Phoenix Cluster has the wrong coordinates listed in the coordinate tag at the top of the page. It's listed as 23h 23m 40.9s, −42° 41′ 54″, but it should be 23h 44m 40.9s, -42° 41′ 54″ as correctly shown in the infobox. I thought I'd quickly fix this, but I can't see the wrong coordinates anywhere in the article source! It looks like it's being sourced from the infobox, but then it's weird that it ends up being wrong. What's the right way to fix this? I guess I could manually add a {coords} myself, but that seems like brushing the real problem under the carpet. Amaurea (talk) 00:26, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

@Amaurea - The problem was with {{Sky}} - I fixed it in this edit. casualdejekyll 00:58, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

@Amaurea, the coordinate tag comes from the template {{sky}} at the bottom of the page. It has been fixed. StarryGrandma (talk) 00:59, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! I can't have done a good job searching when 23|23 was right there in the source after all. Well, now I know about {{sky}} at least. Amaurea (talk) 10:12, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

About Tables

hi. i would like to know how can I move my table to right side of the page? ThiriToe (talk) 11:59, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

@ThiriToe Welcome to the Teahouse. Which table are you referring to? The general help page is at H:TABLE. In most articles, tables are left-justified but there may be cases where they are placed to the right for some reason. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:12, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

yes i want my table to be in right place but i can't move it. ThiriToe (talk) 12:26, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

@ThiriToe Assuming you are referring to Draft:Insan Bumi Mandiri, the position of the table should be the least of your concerns and is perfectly OK on the left. The draft is entirely without inline sources to allow readers to verify what is written and hence it will be rapidly declined. You also need to convince reviewers that the organisation is notable. Please also remove all the external links from the body of the text. These are not allowed (see WP:ELPOINTS). Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:41, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Promotional userpage

Hi, I tried to tag a user page with db-u5 but my edit was rejected so may I know if it’s not possible to tag pages for deletion without account? The page I was trying to tag is User:Online Gabbar

Thanks 123.136.150.127 (talk) 12:17, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

As the documentation on {{db-u5}} mentions, it is not appropriate for personal user pages that adhere to WP:UPYES. The case of Online Gabbar doesn't seem excessive to me and I would suggest there are other ways you could improve Wikipedia instead of worrying about that page. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:35, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) it's a different issue: your edit tripped edit filter 803, which disallows any edits to someone else's user page if you are unregistered or a new editor. more on edit filters here.

also, u5 doesn't really apply here. it could maybe be deleted under g11 or g4? lettherebedarklight晚安 12:37, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

@Michael D. Turnbull: You mean people can actually create an article about them and post in their userpage? The user page is completly promotion and doesn't include information related to their Wikipedia work and activities at all. The "Personal writings suitable within the Wikipedia community" points at WP:UPYES reads that "Non-article Wikipedia material such as reasonable Wikipedia humor..." and this user page looks like an article which defiantly violate WP:UPNOT which reads "Generally, you should avoid substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia." so in my opinion this user page should be deleted either under G11 for promotion or U5 for violating WP:UPNOT. 123.136.150.127 (talk) 12:53, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I guess it depends on what is meant by "substantial", which is a matter of opinion in this case. Like I said, I think there are many other things we could worry about than the content of that particular page. I note, however, that an experienced editor has now marked it with db-u5. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:01, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Cow Bayou

Im having trouble with the coordinates. {{coord|30|16|N|93|56|W|region:US-TX|display=inline,title}} is what im working with right now but when I put it in User:HelpingWorld/sandbox, it doesnt show the map with the coordinates. Any help is appreciated.`~HelpingWorld~` ^(👽🛸) 03:54, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

@HelpingWorld: Plain |coordinates= is not a field available in {{Infobox river}}. You have to put the {{coord}} template (with the correct mouth coordinates, in this case 30°01′19″N 93°44′43″W) in |mouth_coordinates=; and if you want a pushpin map displayed, you have to enter the name of one ("USA Texas") in the |pushpin_map= field. Deor (talk) 14:10, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

The demand for guaranteed democratic rights?

I want to know what the United Nations should do if the government of a country deprives the people of that country of their democratic rights? Engr. sa sohag hossain (talk) 14:18, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

@Engr. sa sohag hossain - This is the Teahouse, for asking questions about editing and using Wikipedia. General questions like this should be directed to the Reference desk or your search engine of choice. casualdejekyll 14:29, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Engr. sa sohag hossain I'm willing to say that there is not too much the UN can do. It's up to the people of a country to demand their rights. 331dot (talk) 14:48, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Engr. sa sohag hossain, the United Nations Security Council has five permanent members that have veto power. Among those are Russia and the People's Republic of China, both of which deprive their people of basic democratic rights. Draw your own conclusions from that. Cullen328 (talk) 16:58, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Resorts article

What is the proper way to create a page? Pebble Beach Resorts, which is referenced in a number of related pages, would like its own page. Is there a resource that can do this for them? Mgendronaugustyn (talk) 20:03, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

@Mgendronaugustyn: you're looking for WP:YFA, with the caveat that you need to read WP:COI, WP:GNG and WP:NCORP first. These are a series of guidelines and policies developed by the community on the creation of a Wikipedia article.
Ultimately, the most important thing to remember is that Wikipedia is not for advertising. If your goal is to advertise on Wikipedia, you will not succeed. casualdejekyll 20:06, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Everything User:Casualdejekyll said is accurate and useful. On the other hand, those resorts are extremely well-regarded and I suspect there are a number of reliable sources available. The Lodge at Pebble Beach does have an article and I'd be shocked if the golf courses don't--they do at Pebble Beach Golf Links. User:Mgendronaugustyn, is there some reason that these two links don't cover the necessary material? Even the ownership group Preferred has a page about it.

Your initial phrasing is PBR "would like its own page." That seems a pretty specific thing to know about a company's likes, hence Casualdejekyll's reasonable concern. Are you inquiring on the company's behalf? Are you connected in some way (employee, stockholder, management, customer)? You can tell us; we don't intend to punish someone for actually asking the question instead of acting rashly. We appreciate the boldness. BusterD (talk) 20:38, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Pebble Beach Resorts is its own entity. The Lodge at Pebble Beach and Pebble Beach Golf Links are entities under the umbrella of Pebble Beach Resorts. My company is their PR counsel, so, as such, are unable to create a page for them. Mgendronaugustyn (talk) 21:50, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, if Hobby Lobby can have preferences, morals, and a specific religion, why can't other companies have likes? David10244 (talk) 07:55, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Pretending for the moment that that irrelevant remark came from a brain and not from a chip on "someone's" shoulder, who said they can't have likes? It's just that those "likes" will play zero part in whether there's ever a Wikipedia article about them. Uporządnicki (talk) 17:36, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Mgendronaugustyn, and welcome to the Teahouse. Besides what the other replies have said, please note that even if an article is created about Pebble Beach Resorts (whoever creates it), it will not be "its own page". The company will not own it, will not control it, and will be limited to suggesting edits to it, which an uninvolved editor will decide whether and how to implement. The article should be based almost entirely on what independent commentators have published about the company, not on what the company says or wants to say. If it should happen that reliable sources publish material critical of Pebble Beach Resorts, that information will probably go into the article, whether the company likes it or not. ColinFine (talk) 21:35, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Quite so. BusterD (talk) 21:43, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I know. Mgendronaugustyn (talk) 21:51, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

How to edit

I want to edit a page and this is my first time doing this and I don't want to mess up anything on that page 67.132.2.138 (talk) 22:04, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello IP! Welcome to the Teahouse. You may be interested in our tutorial or our intro to contributing. Both are excellent resources to get you started on editing. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:13, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Don't worry. Remember, you can always practice editing in your personal sandbox. If you make a mistake, it can be easily corrected, since every page has a history of (nearly) every previous revision. You can also look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines at WP:POLICY. The two pages UtherSRG noted are very important for getting started, so you can start with those. Feel free to ask more questions if you're sure how to proceed. I hope you enjoy Wikipedia, and decide to stay! Professor Penguino (talk) 23:09, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

@IP editor from Arizona: you've already successfully made far more than your fair share of unconstructive edits since 2014, but they have mostly been reverted as gibberish. You've been told what comes next. Quisqualis (talk) 00:31, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

@Quisqualis - Stable IPs are a rarity nowadays; I have zero confidence that this user is the same person who made the bad edits 8 (!) years ago, and even if they are, it has been 8 years. No need to be hostile to them! (This is the Teahouse, after all.) casualdejekyll 02:40, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

There is a long history of flawed edits coming from this IP address. If you are truly new to Wikipedia, registering an account wil give you a clean (empty) history. David notMD (talk) 03:30, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

The block log suggests that this IP address actually belongs to a school, which would explain the long history of unconstructive edits. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:44, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

There are a multitude of reasons why someone may not want to create a user account and we should respect that. Esolo5002 (talk) 13:13, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Sure, there are reasons not to create an account. Then if someone normally uses a computer with a history of others using it for mischief, then there's a bit of a problem! What to do about it is an individual decision. I edited IP for years, and several people urged me to set up an account. I resisted for a while, and then I did it; I never once felt disrespected by anyone's suggestion--or even their urging--that I do it. Uporządnicki (talk) 17:53, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

RFK Jr. entry

Why isn't Kennedy's most recent book, The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health, included in the bibliography of works by him? Markdery (talk) 15:35, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

@Markdery - Welcome to the teahouse! I propose another question: why would an encyclopedia, which has the specific purpose of providing a summary of information about the subjects of its' articles, contain a complete, indiscriminate bibliography of an author? Per MOS:TIMELINE, a list of all of an author's works can be inappropriate for their article if the list is not supported by the prose of the article.
This may be a matter best suited for Talk:Robert F. Kennedy Jr.. casualdejekyll 15:48, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

@Markdery: It is included. It's the 2021 book at Robert F. Kennedy Jr.#Selected works. It's also mentioned in Robert F. Kennedy Jr.#COVID-19. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:41, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Odd, I didn't see it, which was what prompted me to post this query. Thanks for your response. Markdery (talk) 18:14, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

How can I fix/remove a redlink I accidentally put in a Revision History?

I understand how to fix or remove a redlink in the text of an article itself. But I accidentally put one into the comment or explanation I gave for a revision I made to an article. I cited to a non-Wikipedia web page to show why a listed item should be removed from the list, but I (sorry, newbie error) put it in double brackets thus accidentally creating a new, non-existent Wikipedia article instead of my intended link to the website. The Revision history page in question is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_TRS-80_games&action=history. The specific revision is the one listed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_TRS-80_games&oldid=1126131914 Sorry for the goof. Note that the edit I made is valid; the problem is in my comment or explanation for the edit I made. Carney333 (talk) 18:50, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Carney333, welcome to the Teahouse. There's no way to go back and change an edit summary. The usual fix is to make a Dummy edit with an edit summary explaining or correcting the error in the previous edit summary. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:55, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Can't find the "thank" link in the revision page here; maybe because you have no username? Carney333 (talk) 19:25, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

@Carney333, correct, there's no way to thank IP users (except by saying "Thanks", which you did, so mission accomplished!). 199.208.172.35 (talk) 19:36, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Rejected listing

What can I dod to get my submission approved once it is rejected? Lasvegascoder (talk) 19:27, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Promescent (declined, not rejected) - 199.208.172.35 (talk) 19:38, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

@Lasvegascoder Welcome to the Teahouse! As the reviewer said, your references do not show that the topic of the article meets notability. You can show notability by providing multiple instances of in-depth, reliable, and secondary coverage of the topic of your draft. casualdejekyll 19:43, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Event Outreach Dashboard

Hi, I would like to find out if there have been any conversations or discussions held about the community outreach dashboard concerning its high data collection and matrix on many campaign topics instead of focusing on the specifics. If there have been any discussions in a wiki thread or a forum concerning it's resolution kindly send me a link. Thanks Jwale2 (talk) 18:07, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Jwale2, the Teahouse is for inexperienced users. You may want to try at the Help desk, for a quicker response AdmiralAckbar1977 (talk) 18:35, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that. The Teahouse and Help Desk have a lot of overlap, and (totally not biased) I think the Teahouse is way cooler. casualdejekyll 19:44, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Popper's three worlds - unsourced content

Hi, I'm looking at the article on Popper's three worlds which has a lot of unsourced content. It's been added over what looks like a couple of years by different IP editors, possibly or probably the same person based on their edits. I've added a message to the Talk page of the most recent editor, 2A00:23C6:D119:F101:15FA:4235:6E34:B03E (talk · contribs), but they may not see it or respond. I'm considering reverting the page back to this version from two years ago. Does that seem reasonable, or is there a better course of action? Thanks. Tacyarg (talk) 19:49, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

@Tacyarg: There is an ongoing discussion about this at Talk:Popper's_three_worlds#OR. You should join that discussion and get consensus with other interested editors on how to proceed. RudolfRed (talk) 19:57, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed that discussion completely. Will head there now. Thanks. Tacyarg (talk) 19:59, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Sandbox

Hello, I just want to ask what is the Sandbox used for? Gocla (talk) 21:07, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Gocla, welcome to the Teahouse. There's a Wikipedia sandbox and there are personal sandboxes - two different things. The Wikipedia sandbox is at WP:sandbox; anyone can edit it, and it is periodically cleared out. You haven't created a personal sandbox yet; if you did, it would be at User:Gocla/sandbox (though you could also name it other things), and you could use it for lots of stuff related to building Wikipedia. See here for more about what is (or isn't) permitted. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 21:14, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Australian Stamp, Western Australia

The stamp on the subjekt exempel have just turn up at a Swedish Fb on selling stamps. I want to know where "Fconaway" got the picture from. Regards Illtyr / Andreas

Inverted Swan Iltyr (talk) 21:01, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Iltyr, welcome to the Teahouse. Fconaway hasn't edited since 2018; however, if you go to the image's page on Commons - here - you'll see mentions of both a sale and an exhibition. You might be able to track down more information from that, or you could ask the folks at one of the WP:Reference desks for further help. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 21:08, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And you will also note that, being over 100 years old, the image on the stamp is public domain, so there is no problem in copying it - Arjayay (talk) 21:13, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Iltyr (talk) 21:18, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

R*h*l L*gm*

How do I delete the page on R*h*l L*gm*? This is an alt-right meme and should not be on Wikipedia. CornSyrupEnjoyer (talk) 07:09, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

You cannot delete the page yourself, but you can nominate it for a deletion discussion. See WP:AFDHOWTO for instructions. ––FormalDude (talk) 07:15, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

We have pages about many distateful but notable topics. Only go to AfD if the topic Rahul Ligma is not notable (with a cursory look at the references, it probably is). If it is not written neutrally, you can edit it. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 10:29, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

CornSyrupEnjoyer Wikipedia does not censor topics because the topic is objectionable or offensive in some way. Pretty much every topic offends someone. If there is a reason based in Wikipedia policy to delete an article, you may start a discussion as noted. 331dot (talk) 10:39, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

CornSyrupEnjoyer watch out for the Streisand effect. I'd never heard of that hoax until now. Pretty funny actually.

Highlights the problem with WP:vnt doesn't it? Couple guys walk out of Twitter with cardboard boxes and somebody could have written on WP that Musk fired everybody! Larataguera (talk) 00:10, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Should an article be made for the band "fox academy"

the band "fox academy", currently with 597,324 monthly listeners,does not have a wikipedia page. I don't know if this due to considered "notable" by wikipedia standards. their most popular songs have 30 million and 25 million stream, And they also have connections to bigger artists (jordana on "rabbit" and others). Internet personality Karl Jacobs is also a brother-in-law to one of the members, and has been in and helped in the creation of their music videos. SaraRugby (talk) 15:04, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi @SaraRugby, welcome to the Teahouse. Unfortunately, nothing you've mentioned here demonstrates notability in the Wikipedia sense. Has there been any news coverage of this band? Are there any published reviews? Those are the things we generally look for. There are further, music-specific criteria at WP:NMUSIC. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:10, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the response! For coverage, I have found a school newspaper, a interview, a review of their ep, a song review, and an album review. They aslo are under the Many Hats Distribution label. SaraRugby (talk) 15:23, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

@SaraRugby, interviews can't be used to demonstrate notability (they are not independent), and very few school newspapers are considered reliable sources (some, at very prestigious institutes of higher learning, do qualify). It sounds like their album may be more notable than the band itself. If you think the reviews you've posted qualify as significant coverage by independent, reliable, secondary sources, you could try writing an article for the album based on them - see Help:Your first article for information on how to get started. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:31, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I had a feeling, but it never hurts to ask. Thank you for your help! SaraRugby (talk) 15:39, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

@199.208.172.35: @SaraRugby: Writing an article about the album first isn't good advice, because such an article qualifies for speedy deletion in accordance with WP:CSD#A9. The artist must be notable and have an article written, before any article can be written about a musical recording. This is kind of an exception case on Wikipedia. In other cases this doesn't apply; for example, we could have an article about a painting, wine, or book, without first having an article about the painter, winemaker/winery, or author, respectively. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:06, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

@Anachronist, A9 states This applies to any article about a musical recording or list of musical recordings where none of the contributing recording artists has an article and that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant (both conditions must be met). So - as far as I can tell - as long as the article indicates why its subject is important or significant, it can be kept even without an accompanying article on the artist. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 20:11, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

That is a completely wrong assessment of A9 that strikes me as out of touch with policy (and you've been here for 16 years, which is only about two years shorter then how long A9 has been here) - A9 very clearly says both conditions must be met (the other condition being an assertion of importance, which is indeed a vague term but can't be assessed without having the article in front of us!) and WP:NALBUM says that an album does not need to be by a notable artist or ensemble to merit a standalone article if it meets the general notability guideline. casualdejekyll 21:29, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that is true, but in my 14 years of Wikipedia I have never yet seen an article about a recording survive here without also an accompanying article about the artist. Over the years my perception of A9 (without having looked at the text in a long time) must have gotten warped based on my experience, in which new articles about albums with no article about the artist are speedily deleted. But as you correctly pointed out, the reason for deletion is not that the artist doesn't have an article, it's because the artist's non-notability is shared by the album. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:25, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Archiving user talk pages

Hello! Out of curiosity, I would like to know, how do you archive your user talk page? Thanks! Professor Penguino (talk) 01:31, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi Professor Penguino. There are a number of different ways to archive a talk page. You can find out some about them at WP:ARCHIVE. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:35, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Marchjuly! Professor Penguino (talk) 01:38, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

massive plagiarism

Where do I report massive plagiarism? The first and longest section of Silver John appears to have been exactly copied from the publisher's page. See Talk:Silver_John#plagiarism_or_quotation for details. The duplication dates from the creation of the article in 2005 by an unnamed editor ("This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 12.44.144.10 (talk) at 20:50, 17 July 2005." -- [22] Thnidu (talk) 02:09, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

@Thnidu - The {{Copyvio}} template page has information on what to do in this situation - particularly,

If a text page is a likely copyright violation, add the following before the copied text:

• {{subst:copyvio|url=source(s)}} where the copyvio starts and {{copyvio/bottom}} where the copyvio ends.

• {{subst:copyvio|url=source(s)|fullpage=yes}} if the entire page has a copyright issue.

This template must always be substituted.

casualdejekyll 03:32, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Update: DO NOT DO THIS. the publisher's page in question states "Adapted from Wikipedia", which suggests that the Wiki article is the winner of the chicken and egg competition, at least until further evidence. casualdejekyll 03:34, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Help me to remove a row from Wikitable

I needed to remove "Jai Maa Vaishnav Devi" column from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronit_Roy#Film as he didn't act on that movie. But I am not able to remove the row. I need help regarding this row. Twinkle1990 (talk) 05:26, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

@Twinkle1990  Done I have removed the row here. Jolly1253 (talk) 05:33, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

@Jolly1253 thanks a lot. The diff helped me to learn. Twinkle1990 (talk) 05:35, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Article Submission (Quick Review)

Hello, I am trying to get an article approved for an athlete's wikipedia page. The page has been submitted and currently in the review process. However, I wanted to try and expedite this process. How can this be made possible? LancePrater212 (talk) 22:06, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

LancePrater212, there is no way to get Draft:Arthur Price III approved more quickly. AfC is a volunteer effort.

To get your draft quickly deleted or declined, you can tag it under WP:G7, paste copyright violations on the page, or promote Price as the best track and field athlete the world has ever seen.^[Humor] Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 22:10, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that kind of humour is appropriate at this moment. casualdejekyll 22:14, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

@LancePrater212 - there is no "quick review" process, and unfortunately biographies are some of the most clogged areas on Wikipedia. However, to tell you my personal opinion, I don't think Draft:Arthur_Price_III will be accepted - your sources are primarily school newspapers and press releases. You should read up on WP:RS to see what sorts of sources we expect. casualdejekyll 22:11, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I have declined the draft because it's not clear to me how they would pass WP:NTRACK? Sorry. Theroadislong (talk) 22:23, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

The sad truth of AFC is that the more impatient somebody is about getting their draft reviewed, the more likely it is the draft will get declined anyway. casualdejekyll 22:30, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Side note: @Theroadislong, if I was interested in becoming an AfC reviewer, how would I go about doing so? casualdejekyll 22:32, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

For the criteria to become a reviewer, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants. Theroadislong (talk) 22:39, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Actually, there IS a way to expedite an AfC review, LancePrater212. You can submit a neutrally written, well-referenced draft about an obviously notable topic, and almost any AfC reviewer would be happy to accept it promptly. Cullen328 (talk) 01:48, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

@Cullen328, while that's technically correct, "just write a good draft instead" isn't really the greatest or most helpful advice casualdejekyll 03:47, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Casualdejekyll, actually, I believe that it is helpful advice. If a new editor comes here for the purpose of writing new encyclopedia articles about notable topics, then there are countless notablable topics that could be chosen and written about quite easily. For example, I began editing Wikipedia in late June, 2009 and successfully wrote my very first article about a famous early 20th century coppersmith, Dirk van Erp, less than a month later. No article I have written has ever been deleted, because I freely choose to write neutrally written, well-referenced articles about obviously notable topics. Other editors come here to write about hot new topics that have dubious notability because that is exciting and cool and trendy. Any new editor could have a prolific career here writing articles about 19th century state and provincial legislators or second tier hit songs of the 1920s and 1930s or 19th century Swiss mountain guides or lesser known Supreme Court decisions from many countries, just as I originally specialized in writing biographies of early 20th century California mountaineers in the first few years that I was editing. I have branched out since then. Again, not a single article I have written or expanded has ever been deleted. That is because I write only about indisputably notable topics. How is it negative to offer the same advice to new editors? Cullen328 (talk) 06:07, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Casualdejekyll, surely you would not advise new editors to write poorly referenced drafts about dubiously notable topics that they are personally enthusiastic about? Cullen328 (talk) 06:15, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

page protection

if someone change my change and distored page what i should do for page protection and i am not extended confirm user Hardipsinhjadeja1 (talk) 08:02, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Hardipsinhjadeja1, if you disagree with an edit to an article, bring up the matter on the article's talk page. Or are you saying that an article (or draft or whatever) has been vandalized? (NB "vandalized" does not mean "changed in a way that I dislike".) -- Hoary (talk) 08:12, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Hardipsinhjadeja1. It would be helpful if you could try to write in a more coherent way so that other editors can understand what you are trying to say. Pages are only protected when there is an obvious pattern of disruptive editing by multiple accounts or IP editors. Administrators will tailor the protection to prevent disruption while allowing the maximum number of editors to contribute positively. Make your well formulated request for protection at WP:RFPP. Cullen328 (talk) 08:15, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Broken reference

I've just added an album table to Bad Boy Chiller Crew.

There's a reference which is used twice...

Once for the singles chart

Once for the albums chart

As the reference contains information for both.

However I've broken the reference somehow, and when I try to fix it, I break the singles table.

Can someone fix it for me? Danstarr69 (talk) 07:13, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Danstarr69, there was indeed something wrong. I made an edit. Now there's nothing obviously wrong with the Mediawiki syntax (the markup language), but I'm not sure that what I've produced is what you wanted. Please either say yes it is or tell me what you'd like me to do. -- Hoary (talk) 08:08, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Hoary ignore my reverted message. Danstarr69 (talk) 08:57, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Happily ignored, Danstarr69! Back to the referencing business. Simply, one instance of the reference is written like <ref name="somenamethatseasytouse">[tedious bibliographic or other details]</ref> and all the others are abbreviated: <ref name="somenamethatseasytouse" />. Hope this makes sense. -- Hoary (talk) 09:16, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Creating a page for Edward Ashton (sci-fi author)

Hi, I'm working on a page for Edward Ashton, the author of Mickey7 (soon to be adapted into a film directed by Bong Joon-ho starring Robert Pattinson). What sources, besides articles discussing the upcoming film, would I need to successfully submit the article? (The draft was recently rejected.)

If anyone has any suggestions or would like to help edit, I'd really appreciate it.

Thanks in advance! YoungAstrolabe (talk) 00:30, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Edward Ashton (author) ✶Mitch199811✶ (talk) 00:45, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

WP:Peer review is the centralized location for having others look through your article. I feel like it needs more information and maybe wikilinks. ✶Mitch199811✶ (talk) 01:07, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello, YoungAstrolabe, and welcome to the Teahouse. The answer is that you need sources which satisfy the Golden rule: that they are reliably published, independent of the subject, and contain significant coverage of him. Of your existing references, the first three are not independent, and the other three do not contain significant coverage of Ashton. Has anybody written a newspaper article about him (not interviewing him, or regurgitating a press release)? Has anybody written several pages about him in a book from a major publisher? If the answer to these is No, then it is quite likely TOOSOON. ColinFine (talk) 09:47, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Line-throughs on my User Contributions page?

On my User Contributions page, three of my recents contributions to the Teahouse have the date and time lined through and unlinked. The "diff" button is also unlinked, but not lined-through. All the rest of it links normally. And my edits are still on the page as I put them in in the first placel (if I remember right), so apparently, they haven't been removed for crossing some Wikipedia policy or rule of etiquette. I don't think I've ever seen that before. Can someone tell me what that's about? Uporządnicki (talk) 10:23, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

If you look back in the history of the Teahouse, you will see that a long range of edits (between 18:32, 6 December 2022‎ and 20:21, 7 December 2022‎) are not visible. The double strikeout in the history indicates that information has been suppressed through the Wikipedia:Oversight process. It will have been no criticism of your edits, but to remove evidence of the earlier edits it has been necessary to hide the intermediate edits between when the unacceptable material was added and when it was removed. - David Biddulph (talk) 10:42, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Doing experiment article but someone from talkpage told me it is a COI and i can edit my article

Hi! I am a new user here. I would like to practice and do experiment article, but someone from the talkpage told me that my article has COI and I cant further edit it unless i replied or add a code about being paid..

I am just trying to do an expirement article, what should i reply to that user who messaged me in order for me to proceed. I am not someone from paid agency or something. PulseSocials (talk) 09:06, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

PulseSocials Hello and welcome. First, you must change your username immediately to be more individualistic; organization names as usernames are not permitted. I will provide a link to do this on your user talk page. Second, you must indeed read and comply with WP:COI and/or WP:PAID. Note that any paid relationship with a topic triggers the paid disclosure requirement(such as being employed by Pulse), which is a Terms of Use requirement. Regarding your draft, if you are saying you are writing it as an experiment with no intention of placing it in the encyclopedia, this is not permitted. If you are working towards placing it in the encyclopedia, you will need to submit it for a review; this is typically done via Articles for Creation but I will place the appropriate information to allow you to submit it. 331dot (talk) 09:13, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply @331dot . How can I change my username though.. ?

Sorry not experimenting, I mean it is not yet complete and I am still putting all the needed citations and finalizing the write up. I just submitted my draft to save it on my sandbox and so I can access it anytime. I thought I can still make anything on sandbox. . .

I am really confused on how to get started on this. PulseSocials (talk) 09:21, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I see the means are there to allow you to submit it; you just click the "submit your draft" button at the top of your draft. 331dot (talk) 09:14, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi I can only see Submite Draft for Review..

As mentioned above, my draft is still not ready for review, I am still working on it... but I cant further edit it due to the message of this user who sent me about the COI.. why am I restricted to edit if I am still doing it on my sandbox and not the mainspace? I am super confused. PulseSocials (talk) 09:24, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

PulseSocials I have placed a link for changing your username on your user talk page, but I will place it here as well; Special:GlobalRenameRequest.

Creating a draft is the correct thing to do for someone in your situation. You are welcome to keep editing your draft and not submit it until you are ready to submit it. You must make the required declarations first, though. Sandboxes are an area to write drafts or test editing, but are not immune from scrutiny. 331dot (talk) 09:29, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

There are several problems here. Your chosen name "PulseSocials" is close to a name of an existing organization Pulse Social. Best to go through the name change process. Second, there is suspicion that you have a paid or personal connection to Mehdi. This often happens when a new editor appears who as first effort, is trying to create an article about a person or company. You also wrote several times that "Mehdi believes..." without references, suggesting a personal connection. If there is no connection, declare that in a new section on your Talk page. If there is, declare that on your User page. Lastly, there is a tremendous amount of puffery in your draft: unique vision, passionate, principal thought leader, champion, etc. None of this meets Wikipedia's requirement for a neutral point of view. David notMD (talk) 13:25, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Quinton is okay

I fixed everything. Please consider making it a separate article and don't merge it with the other one. Drjump! (talk) 14:05, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

If you continue to add inappropriate comments and unsourced material to Quinton Kyle Hoover you are likely to be blocked. Theroadislong (talk) 14:10, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

@Drjump!: I've blocked you for a month. Take the time to read the policies many folks have pointed you to so that you can understand what you are doing wrong. UtherSRG (talk) 14:26, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

@Drjump! - The draft Draft:Quinton Reviews (American web series)'s only WP:GNG-contributing sources, from what I can tell, are WIRED and Newsweek, and they don't appear to cover a meaningfully seperate content from Quinton Kyle Hoover, which already talks about the channel and uses the sources in question. I would highly reccomend leaving the draft behind, and if you have more cited material to add, do so at Quinton Kyle Hoover. However, you must not add unsourced material, especially not to a biography of a living person. casualdejekyll 14:29, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Hey, i tried to remove using speedy deletion this image I uploaded to Wikipedia a while ago, but it was rejected.

Hey everyone,

i tried to remove (using speedy deletion) an image I uploaded to Wikipedia a long time ago ago, but it was rejected. It's the top Google result when you search for "FaviFake" (my username) and it is outdated, so I want to delete it or at least hide it. Can you please help me?

Link: https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:FaviFake.jpg FaviFake (talk) 14:41, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

it:File:FaviFake.jpg is on the Italian Wikipedia, not here on the English Wikipedia, so you need to ask there. They might say, however, that when you uploaded the file you made an irrevocable release of your contribution. - David Biddulph (talk) 14:45, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Actually, it's also on Commons at C:File:FaviFake.jpg. Still not an enwiki issue. @FaviFake - if there's an updated version of the image, why not upload that (assuming it is properly licensed)? casualdejekyll 14:47, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Would the new image replace the outdated one? Also, where do i have to go for the italian wiki? FaviFake (talk) 15:02, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

@FaviFake, the Italian help desk is here, and the Commons help desk is here. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:07, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! FaviFake (talk) 15:08, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Where do i have to ask? FaviFake (talk) 15:01, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

article that was published is completely gone from site

Hi, I have been working on aedp (accelerated experiential dynamic psychotherapy) for years. It has been published for 2 years. The article is gone from wikipedia. there was no indication and talk page is gone too. Could someone please help me with this. Carrie Ruggieri Carrieruggieri (talk) 02:11, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Carrieruggieri. That article has been redirected to Diana Fosha, and that topic is discussed there. Cullen328 (talk) 02:24, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

there is not a discussion there. Carrieruggieri (talk) 02:27, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Carrieruggieri, Please read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Accelerated experiential dynamic psychotherapy. There have been several attempts to force this article into the encyclopedia against consensus. That is not a good idea. Cullen328 (talk) 02:30, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

that was in 2017. it is a completely different article now. After the deletion in 2017 it was completely revised. It is published in 2020. Carrieruggieri (talk) 02:34, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

The article draft was declined at AfC twice following the 2017 deletion, and then someone circumvented the AfC process and moved the draft directly to mainspace. Although that is not strictly forbidden, it is certainly unorthodox following an AfD deletion and two AfC declines. That type of thing tends to upset uninvolved editors. The topic is currently covered at Diana Fosha, and the redirect leads interested readers right there. My suggestion is to gradually expand that section of the article in strict compliance with Wikipedia's Policies and guidelines. Once that section has grown enough with solid content (as opposed to padding), then splitting the article may be appropriate. Cullen328 (talk) 03:27, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining this. I really need to access the article because I have worked on this since 2014. I especially need the references. How do I get the article so that I can copy/paste it to my word document. Carrieruggieri (talk) 13:02, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

@Carrieruggieri - Editing the article's version in mainspace would be preferred (or using Wikipedia:Edit requests if editing the page is not possible due to protection or Conflict of interest). If you would rather work on the article all at once before adding it to mainspace, I recommend using your personal sandbox instead of a Word Document, as MediaWiki markup doesn't play well with external text editors. casualdejekyll 14:27, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply - but the article is completely disappeared. I'm trying to access it. I imagine it couldn't be, just gone(?). Carrieruggieri (talk) 14:33, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

@Carrieruggieri, since it was redirected instead of deleted, the previous text is still available in the history of the redirect. Here is a link to an old diff: 1. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:02, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

thank you for the link! what a relief. But this isn't redirected to the Diana Fosha page. Only the title is redirected. Actually AEDP spelled out is redirected, not AEDP, as it is known, Carrieruggieri (talk) 16:09, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

@Carrieruggieri, I'm not sure what you mean. AEDP doesn't exist, even as a redirect. Accelerated experiential dynamic psychotherapy is a redirect to Diana Fosha, but its history still exists at the redirect itself. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:16, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

ok, I see. when I put aedp in search box it does go to Diana Fosha. However, the article itself is not redirected. I am happy to have the link, but there is no way to access the article in order for someone to work on it. Cullen328 suggested working on it in the Diana Fosha page, but the article isn't there. There is a section with 2 paragraphs that describes aedp but it isn't the article with all the current references and terminology definitions etc.. It really isn't so bad as it should have been "blown up" in order to start from scratch. Carrieruggieri (talk) 16:24, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

@Carrieruggieri - I have copied the content in question to User:Carrieruggieri/Accelerated experiential dynamic psychotherapy, where you can work on it further. Please keep in mind the "multiple issues" box at the top: I highly recommend you edit to the aim of correcting these problems.

Our coverage of the topic in question is currently at Diana Fosha, as you know - it would best serve our readers to improve that coverage before creating an independent article. casualdejekyll 16:30, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

thank you! if other editors want to work on it - which would be ideal. I've been waiting for someone in the Psychology wikipedia to take this on and fix the issues. Carrieruggieri (talk) 16:36, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I meant - how does an editor, other than me, find this in order to work on it. Carrieruggieri (talk) 16:37, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

@Carrieruggieri: A post on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology informing them of your draft is the most likely way to get someone else, but I wouldn't be surprised if nobody else wants to work on it. That's OK: There's not any sort of deadline, so as long as somebody's working on it, it will get done. casualdejekyll 16:40, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I have over 60 references, there is history, definitions etc... if it is to be expanded and re-written, the sources and information is already available. It's expensive to get these articles and time consuming to read them all. Carrieruggieri (talk) 16:40, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Getting frustrated at lack of enthusiasm for your draft is common: the unfortunate truth is that the encyclopedia is so massive that the only way to get something you want done done is almost always to do it yourself. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Psychology/How_to_write_a_psychology_article is a guide that I think will be useful. I don't think expanding your already massive draft is needed - if I were in your position, I would be most concerned with summary style - in particular, an encyclopedia article's purpose should be to present objective facts, which is different from something like an essay which can argue for a specific position. In particular, your "Core concepts" and 'Map of the transformational process" section read more like how-to guides than encyclopedia articles - in the guidelines, this is WP:NOTHOWTO. casualdejekyll 16:44, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I did not know about the how to write a psychology article. Thank you this is truly helpful. And, also, a real assist - I wouldn't have thought core concepts and map could seem like a how to guide. I really appreciate that had a look. If you could, would you be able to give me an example of what is "weasel"-like? Carrieruggieri (talk) 16:58, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

@Carrieruggieri - "weasel" refers to vague phrases such as "some people say", "it is often thought", "scientists say", and other phrases that without attribution introduce uncertainty to an article. If a statement is contradicted or confused between multiple sources, attributing the statement (i.e. "John Smith says") is a better idea. casualdejekyll 18:20, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Cullen328 suggested that you should gradually expand that section of the article in strict compliance with Wikipedia's Policies and guidelines. Once that section has grown enough with solid content (as opposed to padding), then splitting the article may be appropriate. This is good advice. Please try to follow it. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:32, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Also, your comment "content as opposed to padding" leaves me distressed because just about every statement is backed up with 2cd and 3rd party references (that is criticized too: "reference bombing" and "selected references"). It's just straightforward information - not a single adjective (I imagine a "weasel word" is an adjective - despite my asking for an example, no one has given me an example). You suggested I read the guidelines. I have studied the guidelines. I agree that the first and 2cd 2017drafts were problematic, too thick with jargon - trying to say too much in too pithy a way. The 2020 article was a complete revision of a second extensively revised 2017 revision. Also, compare my article to any other psychotherapy article (EFT, EMDR, ACT, CBT etc..) it's no better and no worse. Carrieruggieri (talk) 14:06, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Carrieruggieri, when you want other editors to look at other articles, do not toss out acronyms. We have 6.5 million articles and any given brief acronym will probably refer to dozens of articles. For example, I have lived in the San Francisco Bay Area for 50 years, and when I see ACT, I immediately think of the highly prestigious American Conservatory Theater on Geary Street in downtown San Francisco. As a young man decades ago, I traveled up and down Geary Street almost every day, and when I was feeling prosperous, sometimes was fortunate enough to attend shows there. Be specific. Cullen328 (talk) 07:12, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

excellent point. I actually hate acronyms. Carrieruggieri (talk) 17:01, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Welcome

Is there is any script to add welcome message to talk page of more than 2 user at one time. (Please ping me if anyone will reply) ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 11:04, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

@LordVoldemort728: Welcome to The Teahouse! There are no multiple talk scripts that I know of for this purpose. I usually just go to each user and hit them with a Twinkle welcome as needed. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:27, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Ok. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 18:17, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Should all taxonomic concepts be included in wikipedia?

I recently submitted an article for creation about the order Apterygiformes, which contains kiwis. One editor said that there was no need to have such an article, as the information already existed in the article Kiwi(bird). This is true, but that article is currently occupying 3 taxonomic concepts: Apterygiformes, Apterygidae, and Apteryx. I'm wondering whether it's wiki policy in a case like this to have 3 articles or just one. Tobirder (talk) 01:00, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

From what I have seen, if a level only has one descendent (e.g. a genus only has one species) it is lumped in with it. Many dinosaur genre have this. ✶Mitch199811✶ (talk) 01:12, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I'll look for some other fossil families. I just feel that this makes sense for lower-level taxa, but there's only 40-odd bird orders. Having extremely detailed articles for some (e.g Passeriformes) and none for others seems strange when there's so few. Tobirder (talk) 01:23, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Tobirder, Seems a little odd to me too. I frequently see several species consolidated into a single article for the genus, but I'd think an order would have its own article. I don't edit much in biology, but there's not really a system anywhere. It often seems to me that people want three articles all on the same thing, and then other times don't want an article when there should really be one. It's a bit of a mess. I'd just write the article, do a good job with it, and don't worry if someone objects unless there are multiple editors raising concerns Larataguera (talk) 02:12, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

But in this case, the Order has only one Family, and the Family has only one Genus. So I really don't think three articles are necessary, unless there's a lot to say about one or another level. This instance does include five species, and they have individual articles.

@Tobirder - The "official" standard is to start with an article at the highest taxonomic level and WP:SPLIT out articles on lower levels when the sections of the higher level get too large. In practice, this is rarely followed. For a long time, guidelines have stated that Species that have a correct name (botany) or valid name (zoology) are generally kept, but recently the trend has moved towards redirecting some "perma-stub" species articles back to the parent genus.

In this specific case, the best situation is keeping it to the one article, because Apterygiformes, Apterygida, and Apteryx all contain the same exact set of species. In cases like this, having multiple articles would duplicate content unnecessarily. I do notice that the article Novaeratitae looks quite stubby - if you want to write about a taxonomic concept, there's a good place to do it. There are also, of course, many other cases of articles of similar quality. casualdejekyll 03:42, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

@Tobirder since multiple editors seem to think it should be one article, you can suggest that the existing article is the article about the order Apterygiformes, and modify the article to make that clearer. It isn't clear from the lead section (or even the taxonomy section) that these are the only species in the order. Apterygiformes redirects to Kiwi (bird), but if I were redirected there I would be confused. Further discussion should probably be on the talk page for the article. Nice job identifying this issue! I hope you'll continue to make improvements. Larataguera (talk) 12:26, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I think Kiwi (bird) is semi-protected, so I don't know if I can edit there as a relatively new user, but thanks for the input. Tobirder (talk) 13:09, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

@Tobirder the standard for semi protected is 4 days old account and 10 edits. With your 90+ edits on a week old account, you are able to edit semi-protected articles. casualdejekyll 13:19, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! I also noticed the article is written in New Zealand English, which I don't speak. Can I still contribute to the article? Tobirder (talk) 13:22, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

@Tobirder Most of the time it doesn't matter too much but just keep in mind certain things (e.g. not sure if they have u's in words like colour but if you normally write color keep that in mind). The article might be a good place to look at if you have concerns. ✶Mitch199811✶ (talk) 18:07, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

It does matter, but isn't that different - read up at the link. Yes, they do use "colour", and most British English spellings. Johnbod (talk) 18:12, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I've just edited the intro to the article. Does arriving at it from a redirect make sense now? Tobirder (talk) 20:53, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Deletion overview Process Link

Today, I saw one notable case study and because of this I think, the deletion was wrong. Can you please share how to request for deletion review? Draft:BoAt Lifestyle This is the current page, and the source is https://hbsp.harvard.edu/product/523019-PDF-ENG which I was not aware before. Also, what is your opinion? Is it worth requesting? Lordofhunter (talk) 10:34, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

You're asking about a deletion, Lordofhunter. Which deletion? I do notice that you deleted a decline notice that included the instruction Please do not remove reviewer comments or this notice until the submission is accepted. I have restored this. Do not remove this or similar material. -- Hoary (talk) 11:59, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/BoAt_Lifestyle I have requested deletion overview request, but I am not 100% sure about it. Please check here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2022_December_8 Lordofhunter (talk) 12:06, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

STATUS: There appear to be three tracks here. Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BoAt Lifestyle BoAt Lifestyle was deleted in November 2022 after a complicated history that involved AfC approval, kicked back to draft, etc. Separately Draft:BoAt Lifestyle exists as an active draft with one Declined, back in July 2022, and recent edits. The deletion decision included criticism of every reference, so asking for a deletion review may be a poor choice. Instead, perhaps work can be done on the existing draft (including removing refs and content that was criticized at the deletion review). Lastly, the topic was also deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BoAt in 2019. David notMD (talk) 12:58, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

That's a long and storied history.@Lordofhunter - I would highly recommend to you (and to any future editors in this topic) to refrain from submitting and posting the article further until you can provide one with references that show WP:NCORP is met. In fact, the preferred course of action (in my opinion) would be such that if a reference does not count for WP:NCORP, you should avoid using it at the very least until you have already proven the notability of the topic, as adding more references that do not support notability creates more work for reviewers: see WP:REFBOMB. casualdejekyll 14:20, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Do you think | Harvard Case study is of no use?. But this really makes me confused about my understanding of notability. Lordofhunter (talk) 14:23, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

@Lordofhunter The "secret" to notability as-it-were is that counter-intuitively, a draft with (for example) 3 good sources and no other sources is much more likely to be accepted then a draft with 3 good sources and 10 bad sources. This is because reviewers often don't have the time to sort through a massive list of sources when they see that most of them are not good, and can often miss the good in the flood of bad. This is why I tell you to minimize your sources: quality over quantity is the best approach. casualdejekyll 14:32, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I might do some other day. It will take my lot of energy, but Harvard is a good source. Right? Lordofhunter (talk) 14:39, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

The case study is behind a paywall, so may not be possible for anyone here at Teahouse to have an opinion. I agree that any new attempt should start with removing all flawed references and all content resting on those references. A short draft resting on three or more reliable source references describing the company at length is more likely to be accepted than the mess it is now. Again, look at the ref criticism in the Deletion review. David notMD (talk) 21:17, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I’d like help creating a page for Zoa Energy

Draft:Zoa Energy Ewatq (talk) 19:56, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Ewatq, welcome to the Teahouse. Have you seen the decline notice on your talk page? It is at User talk:Ewatq. The notice explains why your draft was declined, and the blue words are links to pages which explain the improvements which need to be made. You can also read Help:Your first article. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 20:03, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

A company's own website cannot count toward estabishing notability in the Wikipedia sense of the word. Are there independent write-ups about Zoa? David notMD (talk) 21:38, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Multiple Names (different people)

I would like to create an article/page/bio for a musical artist named Billy Valentine who has been singing/recording since the mid-1960s. There's a wiki page of the band he was in with his brother ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Valentine_Brothers ) However there is a pre-existing page for a different Billy Valentine (95 years old) who is obviously not the same Billy! How do i create a page for the Billy Valentine from the Valentine Brothers? Bobthielejr (talk) 06:05, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

@bobthielejr: something like Billy Valentine (musician). lettherebedarklight晚安 06:25, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Bobthielejr, please read WP:DISAMBIGUATION for the general principles. l. There is always a good way to solve such problems. Cullen328 (talk) 07:39, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Bobthielejr, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia. I see you have just created your account: I very strongly advise you not to attempt to create a new article directly, but instead to create a draft with the articles for creation process, and work on it in draft space until you think it is ready to submit for review. This will have the added advantage that you don't need to worry about the final name of the article: the reviewer who accepts the draft will sort that out for you.

I want to give you some further advice, that I give any new editor: if you attempt to create an article (even in draft) before you have spent some time making small improvements to existing articles and learning how Wikipedia works and what its requirements are, you are likely to have a frustrating and miserable time, and probably a lot of wasted effort. Most new editors who try to create articles do it backwards: please see WP:BACKWARD. You will certainly find your first article helpful as well.

In fact, looking at The Valentine Brothers, I see that it is woefully underreferenced, and I am certain that if that article were submitted for review as a new draft today it would be declined (I have tagged it accordingly). I suggest that you work on that article rather than try to create a new one - and learn about the part of creating an article which is far and away the most important part: finding sources that satisfy the Golden rule of Wikipedia, and which establish that the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability. ColinFine (talk) 10:05, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

thanks Colin. I feel like I'm probably the wrong person to address this issue. Too many landmines and I'm certain to step on one from the start! Billy has a PR company that will be working on his new alum release (March 2023) and perhaps they have dealt with this in the past. If you happen to know a legitimate individual or company that might be able to address what I cannot, please feel free to refer my way.

in any event, i really appreciate your reply.

best,

bob Bobthielejr (talk) 02:08, 9 December 2022 (UTC)