This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Teahouse. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.
You can create a draft article and submit for review at Wikipedia:Articles for creation. Please note there is a four+ month waiting list, as articles are reviewed in no particular order by volunteers.
For your article to have a chance to be accepted the artist must show that they pass the Wikipedia:Notability threshold. In essence, you need to find significant coverage of the artist in independent, third party, secondary, reliable sources. If you cannot find those sources then the artist cannot have a Wikipedia article at this time.
Remember that Wikipedia is not a place for any type of self-promotion or advertisement. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia: not an advertising platform, directory, or a way to promote a subject. Wikipedia is not a social media site like Facebook, Instagram, or LinkedIn.
Dear Qcne, thank you for taking the time. The page is for Timothy Richards www.timothyrichardscommissions.com
I am a newby so please forgive me if I am using the wrong language, like "page".
There is a lot of information to take in. Timothy is a one off who has over the past 36 years resurrected the ancient craf Architectural Model making in plaster. It is a highly academic and artistic craft. Tim has been named in publications and works with highest level institutions globally.
He is however now 68 and we are looking at his legacy and the preservation of the same. Having him listed on a Wiki page appears like one of those steps to take.
I am senior manager of the workshop which may be , as you pointed out, conflicting. Could you kindly advise.
I am aware that there is no such thing as ownership on a page.
I look forward to further advice and am grateful for your time.
Hi TRMODELS, as you may or may not know Wikipedia generally does not allow articles made specifically to promote someone. Unless there have been a number of secondary unbaised sources written about Timothy (in newspapers, online articles etc) it's unlikely a page will be able to made for him. Primary sources like the website you mentioned are generally looked down upon on Wikipedia. I think your first job should be to find a lot of secondary sources on Timothy and create a draft article as mentioned by Qcne. FishandChipper🐟🍟12:19, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Dear 🐟🍟 thank you for pointing the above out. There are more sources independent of myself.I understand that a website is not relevant here. He has been mentioned and written about in Books, Magazines, newspapers etc.
The main question is, if there are so many COI's then who can actually put an article up about Tims work. The only reason I am wishing to do this is because of the global historical value of his work. 86.178.78.238 (talk) 18:05, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
As to who can do it, typically an article is written by an independent editor who takes note of significant coverage of a topic and chooses to write about it. 331dot (talk) 18:10, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Ok thank you.
I feel quite defeated right now after all the messages which are all obviously meant very helpful and I am very grateful.
Yet, I feel each is telling me to back off.
everyone is telling me what can’t be done.
so really it’s left to chance complete If someone independent comes along and writes the article. Because it’s a specialist subject it may never happen?
There is that possibility, yes. Please don't edit while logged out, and ask for a name change for your softblocked account. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:57, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Hello, TRMODELS, and welcome to the Teahouse. One more point in addition to the good points that Qcne has already made: You use the words "set up a page", which suggests that you think that you will in some sense own that page, and can subsequently change it as you wish . Please note that nobody owns a Wikipedia article: anybody may edit it, and you will have no more right to do so than anybody else. In fact, if you have a COI (as Qcne mentions at the end) then you will not be allowed to edit it at all, but only to make suggestions for changing it. ColinFine (talk) 16:26, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I stumbled upon the article List of hexagrams of the I Ching and found some strange texts, so I undid the change. After inspecting the edit history, I found the user Sudoh Neem has many edits before; I checked some of them and found they might be unrelated info (like the meaning of the Chinese characters in modern context and a Google search page as reference), but I can't decide what to do with those edits.
Most of those edits (and even the article itself) also lacks inline refs so I can't really tell if those additions has verifiable sources.
I'm not specifically against this one user; it's just that I feel some of the changes are not really necessary and adds noise to the article.
Hello, Ff19, and welcome to the Teahouse. The right place to discuss the content of a particular article is that article's talk page: in this case, Talk:List of hexagrams of the I Ching. You should Ping that user, so that they know you have opened the discussion. If you don't think many people will see that talk page, you could put a note on WT:WikiProject China inviting participation in the discussion. ColinFine (talk) 20:14, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Report for harrasment.
Latest comment: 1 year ago10 comments3 people in discussion
@Shshshsh is harrassing me a lot regarding an addition. @Fylindfotberserk already approved my addition at first but the previous one has crossed all the limits of harrasment.
I will like to request an competent executive to look upon this matter whether i did any wrong edit or not . If they find any wrong about my addition i promise that i will apologize.
Disagreeing with you is not the same as harrassing you. Posting on the Talk pages of more than a half dozen editors, claiming you are being harrassed is wrong. Your edits to Sridevi have been reverted by more one editor. The proper place to attempt to reach consensus is the Talk page of the article, where it appears a discussion is ongoing. David notMD (talk) 12:56, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Disagreement is fine but when you provide all the necessary proofs but still getting rejection that means harassment and harassment in the sense of being said completely different stuffs each time which was already specified there .
Like in that case
If you see there i provided the source from NEWS-18 which is branch of CNN-IBN , a national organisation.More of all i provided the link where that very person was awarded with that title and in my side i have FILMFARE MAGAZINE COVER photo also but can't able to post that.
And one more thing,
apart from that title , in the funeral section also i raised one disapproval regarding a mistake. Why any of them is not commenting upon that ?
You showcased one more user's disagreement but didn't specify one wikipedian's approval which I got at first in your comment .SANKURDAS (talk) 13:04, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Consensus has not been achieved on the Talk oage of Sridevi. That place, not here, is the only place to continue a discussion. Teahouse Hosts function as volunteers to advise editors on Wikipedia practices - not to solve content disputes. David notMD (talk) 00:02, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
How would I put a hat over the symbol Koppa or qoppa (Ϙ, ϙ)?
Latest comment: 1 year ago7 comments3 people in discussion
The symbol ϙ works very well. But how do I put a hat (circumflex) on it?
E.g., puts a hat on the mathematical symbol \beta. I was not able to put a hat on coppa in this way.
Hi FraochmacFidachFoltruad, welcome to the Teahouse. ̂ is a combining character circumflex which works well for some characters, e.g. â. For ϙ it gives ϙ̂ where the circumflex is displayed a little to the right for me in Firefox. Is a circumflex supposed to apply to ϙ in language or is it just a math invention? PrimeHunter (talk) 16:19, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Thank you very much PrimeHunter.
Yes, it is somewhat too much to the right in chrome too.
@FraochmacFidachFoltruad: I meant language as in writing words in a language where ϙ with circumflex is used as a letter. As far as I can tell, circumflex isn't used there. That may be why browsers refuse to display it on top of ϙ. A mathematician apparently invented this combination as a notation for something mathematical. ϙ<span style="position:relative; right:0.3em;">̂</span> is a hack which looks OK to me in Firefox but I don't promise it will be OK for others: ϙ̂. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:34, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
The diacritic is misaligned for me, and I'm using Chrome. I don't think koppa is recognised as a valid character in LaTeX? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:42, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks again PrimeHunter (talk) . It didn't quite work on my Chrome but what you sent earlier is not too bad - the hat is just slightly shifted. With a few words of explanation I can make it work. FraochmacFidachFoltruad (talk) 07:27, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
3RR Question
Latest comment: 1 year ago8 comments3 people in discussion
Hi everyone,
I'm a new editor here. Last night I was checking recent changes for vandalism. Another new editor changed Roger Garrett. Before last night I had never heard of him - I have no skin in the game with the edits. The (other) new editor did three edits - one broke the infobox, another removed referenced content and the final one changed his date of birth - despite the removed date being referenced. I reverted all three edits. The other new user then posted on Roger Garrett's talk page. I can't understand exactly what they have written, I think they may have a friend who is an non-notable actor who shares Roger Garrett's name and they were trying to change the entry so it was about their friend.
My question is, in reverting the three edits, was I at risk of being blocked? I have looked at the 3RR page but I don't understand a about reverting edits that break the page or remove sourced claims?
Hello, Puffin123! In reverting those edits, I don't think you would be banned, as it says there that reverting what's obviously vandalism is an exemption.
Hey, @Puffin123! As to your concern over 3RR, that applies if you've reverted the same person three times in a row. You've only done it twice, even though you made three edits to do so. If you reverted again, that would be three. But: the person may be correct that Wikipedia has got the birthdate and parents wrong. They say they know the guy, and our "referenced content" is actually sourced to a source we don't consider reliable -- a birth index. Now, Wikipedia doesn't use "I know the guy" as a source either, but what you have here is a content dispute, and you should take it to the talk page. Information that is disputed should be left out of the article until consensus is reached at talk.
@Valereee - So if the other editor had made another (incorrect or page breaking) edit which I had reverted, would I have been banned from editing the article? I've seen that you've also edited the article. I removed three categories related to information we're no longer considering reliable. If this is incorrect feel free to revert it. Puffin123 (talk) 11:26, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
@Puffin123, if you'd reverted again, that would be 3. That's the official limit, so no, at that point someone assuming good faith might have told you (since you're new and aren't expected to know everything yet) that you were at your limit. If you then reverted the same information a 4th time in a single 24-hour period, you'd be officially edit-warring and could be blocked from editing completely (and not just from the article but from editing anything but your own talk page) by any administrator without anyone questioning it.
However: In all cases, if you revert someone and they revert you back, unless you are absolutely convinced it is actual intentional vandalism (rather than just simple wrongheadedness) it is best to go directly to the talk page, open a section, ping the other editor, and start discussing the content dispute like adults instead of just reverting each other back and forth. I almost never revert anyone a second time unless it's at a biography of a living person and the information they're adding is negative. Valereee (talk) 11:41, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Oh, and as to the page-breaking -- no reasonable admin would think fixing that, even four times, was edit warring. If you just fixed that (and didn't revert the content) a fourth time, and someone blocked you for it, others would definitely question the move. Valereee (talk) 11:46, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
What do we call
Latest comment: 1 year ago11 comments8 people in discussion
What do we call the abbreviations, such as WP:RS or WP:TEA? Can these buy used to point to editors talk pages or only to more official Wikipedia pages? Can I write up my own theory of nonsense and get a link WP:MYTHEORY? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 23:13, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Can I write up my own theory of nonsense and get a link WP:MYTHEORY? Sure, that's basically what essays are. But it'd be best to pick a shortcut that's more specific to your essay. WPscattert/c00:57, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
I think there has been some pushback against shortcuts in mainspace pointing to essays in personal space. I can see the argument, but I do it myself and nobody's bothered me so far. So, go for it. Herostratus (talk) 02:19, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
@Jtbobwaysf: There are no fixed rules. WP is an alias for the Wikipedia namespace so WP shortcuts usually go there but not always. Shortcuts are redirects and can be nominated for deletion or retargeting at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion but it rarely happens if it sounds reasonable for the current target and it wasn't changed away from another target. Shortcuts almost never go to talk pages but many userspace essays have a shortcut. If a page has a shortcut then it's common to use the first letter of each word. If you write an essay called "Sortable tables are wonderful" then probably nobody will care if you make a WP:STAW shortcut but WP:WONDERFUL would be controversial. It's a common word, it could have been about a lot of things, few people will probably think your essay is wonderful or deserving of such a shortcut, and the essay is about sortable tables while "wonderful" was just a subjective word chosen by the author with no real connection to the topic. A good way to avoid objections or annoyance for a userspace shortcut is to avoid 1-3 letter shortcuts which are in limited supply, and avoid common words which could be about many things. Note that your "own theory of nonsense" should be Wikipedia-related to be hosted here at Wikipedia. We are WP:NOTWEBHOST. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:33, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for that explanation, PrimeHunter! That all makes total sense (like avoiding 1-3 letter shortcuts because they might be more useful for something else) but I didn't have that understanding of it. Valereee (talk) 12:55, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
I just wanted to comment that, looking through this editors history, they are a relatively experienced editor who has linked to both essays, policies, and information pages recently, so it may not be necessary to explain the more basic elements of these types of pages. Googleguy007 (talk) 03:00, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Correct, I have been around a long time. Just was surprised when I saw WP links to user pages for a first time today. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:53, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago12 comments4 people in discussion
Hello, I have been working on a set of articles centered around Catherine de Parthenay, who is also known as Viscountess of Rohan, Princess of Rohan, Catherine de Parthenay-Soubise, and Madame de Rohan-Soubise.
As I have worked on the article, and referencing related articles, I am realizing that using a surname, which in this case I take to be Parthenay doesn't seem to be quite right. It seems that other articles reference the persons first name + of / de, etc. + the common name, which in this case is "Catherine de Parthenay" or "Catherine de Parthenay, Viscountess of Rohan". This is a bit complicated when there are several people on the page with similar names, like Henri, Duke of Rohan. There is a Henri I and Henri II of Rohan, as an easy example. There are sometimes secondary titles that distinguish them from another similarly named person.
I couldn't figure out what project would be the best to ask this question, so I came here. My question is, after the initial use in the intro, how should a person be referred to when surname (or first name) is not practical?
I am also interested in an answer to this. I am especially irritated that we use the surname (instead of the first name) even for women.-1Firang (talk) 07:40, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks so much for the responses! I am not understading where the info is related to name usage in here: WP:Encyclopedic style.
Yesterday, I went ahead and worked on the Jean V of Parthenay article, where there had been several versions of the names - or very close names for two different people (François). I built a list of the names as I was working to make sure I was being consistent and to document the chosen names and titles Talk:Jean V of Parthenay#Names used in the article here, which is pretty much: The article title about them and then a short version like "Henry II of England" and "Henry II" - and sometimes no shortened version like "Francis, Duke of Guise", where the title was needed to differentiate the various Francis / François names.
It didn't work out to just use a / the family name, because there were cases where there were several people that had the same family name: Parthenay, d'Aubeterre, Guise, etc.
Please let me know your thoughts on this approach.
There are some other articles I worked on in the last week or sowhere there aren't multiple people being discussed with the same family name, so the question about whether to use "Parthenay" or "de Parthenay" is a great question, too.–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:52, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
I am assuming that this is an okay approach. So when someone has multiple titles, the one selected for the article I am guessing was how he was most commonly known.
The only thing that I think is an issue is that in my earnestness to not have multiple titles for the same person, there might be some who hadn't attained the title that is used for the article name by an event(s) mentioned in the article. For instance, Henri II of France became king in 1574, and before that was Duke of Orléans and then Duke of Anjou, but it seems most commonly known as Duke of Orléans.
In that case, I think I should use the title that is relevant for the time — and, in my opinion, refer to when he required the title in the article name, perhaps in a note. If anyone has an informed opinion better than my potentially flawed deduction, that would be really helpful to know.–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:15, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Carpenting
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Welcome to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1193. Carpentry may have an answer to that, but it's probably better to ask at the reference desk (either miscellaneous or maybe science) or to use a search engine to search for said requirements in whichever location you're asking about. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:00, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Source in multiple languages
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Heya folks. I recently came across this magazine that contains articles written in Southern Sámi, Norwegian, and Swedish. The one that I want to cite is in Swedish. Do I supply all the languages that the magazine is written in for the citation template, or just the article istelf? ArcticSeeress (talk) 01:32, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago22 comments9 people in discussion
I seem to see wiki added LeGacy on Lil Wayne wiki page. Can you add one for Jay-Z, Nas, and Kendrick. And also give me more descriptions of each of these rappers styles. ( wayne kendrick jay z nas eminem ) JwillWiki454 (talk) 10:42, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
@JwillWiki454: Half of Jay's article is about his legacy. It just doesn't have a header called "legacy". Jay's article is arguably one of the best articles we have on a rapper...and...well...on probably the best rapper of all time. We actually say "greatest rapper of all time" in the second sentence. GMGtalk10:58, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
As mentioned above, if you have suggestions for additions or changes to the articles, you can either Wikipedia:Be bold and make the additions yourself, making sure that the additions you add are all sourced by independent, reliable sources. Alternatively you can make an edit request Wikipedia:Edit requests on the article Talk pages.
That's not really the way this works. The purpose of Wikipedia is that if you see something important that's missing, go add it. GMGtalk11:05, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi @JwillWiki454. We're all volunteers here. If someone decides to add those sections to the articles they will, but you're demanding volunteers do extra work which isn't very fair :(
I see Tupac Eminem Lil Wayne Biggie Rakim have Legacy as a header. Can Someone add Legacy as a header for Kendrick Jay Z and Nas JwillWiki454 (talk) 04:59, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Why cant someone just someone just edit Kendrick Jay Z and Nas page for me? And then that person can show me what he did. Add Legacy For Header for each rapper JwillWiki454 (talk) 10:49, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Because we are not your slave. If you want to make sourced additions to the pages, take the time to learn how to use Wikipedia and add it yourself. We are volunteers and we do not appreciate being harassed to make changes. Best, Qcne(talk)10:53, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I want to make musical example images to include with articles such as the ones seen here, but have no idea how to do so. Can anybody show me how to make these or point me to a tutorial? As always, many thanks for your help! —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 19:29, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion
If content is covered by the MIT License, which mentions "The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software", is it copyvio when someone copies content of the software into a page with a url (and others) in the summary? Or is the fact that it's linked, and therefore attributed, enough to not be?
Welcome to the Teahouse, IP user. I would say that the massive amount of text pasted in (which inlcudes abstracts of citations) would indeed by a copyright violation. I have 'WP:REVDELED' it. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:01, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Ah thank you, I hadn't noticed it included abstracts.
As to the welcome, thanks but I have been here before, my IP just automatically changes every time I shut down my PC (or my modem), guess that's one of the reasons people make accounts.
User keeps reverting all of my edits across my entire profile and claiming I'm citing improperly after deleting important information on an ongoing event
Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments2 people in discussion
I updated the Wikipedia article for Twitter to reflect the current rate limit changes that are ongoing and cited a Tweet from the official ElonMusk Twitter page, and a user by the name of Apache287 removed it claiming it didn't flow too well with the rest of the article. I readded it and adjusted it, and they reverted the changes because "the citation was dodgy". I changed the citation to be a 3rd party news website and apologized, and encouraged them to instead of removing the entire section, just change the source. They then got incredibly defensive on me saying that they warned me several times (They didn't, they warned me once on my talk page) and said that I'm shifting the blame on them and that I shouldn't even bother editing if "you don't cite properly" and saying that my admission means that I'm a bad editor and I'm going to get banned. I've literally fixed everything they said. They are now going through my profile and deleting a ton of my edits, many of which from months ago which have been accepted and expanded on, and actively removing crucial information from articles such as the Team Fortress 2 article, Reddit article, and other edits. Technogod (talk) 21:34, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments5 people in discussion
Can someone explain to me what this means?
The explanation given on the template is as follows: "If set to 'live', the title display is adjusted; useful for when the URL is archived preemptively but still live. Set to 'dead' if the original URL is broken. If the original URL is 'live' but no longer supports the article text, set to 'deviated'. Set to 'unfit' or 'usurped' if the original URL is no longer suitable (spam, advertising, etc.) which will make the original link not appear at all."
is there a clearer explanation of what cases I should use this on?
In addition, do the archive and the live link have to be the same? A lot of sources I've found on certain topics are very old and the source has changed how it has formatted its urls in the time since, and newer live copies will have broken or removed versions of images that I feel enhance understanding of the topic for people who want to check the source for themselves, but a live version of the link does exist so I feel weird tagging it as dead. Sorry if i'm not being very clear, I am rather new to this -
PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:08, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Hello, Parakanyaa, and welcome to the Teahouse. It seems to me that it is important to distinguish between a resource that has moved and one has been archived, because the question of reliability of sources is fundamental to Wikipedia's policies, and the perceived reliability of the publisher is crucial to that. If a publisher rearranges their website, so that the URL is completely different, but it is recognisably still under the control of the same publisher, then I think the URL should simply be changed to the new address, and the access-date updated to today. If the site has been archived by a recognised archiver (such as archive.org) then that doesn't affect the publisher or the reliability - the original URL should be retained as DEAD or USURPED, and the archive-url added.
The case that is less clear is when the resource appears to still be there, but is now on some random website. In principle, this makes it less reliable, because anybody who copies material from a website could alter it - we no longer have the original publisher's implied statement of responsibility. It is also possible that this is actually a breach of copyright. In practice, I don't know how serious these problems would be - perhaps it would need to be evaluated case by case. ColinFine (talk) 18:19, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
That sounds fairly reasonable. I'm just wondering what distinguishes "usurped/unfit/deviated".
For the other part, I meant alone the lines of this:
There is a news source that has existed online for several years. During these several years they have changed how they formatted their URLs several times. It is still always a site owned by the company. What if I want to link an archived source on one of the old urls (as in this case, an older revision properly shows images that a revision broke) but it's not the exact same url as the current live link? But again, same text content and officially run by the news organization. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:27, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
@PARAKANYAA:, In the case you describe, I would suggest that you go ahead and make the better version which resides on the archive service the active link. Although there are other ways to achieve that, here I think it is appropriate to make the archive-url the better version, the archive-date for that one, and the url-status be unfit. It might seem the English meaning of deviated would match the situation a little better, but the action of the template system for that would not be as good. It would continue to show a link to the active site, whereas using unfit will suppress that link and use the archive link. This should have the best outcome for your case. If you care to, you can try both versions of the citation, either in preview or in your sandbox, and see the main differences in the presentations. --R. S. Shaw (talk) 05:38, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
In my understanding, "Usurped/unfit/deviated" would be for when the URL is still live, but the content has been replaced by something questionable. For example, when the URL on some Maryland (USA) license plates was redirecting to a Philippine gambling website. The registration had been allowed to lapse, and it was usurped, which would have rendered it unfit. - Sumanuil. (talk to me)05:04, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
usurped and unfit produce the same behaviour, where the non-archive link is not displayed in the citation at all. deviated behaves differently, identical to dead, where the link is presented in the citation.I don't think there's policy-grade guidance on when to use which, but if the URL points to a predatory commercial site unaffiliated with the original publisher, it's best to use usurped or unfit. Folly Mox (talk) 23:24, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
How to improve my page
Latest comment: 1 year ago10 comments3 people in discussion
@SpookyZayoNewAcc: You improve it by not writing it WP:BACKWARD as you did. Statements in the draft should be cited to reliable sources that are independent of the topic. See WP:Golden Rule. Start by collecting the sources first, and then write the article. If this is not possible, then it is likely the article isn't suitable for Wikipedia. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:33, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
@SpookyZayoNewAcc: That's correct. You don't write a Wikipedia article based on what you know, or based on what someone related to the topic (like a game author) says about it. Wikipedia is interested only in what reliable sources that are independent of the topic have to say about it. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:37, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Ive already found some articles documenting the game from a trusted source, but do i have to specifically write on that source? Like if they say the game is a first person shooter i have to somehow say its a fps? SpookyZayoNewAcc (talk) 21:45, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
@SpookyZayoNewAcc: For some non-controversial mundane facts such as what kind of game it is, what genre, what platforms it runs on, what it costs, and so forth, you can refer to primary sources like Steam and Github. A reviewer of your draft must determine if the topic is notable. The only way to do this is to examine the sources. There should be at least two or three that are considered reliable, independent of the game or its creators, and provide significant coverage, such as a review, not just documentation. If your sources prove existence, well, mere existence doesn't merit inclusion in Wikipedia. The game must be notable. And notability is determined, according to Wikipedia standards, by the coverage the game receives in independent reliable sources. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:53, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
@SpookyZayoNewAcc: Unfortunately, no. The gamedeveloper.com article is an interview with the author, and therefore isn't an independent source, even though it may be reliable. The steamah.com article appears to be a blog post documenting the game, not really coverage. And we generally avoid citing blogs unless they are authored by a bona-fide reviewer or journalist or other expert in the field.
Bear in mind that Wikipedia is not a publicity medium. It should never be used to "spread the word" because something "deserves to be known". Wikipedia isn't for creating exposure, it's for reporting on something that has already had exposure. In other words, you can't have a Wikipedia article if you're up-and-coming, you must have already arrived. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:26, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
If you're used to editing/viewing on mobile without "advanced mode", you can also go to Settings, turn advanced mode off, and then the watchlist will be in the left menu. DanCherek (talk) 02:01, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
personal, factual memories
Latest comment: 1 year ago8 comments5 people in discussion
Ben Berry, by citing what we call reliable sources (which must be published, and independent of the subject about whom you're writing) in order to back up what you say. As a family member, you'll surely know of material for which you can't find reliable sources. This material may not be added. -- Hoary (talk) 01:54, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Thank you.
Although this entry will not be as detailed as I would like, I will try to find references that can be cited.
There are several stories about how Carole came up with ideas for books ( Island Girl, Nightmare Point)
Ben Berry, the article Carole Berry suggests to me that if somebody took the trouble to look for "reliable sources" (RS) about her, such sources would appear and they'd show that she was what we call notable. In its current state, however, the article fails to demonstrate notability. How have RS received her work? (Currently, we get one short sentence about one opinion about one book.) It would be helpful to summarize (in Talk:Carole Berry) which review or other independent source said what about which book(s). This is not a task for a complete beginner; so before you embark on it, you might practice the needed skills while you do some work improving existing articles about other writers: articles for which there'd be no hint of a conflict of interest. -- Hoary (talk) 03:21, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Ben Berry The article was actually nominated for deletion in 2011 (end decision was Keep) because there was so little in the article about her and so few reviews about her books. This led to reviews being listed. Given your COI, you could look at those review refs and see if information about her is verified, and then on the Talk page, propose that information and referencing be added. David notMD (talk) 16:19, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Always log in to your account (or opt to have that done automatically). Here and at the article you forgot, so you appeared as IP #198.7.6.198. David notMD (talk) 03:40, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Getting Started
Latest comment: 1 year ago9 comments5 people in discussion
Hello! I am a new user and am looking for resources in general of how to get started and some less controversial articles to help with! I started with some more controversial topics by making suggestions in the Talk Pages and afraid I got WP:BITE I'd really love to find out more about policies, editing, and to edit drama-free! AevumNova (talk) 18:13, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Thank you very much! I had two follow up questions.
How can I search for meta Wikipedia information? And how can I find out what articles need smaller scale intervention? AevumNova (talk) 18:24, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Thank you all for your help but I feel like I've been harrassed and used by a user who seems to be working with other users to claim ownership over a certain topic.
I can't even talk about my edits in the topic without getting swarmed by trolling and personal attacks.
I don't think I want to be part of Wikipedia anymore. I know that just letting these tactics work is why this can happen to sections of wikipedia but I don't think I'm in a place to sacrifice my mental health for this.
So I appreciate the help but I think it's better I leave because I don't think I'll ever be able to make a difference. AevumNova (talk) 17:53, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
I talked with some admins and decided to continue and just be more cognizant of certain types of behavior present in such pages :) Most of the people there are productive and nice and I shouldn't let myself get WP:BITE away. Thank you very much! AevumNova (talk) 04:02, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Basics of Wikipedia Articles' Code?
Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments3 people in discussion
@AevumNova: Welcome to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1193. A very thorough page can be found at H:WIKITEXT. If you're looking for a simplified page with the most commonly used bits of code, consult H:CHEAT. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:35, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
AevumNova as I do, by copying stuff, other people have done in articles.
I didn't bother with the "create your first article" stuff, which is why I probably wouldn't know, how to move an article out of a draft.
I largely learnt how to create and add things like infoboxes, navboxes, tables, external links, duplicate references, notes etc by copying what other people have done, and simply replacing the text. Danstarr69 (talk) 05:48, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
How can I automatically inform users of an undo?
Latest comment: 1 year ago8 comments5 people in discussion
I am looking for a tool that will automatically notify users when I undo their edits. I have tried Twinkle, which I think opens a new tab to leave a message on a user's talk page. I'd rather have a tool that directly informs the user automatically, preferably with the edit summary I've given on the undo. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 08:40, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
I get a notification in my alerts if someone reverts me...not sure whether that's something I've enabled, though. Valereee (talk) 12:00, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I get a notification for undo/revert too. It's controlled in Preferences -> Notifications -> Edit revert and you can choose Web/Email/Apps, or disable entirely. DuncanHill (talk) 12:07, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
It's probably good that that's an opt-in. Probably avoids a lot of edit-warring. @Dawkin Verbier, if an editor both hasn't opted-in for alerts and isn't keeping track of that article, maybe you can just assume they weren't wedded to that edit? Valereee (talk) 12:17, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
I see. I understand the rollback perms are only given to editors who notify others when they undo edits? Would that mean I'll have to do it manually until I've "earned" that right? Apologies if I'm mistaken. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 13:31, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
@Dawkin Verbier: No. Rollback is granted by administrators who feel that the ability will not be abused. I just granted you rollback. In many cases it is appropriate to notify someone when you reverted them. In the cases where I use it, it's usually for drive-by unconstructive edits and the person I reverted likely isn't going to return anyway. I use "undo" with an edit summary more often than I use rollback. Also, I don't use automated tools. If I notify someone, I do it manually, and have been doing so for my 17 years here. ~Anachronist (talk) 13:41, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the help! I think it's great that you're a manual editor too. I'm having a hard time getting my head around all the various automated tools. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 08:24, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
knowing
Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments3 people in discussion
EngrShakamal, I can make some suggestions that would make the draft look more like an acceptable article.
The Discography and Awards sections are each longer than the actual text of the article. So shorten them both (and maybe add more referenced text).
Some of the items in the discography are unreferenced. Delete them.
The final item in the Awards section has five references. When you use five references for an uncontroversial-looking statement, it gives the impression that something is fishy. So delete the item; or delete four of those references. Maproom (talk) 08:36, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
The files mentioned above are labeled with the CC BY-SA 4.0 license, but I believe that they are consist mainly of geometric shapes and text, and thus do not meet the threshold of originality.
Considering this, I believe that they may be in the public domain (specifically {{PD-textlogo}}). I seek input from all of you to reach a consensus on this matter.
An article about a living person was not notable 15 years ago but may be notable now
Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments4 people in discussion
I discovered an article I was wanting to make was actually deleted 15 years ago for not being notable. Here is the deletion discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toromi
She was primarily known as a voice actress then and didn't have many notable roles.
I would echo Maproom's reply. If the original article was deleted then either the content was hopelessly promotional, or the sources didn't exist. In the latter case the article must have been written BACKWARD. Either way, the text of the original article is going to be of little value. ColinFine (talk) 11:01, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Immanuelle, Japanese-language Wikipedia has an article about her if you call a collection of lists an article. This is a stereotypically crappy ja:WP "article". But we are told that her shoe size is 22.5. Without a reference, of course. -- Hoary (talk) 11:33, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
'Original research' and how to overcome it?
Latest comment: 1 year ago21 comments7 people in discussion
A while back I submitted some pages on a piece of software I wrote over 10 years ago, following my PhD, called Enguage. This has been available as free, open source, software and has been an Android app since 2013. It demonstrates how speech is Turing Complete: we can say that speech is information bearing medium - which is an appeal to common sense - but this software demonstrates how this is the case. I have written many academic papers on this over the years; it won the British Computer Society's Machine Intelligence competition in 2016; and, I just want to share this knowledge. However these pages were rejected because it is 'original research'.
I don't disagree that 'original research' should not be included in Wikipedia - I could just make something up and submit a page, which would pollute Wikipedia. And this is particularly important in a post-truth world: we need objectivity! As a scientist, my work is repeatable and supported by demonstrable software. My (academic) papers have been subjected to a peer review process, so these should be a 'reliable source'? Certainly, my software exists and is there for everyone to repeat my findings. However, my reviewers (in doing their job diligently!) just pointed this out that the pages are not acceptable.
However, there are plenty of other pages on other software, such as Alexa and ChatGPT, which have pages describing them (the new kids on the block, IMHO!), surely is should be possible to produce some pages on my work - just not written by me?
Is this how this restriction be overcome?
Is it simply that as the original author I can't write anything about it? So Isaac Newton simply couldn't write a page about Gravity? We'd be floating about, waiting for someone else to write their interpretation of his work, before things settle down? Surely, it can't be that pages can only be written about non-obscure things, I'll agree that my software is not as well known as ChatGPT or Alexa!
@Martinwheatman: We publish articles on topics that have been covered in depth in reliable sources that are independent of those topics. Alexa and ChatGPT meet that criterion for inclusion. If your software has been written about in depth in reliable sources that are independent of you, then your software could possibly have an article also. Your academic papers are not independent of you, regardless of peer review. If you feel the software meets the notability criteria for inclusion, then go to WP:AFC and follow the instructions to submit a draft for review. Because you have a conflict of interest concerning your own software, you should not attempt to publish an article in article space. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:21, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
(ec) Martinwheatman Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You might want to review the conflict of interest policy. It isn't forbidden for someone to contribute about a topic with which they have a conflict of interest, but they must do so in accordance with that policy. It would be better if independent editors wrote about your work, but you aren't prohibited from doing so indirectly.
If you just want to tell the world about the existence of your software, that's what a personal website, social media, or other wiki type website with less stringent requirements are all for. Wikipedia is primarily interested in what others have to say about your software and what makes it notable as defined by Wikipedia. Your own academic papers can't support an article about your software, even if peer reviewed. If others independent of you write about your software in an academic paper, that might be okay. 331dot (talk) 23:24, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hello, Martinwheatman. An acceptable Wikipedia article summarizes what reliable, published sources that are entirely independent of the topic say about the topic. A topic which has received such coverage is considered notable as defined by Wikipedia and therefore eligible for a Wikipedia article. Clearly, this excludes anything that a software developer has written about their own software. Any such article needs to be based on what has been published in completely independent sources. This is a matter of policy. Cullen328 (talk) 23:28, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
@Anachronist @Cullen328 @331dot Thanks for the quick replies, everyone. The inactivity was simply due to the reaction I got then, and that I'm getting now, that /I'm/ not welcome at Wikipedia. I could edit these pages all I like, it would still be me writing. If I need to be popular on social media, or on my own website, first, well it would be my own hand (again!). Self aggrandisement is the last thing in the world I want. Don't worry, I get it!
No, what I'm really asking, above, is if someone else wrote these pages - might this be the key to overcoming the self-interest/first-hand account? Could they explain what it does, why it is significant by referring to the original papers. Or do pages need to be third-hand: someone writing a page about what someone has said about my work. Otherwise, all I can write a page which lists the fact that Enguage won the 2016 BCS MI Competition, but not the reason why. As I said above, I'm not disagreeing with any of the policies - it is just how to work with them.
If there might be a way forward, it would be great to have the pages restored, but I'm getting the feeling I'll just get 'original research' thrown at me again, rather than help in editing pages. For example, could it be left as a stub with requests for help - is that a way forward?
As for conflict of interest, my software is free and open source, this should separate me somewhat from 'interest'; however, and more importantly, I'm completely open about the fact that I'm the author of this software (i.e disclosure).
Sorry, if this sounds a little negative on my part, I'm just trying to find a way forward.
Just as an aside, as a natural language engine, Enguage also reads Wikipedia pages to serve as an information processing system as an option for people with difficulties with screens and keyboards (it caches them to throttle access to your servers!) I suppose I could also put in reference to the cease-and-desist letter I'll be getting from your lawyers? ;-) MartinWheatman (talk) 00:51, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Conflict of interest does not necessarily mean profiting from something. It just means that you have a connection to the topic(as the creator) and presumably you have an interest in telling the world about it(and it could be for a selfless reason, and not personal gain).
Thanks, I'm willing to participate, but I think the 'right way' is that I don't share my ideas here, at best I share what others think of them :-/ MartinWheatman (talk) 01:07, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
The problem is that the sources cited by your draft aren't independent of the article's subject (because they were written by you). That is the main problem. The conflict of interest caused by you writing the Wikipedia article is a concern, but it isn't the main concern - we would need sources that cover your software in depth that were written and published without any involvement or association with you. You mention Alexa above - there are many books and articles written about Alexa that are completely independent of Amazon - that is why we have an article on Alexa, but not one on your software. MrOllie (talk) 01:01, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
@Martinwheatman I'd suggest you read WP:N to understand Wikipedia's definition of notability, and WP:RS to understand what kind of sources an article needs. As your article stands right now, there are 16 references, but 12 of them were written by you, so are not independent sources. Of the remaining 4, as far as I can see, none of them even mention Enguage or your name, so obviously they don't count as "significant" coverage. Your next step should be to locate several reliable sources that are independent and contain significant, in-depth coverage of Enguage. And remember that everything in the article should come from those sources, not from your own personal knowledge or memory. CodeTalker (talk) 23:34, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
I don't have access to my article so I can't comment, but yes you're right, I did quote my papers - they can be edited out, rather than writing an empty stub and hoping someone puts something in. The lack of third party sources is my stumbling block. But I do read Wikipedia pages every day which have issues with them - I don't want to have issues with mine. I can't make someone else write about my work (or can I?) but I'm guessing nobody is going to do that. It is the failure of popularity in life which is being judged, not my work which is repeatable and demonstrable which I feel should be the important point. MartinWheatman (talk) 01:01, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Martinwheatman, you are absolutely welcome to contribute to Wikipedia as long as you comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. There is no workaround regarding the three core content policies, and No original research is one of those three policies. Creating a stub that violates policy is not an option. Every article must comply with core content policies, or it is subject to deletion. Cullen328 (talk) 01:04, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Martinwheatman: First, you are welcome here. Just because you chose to write about a topic that may not qualify for inclusion doesn't mean you aren't welcome.
The problem is that you don't understand Wikipedia's inclusion criteria, and we are trying to explain this to you. You also don't seem to understand conflict of interest, which has nothing to do with financial gain. On Wikipedia, "conflict of interest" means you have an association with a topic. Everyone has a conflict of interest about themselves and their work.
It doesn't matter if someone else writes the article. The only difference is that someone else wouldn't have the same conflict of interest you do. However, in the end, the author of an article is irrelevant. Bottom line, if there is no evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic, then the topic cannot have an article on Wikipedia. That is the basic underlying policy that allows any article on Wikipedia to exist. See WP:Golden Rule to understand what kind of sources are required.
You went about writing this article WP:BACKWARD, starting with what you know instead of what independent sources say about the topic. That's a common mistake made by many new editors trying to write their first article. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:05, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Everyone is now commenting about my previous draft, but I don't seem to have access to it and, anyway, I'm not defending it! The offer to restore the draft is clearly not a way forward as the original issues with the page still stand. And yes as a newbie, I will make mistakes, I certainly made them! I'll say again, I'm not disagreeing with the policies (especially the conflict of interest, which I didn't say it was all about financial gain - it's about any perceived gain and the obfuscation of it!) And, from abandoning my draft, I do already know that I can't simply create my own page - but this wasn't my original question, above. And, I already have a personal webpages in my source code repo on bitbucket and github.
My original question was about how much help, and to what degree of independence, do I need to a page being written? Much of this is answered in the COI page, thanks. I think @331dot mentioned "independent editors", but unless someone spontaneously writes an page on Enguage there'll always be a perceived COI. I don't think a Enguage will ever exist on Wikipedia pages (it'll still read them for people!) The evidence for this is in the software, not someone's opinion of it. Sometimes I do wonder if I'm down a "rabbit hole", but one of my own making, when people ignore my work? But when people do look at it, they seem to be impressed with it.
Sorry, I'm not now looking for 'a way forward' :) So, even if one of you guys downloaded and ran my software and thought it was cool, or whatever, that wouldn't be 'notable'. I do realise you're trying to help by pointing me at the policies and guidelines, and I thank you for your time and effort(!), but I'm not the one writing this page, right?
Typically articles are written by independent editors wholly unconnected with the topic, who take note of coverage in independent reliable sources and choose on their own to write about it, summarizing those sources that describe what makes the topic notable. So yes, most articles are written spontaneously. As I said above, you are not absolutely forbidden from writing an article(the preferred term, not the broader "page") about something for which you have a COI, but your main problem is that there is little to no independent coverage of your software to summarize. 331dot (talk) 08:07, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
For anyone reading this discussion, I have restored the draft in question: Draft:Enguage. Martinwheatman may continue improving it. For the draft to be accepted as an article on Wikipedia, it needs multiple citations to significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:30, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for this @Anachronist I'll have another go, but I really don't think there are that many references to Enguage. I've created a body of work in, and following, my PhD which can understand speech, in a pragmatic sense, so this is a prototypical Robbie-the-Robot, or C3P0 (choose you own SciFi era!) But after a decade of publishing papers, and public demonstrations, and attending conferences, I still can't get the funding nor the publicity which would inspire third-party references, despite all the positive feedback from the technical community. And then, the world takes up on ChatGPT and everyone's fears is that it represents the end of humanity, etc., etc. Perhaps if Enguage didn't work, but rather threatened humanity, I might get external reference? Perhaps, I need to be a better publicist? Thanks for the work you do, your welcome, and putting up with my unsightly frustrations the other night. :-) MartinWheatman (talk) 07:57, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Perhaps the 'way forward' I'm seeking might be to create a profile of myself, which would contain references to the work I have done -- which is of public record -- whereas the content of the work remains original research? No, not a gripping read I'm sure(!) but it might be more aligned with the policies? MartinWheatman (talk) 08:18, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
@Martinwheatman, in writing an article on yourself (which I assume is what you meant by profile), you're going to run into the same problem - sources. Have you received significant coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources? This is going to exclude interviews and anything published by you or folks affiliated with you. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:29, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Table color
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments4 people in discussion
Hello - I think I have lost my first article. It was created in my Sandbox (SangitaAdatia) and as I could not rename it (Move) it I submitted to the COMMON as is, Now I do not know where it is or how to find it :-(
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi there! I'm working on cleaning up references on this article and creating inline citations. What is the best approach if a reference is no longer available or leads to a 404 error, like this one? Gracias! Haylsyeahh (talk) 17:04, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi Haylsyeahh, this is a complex area, and I note you have not been editing here for long, so forgive me for starting with the basics - I would start by reading all of Wikipedia:Link rot especially the sections on Automatic archiving (note the "Fix dead links" option under "External Tools" which many people do not know about) and Keeping dead links - too many editors think they are helping by deleting dead-links rather than tagging them - best wishes - Arjayay (talk) 17:19, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Making a userbox bigger
Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments3 people in discussion
Hello there, Chemification! Unfortunately, there's no way to resize userboxes themselves, but there is a way to resize the image and text. By default, the image's size is a 14, and the text is a size 8.
I just remembered a funny incident. So, I was trying to make a userbox signifying that the user is a Baba is You, when I forgot to resize the picture, which lead to the userbox stretching kinda like this.
Chemification, You can actually do it, but it's a bit tedious, If you're willing to try coding a bit, you could invoke template {{Userbox}} directly, and alter parameters like |id-w= to make it bigger. That would quickly make your user page unreadable (and error-prone) if you do the coding there, so I'd recommend creating a subpage like User:Chemification/User chemist, say, copy the content of Template:User Chemistry there, then increase the param value of |id-w= (and any others you wish, like |id-s= for font-size), adding any other params from {{Userbox}} as needed, and when that page is working, then change your user page to use your userbox instead of the standard one by prefixing a slash, like this: {{/User chemist}}. Let me know if you run into problems with it. That would only change that one box, and if you wanted to do all of them, that could add up to a lot of work, although after the first one, it would get faster. (P.S., I changed your section title above; feel free to change it back.) Mathglot (talk) 18:42, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Accessibility of maps/coordinates in Infobox
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello,
On this page, Glover-Archbold Park, I noticed the map with a red dot signifying coordinates on a map is quite hard to see. The background has a lot of lines, etc., that make it hard to identify where on the map the red dot is at a glance. Are there more accessible ways to portray this within infobox? Namely, a red dot on a green line seems like a colorblindness nightmare. Cheers, --Engineerchange (talk) 18:55, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Article Creation for a Political Candidate
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I am attempting to create an article about Pervez Agwan, a renewable energy expert who is running for Congress in Texas' 7th Congressional District. This is my first time creating an article and I am not a coder. How can I go about creating this article? Gyongyospata5 (talk) 18:52, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Hello, Gyongyospata5. Unelected political candidates are rarely considered notable on that basis alone, and instead are usually mentioned in an article about the race. Please read the Notability guideline for politicians. An exception is when the person is very well known for other things, as when a celebrity runs for office. Cullen328 (talk) 19:00, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
difficulty
Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments5 people in discussion
what are the easiest things to write an article about and what are the hardest things to write an article about and also the inbetweeners — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.188.159.190 (talk) 11:04, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Hello, 115.188.159.190. Those are all personal opinion, so I can't really tell you what articles are the easiest to write, hardest articles to write, and the in-betweeners are.
Interesting question! For me, the easiest things to write about are topics that 100% meet our notability criteria.
The hardest things to write about are those that fail to meet them, as you won't be able to find any reliable sources to show their significance. There are thousands of animals and plants which, as yet, do not have even the briefest article about them. WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES tells us that these are all notable. That said, you'd need to understand a bit about nomenclature, taxonomy and synonymy to do them justice. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:14, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Hello 115.188.159.190. Since writing an acceptable Wikipedia article is hard work I would never try creating one about a subject I don’t have a strong interest in. I notice something that interests me doesn’t have an article, then I search for numerous good references so that every piece of information will have a reliable citation. If I can find enough referenced data, I usually read a few Wikipedia articles on similar subjects to get an idea on what my new article should cover, and then I start writing. For me the hardest thing to write an article on would be anything that I personally find boring and unimportant. If a notable subject is important to you, that would be the easiest thing to write about. Best wishes on future Wikipedia projects. Karenthewriter (talk) 17:50, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi there. Let me start by answering a slightly different, but related question, because it's easier to answer: "What are the easiest tasks to perform at Wikipedia?" This is also subjective, to some extent, but if you go to the Wikipedia:Task Center, you will find a list of lots of different kinds of things that need doing at Wikipedia, which have been rated for difficulty level. I hope that helps, at least a little bit.
Back to your original question: creating a brand new article is a relatively difficult task, and fixing typos is a relatively easy one. As far as subject matter, topics which require a great deal of domain knowledge are difficult to write about; if you don't know what differential geometry is, you're going to find it pretty impossible to write about, no matter how much time you spend with reliable sources. On the other hand, articles about history are much easier to write, because historians (usually!) write in plain language, because they want to be understood, and get their point across. So, you should be able to understand most sources written by historians, and summarize what they say in your own words. Does this help? Mathglot (talk) 19:14, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Pantheon Macroeconomics Afd or not
Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments2 people in discussion
I would try to fix it up and tag it up. It looks like it has enough citations independent citations though if it is not deeply mentioned in them then I would nominate it. Remember, that if you incorrectly tagged it for deletion, worse that would happen is that the consensus would be to keep. ✶Mitch199811✶18:25, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
The majority of the decent citations don't look like they are used well if they are anything.
Doing a deeper dive into the citations, WSJ and Forbes do not link to the article, only authors that I guess work for PE. I cannot access NYT or The Telegraph without a subscription. Business Insider only uses one graph from Pantheon Economics. CBS looks like it could maybe be used, but it never says why PE is important, only quoting the chief economist. Bloomberg is much the same story as CBS. So out of ten citations, I only would consider two as being anything of substance which would not pass notability requirements. ✶Mitch199811✶18:34, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Obvious gobbledygook and patent nonsense in the original; no reason to keep this here or respond to it. Mathglot (talk) 20:41, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Requesting a COI edit request
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi all,
I wondering how I request a COI edit request. I was recently brought to attention that the page John Doheny has serveral issues. I also noticed after reviewing edit logs that a large portion were edited by Doheny himself and by people associated with him. Unfortunately I have several connections with Doheny and would like for someone else to edit this page.
Cannot upload image onto the edit page of my article, please can you help
Latest comment: 1 year ago8 comments7 people in discussion
Tree of Life
Hi I have an image which I have tried ( unsuccessfully ) to upload onto both the talk page of my article and the actual article itself ( in desperation) but although it says it has uploaded it will not allow me to see the image, either on the talk page or on the article itself. The file is not corrupted and so I don't know why this seems impossible to do.
The page is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Reed_(sculptor) what am I doing wrong?
Two minor points: when an image is freely licensed, it is better to upload it to Wikimedia Commons, so that any Wikimedia project may use it. Normally upload only non-free material directly to Wikipedia. Secondly, you can link to an image without displaying it by an initial colon, so [[:File:Tree of Life sculpture for the Queen Elizabeth Hospital Kings Lynn.jpeg]] displays as File:Tree of Life sculpture for the Queen Elizabeth Hospital Kings Lynn.jpeg. Usually in asking for an image to be added, you would link to it in that way on the talk page rather than displaying the image on the talk page. But neither of these points should affect your request. ColinFine (talk) 17:29, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Hannahlucy100 has already uploaded three versions to Commons: commons:Special:ListFiles/Hannahlucy100. Please don't upload more versions. See Help:Pictures for how to display images. Here I added this to the top of the section: [[File:Tree of Life sculpture for the Queen Elizabeth Hospital Kings Lynn.jpeg|thumb|''Tree of Life'']]. If you have problems then save your code so we can see what is wrong. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:37, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
@Hannahlucy100: What makes you think that the file is OK to upload under a {{cc-by-sa-4.0}} license? Generally, when it comes to photos such as this, there are two things that need to be considered: (1) the copyright of the photographed work and (2) the copyright of the photograph itself. This means that a separate copyright license is typically required for both. So, I'm just curious as to why you think both the work in the photo you uploaded as well as the photo itself are OK to license as "cc-by-sa-4.0". -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:47, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
It depends on what country the photo was taken in. This is not an issue in America (we have "freedom of panorama") but I don't know the UK law. Also, unless I'm missing something, the file page doesn't describe who took the photo, where, and when, and who uploaded it and when, which is pretty much required. Herostratus (talk) 02:26, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
@Hannahlucy100 @Herostratus. The UK has freedom-of-panorama rules simlilar to the US. The file on Commons should be tagged with the template {{FoP-UK}} to indicate this because, in general, one otherwise cannot upload an image of modern sculptures which are derivative works and hence copyrighted. I assume that the image was taken personally by Hannahlucy100 using their own camera, which allows them to license it as CC BY SA. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:41, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
"Freedom of panorama" (FOP) can be truly rather complicated to sort out which is why I asked the uploader simply to state their reasons for choosing the file's licensing without mentioning that in my question. Once the uploader answered, it would've been easier to give them better and more specific advice than to simply try summarize the complexities of FOP to them from the get go. The latter approach runs the risk of over simplification and possibly making a mistake. (For example, the US doesn't have unrestrictive FOP for all things, and US and UK rules are not so similar when it comes to FOP for works of art.) Basically, it comes down to who took the photo of the "Tree of Life" sculpture and whether the work is installed in a publicly accessible place per c:COM:FOP UK. If the photo was taken by the uploader and the work is installed in a publicly accessible place, the file should be OK (with some minor tweaking) for Commons as explained above by Michael D. Turnbull. If, however, the photo wasn't taken by the uploader, then there are more complicated issues that are going to need to be resolved for Commons to keep the file. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:01, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
What is WorldCat used for again? And where does AllMovie/AllMusic supposedly get its information from?
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion
While searching for possible duplicate profiles for someone on IMDB (I've found 1 for certain, and possibly 2 more), I noticed the duplicate profile had a credit for a British TV series which is massively incomplete:
It contained just 11 episodes, only 2 of which had release dates (only one of which had a specific release date).
All the episode numbers for those 11 episodes are also incorrect, as shown by their release dates.
It doesn't have that many cast or crew members added, and the majority of the ones which have been added aren't linked to any specific episodes.
I've started to add the release dates, add links, and remove the incorrect episode numbers on IMDB...
Then I came here to see if it had a Wikipedia article for some reason. I've forgotten why I came here already, no doubt because I got distracted by the Wikipedia article for the TV series.
The Wikipedia article, which was created and largely written 10 years ago, is just as bad, if not worse than the IMDB page.
The Wikipedia article claims:
That it has 65 episodes - Yet only 46 episodes are listed in the source I have.
That it was broadcast between 1983 and 1986 - Both are 100% false.
The full name of the production company, is part of the acronym for the production company - Even though they're both the same thing.
It uses words like Britain and Seasons - When it should be using United Kingdom and Series.
IMDB, as I've already pointed out is a complete mess, which will be getting cleaned up a bit by me.
AllMovie, just like its sister sites, isn't reliable imo. I'm 99% sure that it gets all its information from Wikipedia, as the wording is usually identical, and are usually created after the Wikipedia articles have been created. The link is dead anyway. I can't understand how RhythmOne (the owner of AllMovie/AllMusic/AllGame) has not been completely Blacklisted.
WorldCat, is used for 2 references. 1 with a few details for a VHS of the show. 1 with a few details about a DVD of the show.
Hi Danstarr. iMDB is not a reliable source because it is user generated, period. You're welcome to improve an entry in iMDB, and that might give you sources for working on a Wikipedia article, but nothing you do to iMDB will make it usable as a source for Wikipedia.
WorldCat is a catalog(ue). I believe it is reliable, but the kind of information that it gives you is rarely of much use for a Wikipedia article - if a work has not been discussed in independent sources, why does it belong in a Wikipedia article at all? - and in any case it cannot contribute to notabililty.
AllMovie I don't know about. I see that in this discussion in 2010 a particular editor said Allmovie is generally regarded as a reliable source because it employs full-time professional researchers, so on that basis it probably should be given the benefit of the doubt as a reliable source, and nobody argued that point. ColinFine (talk) 13:58, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Danstarr69, WorldCat is a fantastic resource, when used for the right goal. It's useless for establishing either WP:Notability, or for WP:Verifiability of content (except to establish existence, i.e., that something is not WP:HOAX content). I use WorldCat mostly to extract metadata for the various {{citation}} templates, as WorldCat will often have publisher/editor/series and other info that Google Books does not. Anlso, I use WorldCat to get the param value for |oclc= in the citation templates. WorldCat maintains a unique identifier, the OCLC id, which can be used to track any book, journal article, sometimes chapters, and other documents before the advent of ISBN, so is a very useful way to improve the verifiability of a citation by just including the oclc number, especially (but not exclusively) when no ISBN is available. Finally, WorldCat has a worldwide database of libraries, and if you log in with a (free) account and search for a book, it will tell you the ten (or more) closest libraries that have it. Often, it's within walking distance; sometimes, the "closest" one is 10,000 km away, but even that tells me something. So I'd definitely recommend getting a free account; all the sources you need for your article might be around the corner from you, and you never knew it. HTH, Mathglot (talk) 22:51, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
2021 Tampa Bay Rays season fix
Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hello. Go to 2021 Tampa Bay Rays season, short scroll down to Rays team leaders on right, pitching stats;
ERA and WHIP leader:Ryan Yarbrough (5.11) and (1.226) respectively in same box
Wins:Shane McLanahan and Josh Fleming (10) in same box.
Am having problems fixing. Why I asked for help. Can you just even out the columns to just two in the pitching section of above request? Could fill in the rest. Need help here. Thanks.Theairportman33531 (talk) 00:15, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion
I want to write an article about a video game (it's in my sandbox) but i'm not sure if the game is notable enough, what makes a video game notable enough for WP? OGWFP (talk) 19:42, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Hello, OGWFP, and welcome to the Teahouse. The answer to "What makes X notable" is almost always the same, irrespective of what kind of thing X is: that there are multiple reliable sources, unconnected with the subject, which devote significant coverage to it (see the Golden rule). The specific pages about notability for different kinds of subjects nearly all say "if your X meets one of these conditions, then it is probably notable, but you will still need to find the sources".
Since you cite no sources at all in your draft, I cannot tell whether or not it is notable. But this suggests that you have written the draft BACKWARD, which is like building a house without surveying the ground to check that it is stable enough to build on. ColinFine (talk) 20:38, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago17 comments8 people in discussion
I've been kind of confused in recent weeks about something I've noticed—some people seem to talk about edits as if they're like, really fast and easy to make, in a way that I find kind of hard to wrap my head around. Like, I've seen people tell new editors anxious to make it to 500 or 1000 edits that they'll get there in a month or two without even trying, or that passing those thresholds is hardly a sign of anything, etc. I made my account 4 years ago and I still have less than 300 edits; granted I haven't always been editing at the same rate, but even when I've spent all day on Wikipedia I've never managed to reach a rate that would take me to 500 in a month, and of course I can't spend every day on Wikipedia. I've also noticed that some editors seem to have millions of edits; I assume that has something to do with some sort of bot use because it's hard for me to imagine how someone could reach that by hand, but maybe it is possible somehow. Because of all this I worry a little that my perspective on editing is sort of abnormal, maybe even "against the grain" in some sense—I'm pretty sure it's not literally wrong per se but I worry a bit that I'm going against some kind of unwritten rule or something, or at the very least that I'm some kind of weirdo. :P
It often takes me a few hours of work, sometimes split over a couple days, to make one edit, even one that's pretty small—not every time but frequently. That's true for my talk page posts and my edits to articles. Usually they require a certain amount of research, and also a certain amount of careful thought about phrasing (writing is hard etc.). When I'm working on an article, I try to break my edits up into chunks analagous to Git commits—that is, I try to structure them so that if someone wanted to revert one they wouldn't have to deal with any miscellany. Even determining what might be "miscellany" takes me a certain amount of hard thinking though. Is there something "off-kilter" about this whole style? :P I admit that I'm kind of forlorn about being a long way off from using TWL, but more than anything else I'm just curious where these sorts of "500/1000 edits are nothing much"-type sentiments are coming from, since it would never occur to me to say something like that. 🍉◜◞ↂ🄜e𝚜𝚘𝚌𝚊r🅟ම𛱘🥑《 𔑪talk〗⇤07:30, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
For what it's worth, my editing style is similar to yours. I don't edit often, but when I do, I'm careful about it and put a lot of thought into which edits to make, not because I'm scared of being bold, but because I want them to be good enough. Basically I go through the BRD cycle a few times by myself in my head to make sure the edit is even worth making, then how to make it properly. I've got a list of articles I've been wanting to edit for a while, but the first stage of that for me is to let the changes percolate mentally for weeks or months. HerrWaus (talk) 08:47, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Mesocarp bot makers/users are everywhere. If I knew how to make bots, I'd do the same.
On IMDB I edit at least 5 days a week, although I usually edit on all 7.
On Wikipedia, I edit every now and again, usually things related to whatever I've added/corrected on IMDB.
On IMDB I'm a Top 100 Contributor (normally), and if I did 5,000 edits in a month, I'd consider very very good month of editing.
Yet there's people on there, basically the entire Top 20, who make between 10,000 and 1,000,000 edits a month each, and get praised for it, when they're clearly using bots.
What are they using bots for? I have no idea, but whatever it is, I'd say it's adding mostly incorrect information.
What would I want a bot for? A quicker way to add episodes, by clicking multiple dates on a calendar for example, as they only let you add one episode at a time.
I've dropped out of the Top 100 in June because I spent a lot of time here instead.
I don't bother adding things like introductions/descriptions/plots/summaries/synopsis on IMDB or Wikipedia, as I never know what to say, or how to make it thorough, especially as I haven't seen most of the things I update. I just add simple facts ie "This is a TV series which was presented by Mr X. It was broadcast on Channel X, between the years 1990 and 2000"
What do I spend most of my time doing when updating IMDB and Wikipedia?
Searching for websites which mention the people/productions I'm looking for.
Searching for the correct profiles.
Merging duplicate profiles.
Adding identifying details like birth/death details, nicknames/aliases, and social media profiles/websites.
Archiving every page, of every website I add.
Comparing details on different websites, to make sure I have the most common ones.
If there wasn't a risk of websites/webpages/profiles/videos disappearing in future, and if other people researched properly to make sure all the details are correct before they added them, just like I do, then I could get a lot more editing done.
Just now for example on IMDB, I've found an editor credit from a 2020 American short film, which has been added to the profile of a British cinematographer/cameraman who died in 2012. I've corrected it, and it's been accepted in minutes, as I've noticed that since I became a Top 100 Contributor, the large majority of my edits go through straight away without delay or even proof. Danstarr69 (talk) 09:09, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Mesocarp and HerrWaus, let me offer my perspective. I have been editing for 14 years and am approaching 100,000 edits, all manual and without any automation. Some of my edits require vastly more thought than others. Heck, a lot of my edits are correcting my own glaringly obvious typographical errors or reverting obvious vandalism. Other times, I need to do a few minutes of research to verify whether or not an edit is vandalism before reverting. Yesterday,I spent about three hours reading about and summarizing and referencing an important legal decision, and adding customized descriptions to six related articles. I often develop new content in sandbox pages, making dozens of behind-the-scenes edits, and then adding the thoroughly checked and referenced content in a single edit. In conclusion, the thought required to make a legitimate edit can range from a fraction of a second to many minutes or even hours. That's just how it works, and every thoughtful, policy compliant edit improves the encyclopedia. Cullen328 (talk) 09:13, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Cullen328 I skipped the whole intro, and started editing from scratch, so I've never even used my/the sandbox.
However if I know I'm going to be spending hours/days creating/editing a Wikipedia article, I save my progress privately on Blogger every so often, just in case my browser decides to crash, or in case it gets removed in future by someone who regularly removes referenced information or thinks "there aren't enough references."
I've got 6 private blogs (all of which I want to post one day), all for different subjects, yet none of them are in any order, as they're all full of random stuff, like lists I've created, large comments I post a lot on social media, and Wikipedia articles I've updated. Danstarr69 (talk) 09:33, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
I do know how to write bots but I'm not sure what I would use one for on here. :P I'm sure there are perfectly reasonable things to do with them, I'm just not quite sure what they are. At some point I'll probably look into it more deeply—it seems kind of intimidating just because I imagine you could cause a lot of problems with one in theory. 🍉◜◞ↂ🄜e𝚜𝚘𝚌𝚊r🅟ම𛱘🥑《 𔑪talk〗⇤10:19, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Mesocarp I'd make bots to create entire articles, where you fill in the gaps, if that's possible.
I do a lot of film and TV edits, so I'm make bots to automatically create film articles, TV film articles, TV series articles, actor articles, TV presenter articles etc with everything already added.
For example for an actor article:
The description & date stuff at the top.
The infobox.
The early life and education section.
The career section.
The personal life section.
The filmography table.
The awards section.
The references section.
The external links section, with BFI and IMDB there already.
The categories.
I know there's templates for things like infoboxes, but are there any templates/bots for entire articles?
One day, I'll probably make some empty articles on the above topics, and save them on my private Blogger, ready to copy and paste, whenever I want to create a new article, rather than going back and forth getting stuff, or reminding myself of stuff I've forgotten. Danstarr69 (talk) 11:20, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
@Mesocarp as a person with over 30,000 edits in under 2 years I think edits really vary. I don't always make really small edits, but I could easily imagine making almost the same contributions and having a thousand or so edits. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian)09:33, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Interesting! Do you feel like it's just how you break them up? I do feel like it's not uncommon that I spend a few hours on just a few sentences, though, I guess…Even the edit I'm working on in the next tab over has turned out that way. A lot of it is just me poring over the source(s) and trying to figure out what would really make sense to say from them. I can't tell if I just have a tendency to overthink things (highly possible ;^^) or if it's more like other people are engaged in really different activities or something. 🍉◜◞ↂ🄜e𝚜𝚘𝚌𝚊r🅟ම𛱘🥑《 𔑪talk〗⇤10:13, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
User:Mesocarp, it's mostly the "different activities". Creating content – the most important bit – takes the longest. I've certainly spent over a full day putting together a single content edit, in a separate app locally, before previewing, correcting, and publishing it. On the other hand, doing small repetitive edits, like adding a single template or category to a hundred similar pages, can be accomplished in a matter of minutes. Don't be intimidated by or envious of anyone's edit count. It's not a particularly useful metric. Folly Mox (talk) 00:46, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
@Folly Mox Thanks, that's interesting to know! I'm starting to understand the kinds of "bot-friendly" things people do here. I guess, to some extent though, maybe it's just not that I'm not very interested in those kinds of repetitive or easily-automated activities on a site like this—it's probably good that other people do them here but I don't know that it's really my wheelhouse. I think a lot of the fun of working on Wikipedia for me is the way I learn new things while I'm doing it, or if I'm working with other editors, feeling like we're keeping up an understanding of each other and can function in harmony. Thanks for your kind words—I'll try not to fret about it. :P 🍉◜◞ↂ🄜e𝚜𝚘𝚌𝚊r🅟ම𛱘🥑《 𔑪talk〗⇤01:09, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
Mesocarp I've been a Wikipedia editor for 16 years, have made less than 3,000 edits, plus created a couple dozen new articles. This is a volunteer project for me, I'm not in competition with anyone, and I only take on projects that interest me enough to do the work.
Life is full of stressors, so I don't stress over Wikipedia. I don't go out searching for articles to improve; if I read an article for information and notice it needs improving I'll decide whether I consider it important enough to me to find accurate information from good references, and then plunge into the job of rewriting sections of the article. When I make edits I do them to the best of my ability in order to help others who'll be reading the article later on. I get satisfaction out of my Wikipedia work, but I do my volunteer work within my own comfort zone. I hope my thoughts are of help to you. Karenthewriter (talk) 14:26, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
I guess I often behave the same way—like, I just browse Wikipedia as I please and sometimes happen upon articles that seem to need work. Sometimes I do feel in the mood to work on an article and then I usually press the random button until I find a page like that. Recently I've also been giving third opinions and have realized that I find it rewarding to help people settle their disputes and make peace. All of these things seem to take a lot of care to me though and aren't things I would want to rush. Thanks for sharing your perspective. I don't think I'm worried about it as a competition or anything (it would be nice to use TWL but aside from that I don't see how edit count really matters); it's more just that I'm curious where other people are coming from. 🍉◜◞ↂ🄜e𝚜𝚘𝚌𝚊r🅟ම𛱘🥑《 𔑪talk〗⇤00:45, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
Really, it depends on what you're doing. Miniscule, repetitive tasks can take a matter of a handful of seconds, with or without semi-automated tools. I often review requested moves and redirects and categories for creation, and with those, even if making just the equivalent of one edit, it can multiply by a factor of three or more (moving articles moves the talk page and leaves redirects behind, which is a minimum of 4 edits; if swapping articles that both have page history, that number can be higher, all from really one quick reading of a discussion and scanning to make sure it makes sense, and then a couple button clicks; using the helper script to create redirects at AFC/R creates both the redirect, its talk page, and updates the main page, which is a minimum of 3 edits, and then add 2 more for each additional redirect you accept). Meanwhile, I'll spend half an hour or more on a talk page message or a content edit sometimes, or even fixing a template (or miserably failing to do so...). Skarmory(talk •contribs)01:22, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
@Skarmory Oh, that's interesting, I have yet to really do anything in those areas although I've looked at them periodically. It does help me understand why someone who spends a lot of time on those kinds of tasks might not feel like an individual edit was a very big thing. Eventually I would like to help out with the AfC backlog once I reach 500 article edits (someday :P), although I think I would be more likely to focus on draft articles than categories+redirects—I think maybe I just tend to gravitate to the slow and thorny side of things. 🍉◜◞ↂ🄜e𝚜𝚘𝚌𝚊r🅟ම𛱘🥑《 𔑪talk〗⇤02:20, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
Graphic novel lists - Show/Hide
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Question about how far can editing go to want to decide
Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments3 people in discussion
When it comes to editing Wikipedia, is there ever really a way to even go far as to want to decide to use do more like? Basically I’m wondering if there is ever a question of whether to do as far as deciding to use even to want to go more even. McBoogaloo (talk) 23:33, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
@McBoogaloo: Welcome to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1193. You've got to be kidding me. I've been further even more decided to use even go need to do look more as anyone can. Can you really be far even as decided half as much to use go wish for that? My guess is that when one really been far even as decided once to use even go want, it is then that he has really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like. It's just common sense. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:02, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
with extiw being the class for interwiki links.[1][2]
However, I still see interwiki links as blue instead of the hot pink that I expected them to be. I cleared my browser cache, but it still isn't showing up correctly. Custom CSS for Redirects does seem to be working however.
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion
My article has been declined as the article heading was common to other article but th3e content is going to be different from the already present one but I want to add few external links to it with reference. Guide me to write a new and prefect article. Tejal98 (talk) 07:49, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
No, Tejal98, it wasn't declined because "the article heading was common to other article". It was deleted, for multiple reasons. One of these was copyright violation. -- Hoary (talk) 09:05, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
Tejal98, Hoary is correct and Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Do not violate copyright again. In addition, we already have an article about Saguna Baug, as you know since you have edited it. The Articles for Creation process is for new topics and content should never be submitted there when an article already exists. Cullen328 (talk) 09:14, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
Citing an offline source, inserting a digital version of a newspaper.
Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments5 people in discussion
Hi! Could you tell me how to include offline sources in a Wikipedia article draft? I have digital newspaper articles, can I include them as images in the article or in the bibliography section? Thank you! Franca47 (talk) 10:13, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
@Franca47 Do not upload copies of the articles unless they are very old - 75 to 100 years depending on the country of origin. Doing so would most probably violate the newspaper's copyright. You can use {{cite news}} to provide the necessary reference details; newspaper title, article title, date, author, page number, etc. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:26, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Franca47. I'm afraid it would not be OK to insert any image of a newspaper article into Wikipedia pages, as the content would be copyright. The only exceptions might be a) if it was an image of a very old newspaper which had gone out of its copyright period (often around 70 years - I'd have to check) or b) if you were using an image of a newspaper front page to illustrate an article about that particular newspaper. Then it would need to be inserted directly into the Wikipedia article, and not placed on Wikimedia Commons, as it would need a WP:FAIRUSE rationale to justify inclusion of a copyrighted content into a Wikipedia article (and not a draft). I hope this has answered your question? Please be more specific if you need further advice. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:27, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Hello Franca47, and welcome to the Teahouse. The bit that neither Dodger nor Nick has explicitly said is that sources do not need to be online. As long as they are available somewhere (eg in large libraries) and the citation gives enough information for a reader to find them, that is enough. In most cases, a URL is a convenience for the reader not a critical part of the citation. ColinFine (talk) 11:04, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Specifically, if you have a link to the digital article, add it in the url= section of the template (or in the box under URL in the visual template editor, depending on what you're using). An article I primarily wrote that was promoted to GA recently, Hurricane Heather, has a fair amount of these links if you want a reference point. Skarmory(talk •contribs)01:25, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
Aayushma Sharma, 331dot said pretty much what I had been about to say until five minutes ago, when I realized that there was already an article, Wibool Piyawattanametha, about the same person. (You should know about this, as you created it.) You might work to improve the existing article. Or if you still want access to the draft in order to help you improve the article, be sure to make this clear when you ask for the "refund". -- Hoary (talk) 09:00, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
hey, i am the owner of the page you have mentioned. i recently completed the draft the wanted to submit for review. however, while i was trying to submit it pops up this screen with the message "
A page with this title has previously been moved or deleted.
If you are creating a new page with different content, please continue. If you are recreating a page similar to the previously deleted page, or are unsure, please first contact the user(s) who performed the action(s) listed below.
and when i tried to publish it, idk what happened but the link redirects onto the talk page instead. i want to redirect to article. please provide me some suggestions. Aayushma Sharma (talk) 09:08, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
Hello, Fikaia, and welcome to the Teahouse. It seems to me from reading the documentation, that you ought to be able to use links=[[:el:s:Φαρμακεύτριαι]], but I haven't tried it. ColinFine (talk) 09:36, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
Is it possible that you had created content about India, but forgot to click on Publish - which acts as Save - before submitting a blank Sandbox? David notMD (talk) 11:48, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
Help with citation errors
Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Hello there! I am currently translating a draft, and I have encountered several errors on 2 citations in particular: Citation 7 and Citation 10.
I know it's because of some invisible characters, but I can't for the life of me find them or remove them. Any help would be much appreciated! --QuickQuokka[talk • contribs]12:32, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
@QuickQuokka Welcome to the Teahouse. When I view your citation using WP:Source Editor, I see a myriad of red characters used as spaces in the quotes. If you can't see them, I suggest you work through all the quoted text and manually replace them with a normal space character. That should fix it. Although it may not show here, this text contains those red characters which, evidently, the reference creation process doesn't like
(sample: text
Разбира се, всичко това върви понякога под опаковката, че те уважават гражданската идентичнос) Hope this helps, Nick Moyes (talk) 12:58, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
@QuickQuokka Right - that was interesting. I gave up doing it manually. So first I tried copying the source code into MS Notepad, but that didn't work. So I repeated by pasting the source code into MS Wordpad. I then copied one of (what I was seeing as) the red characters, and did a Find/Raplce in Wordpad. That did identify them and replace them with plain old hard spaces. I then replaced the text of your draft with the cleaned up text and saved that edit. The warning messages have now gone.
I can't explain why I was seeing them, and you were not if, as you say, you had "Syntax Highlighting" enabled in the editing tool. The purple reference text and red dots turn back to being black text and clear spaces when I turn off syntax highlighting in desktop view in Chrome, and reappear again when I hit the sloping grey pencil icon to turn syntax highlighting on again. To be frank: I never edit in source code with it off. Hope this has helped. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:31, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
Suggestion
Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments4 people in discussion
Hi. Been a long time user. I was wondering ( and I've searched for a bir before coming to the Teahouse) if it's possible to filter out certain pages from the "Random" function. Imagine, for example, I have no interest in Sports. What I'd like to be able to do is to set a filter as to not get any results for "Sports" when I click to generate a Random article.
I know this would require all articles to be classified acording to subject, but that probably already takes place.
So, I believe you catch my gist.
Thanks for any reply, thanks for making Wikipedia great! :) 93.63.145.35 (talk) 11:50, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. That's not something I'd ever thought about, so I visited WP:RANDOM. Although it can't do what you asked about, it did point me to WP:Enhanced Random Article. There I saw that one can change certain settings to exclude some types of article. Then, a visit to its Talk page showed that someone had asked about that very same question (albeit no reply). I suggest you might liek to add your voice to get that suggestion highlighted. Of course, there might be other scripts that do similar, so the list of scripts could be worth checking out, too. If that doesn't yield anything, you could repeat the question at WP:VPT, lest someone is aware of any alternative solution.
I must admit that the complete randomness is one of the things that puts me off using it; it would be nice to have a random article offered within a somewhat narrower category of topic. regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 13:09, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
The option to produce random articles within a certain set of categories you specify is offered by the template {{Random page in category}}. It uses a toolforge call which you may find easier to use directly at this URL where there is additional documentation. I don't think it can be used to give "anything EXCEPT sports". Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:16, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, why I don't have a visual editor? It suggests only edit source. I can't attach an e-mail here. Actually the interface is very confusing :( Grigory M (talk) 14:15, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
@Grigory M That seems to show you have chosen "remember my last editor". You need to choose one of the other options! Note that the VE doesn't work on Talk Pages, it's mainly useful in article space. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:31, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
Usp.uday Your changes to Ram G. Takwale were reverted because what you did was capitalize words that should not be capitalized. You are permitted to add new information, but it must be referenced. Separately, I have concerns that you were also editing the article as User:USP Panchpor and User:Usp pn. This is forbidden. Use only one account. David notMD (talk) 10:56, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, I did not release this. I will delete one of the account and maintain only one account. Can you help in understanding the method of referencing the new information Usp.uday (talk) 11:40, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Hello again, Usp.uday. Accounts cannot be deleted, but you can simply stop using two of the accounts and stick to one of them.
Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. NmWTfs85lXusaybq reverted your edit, and several by Usp pn and USP Panchpor, with the comment "Vandalism". While that comment does not seem right, and I would caution NmWTfs85lXusaybq to read carefully what Wikipedia means by vandalism, much of what they reverted was unsourced information.
The proper thing for all of you to do now is to discuss the matter on Talk:Ram G. Takwale and attempt to reach consensus. I have pinged all the editors involved here, so you will see this item; but please continue any discussion on the talk page, not here. ColinFine (talk) 10:56, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
I commented their edits by "Vandalism" because they placed external links (may be spamming) in the template link, inappropriately capitalized words and added unsourced material with an obvious sockpuppetry confirmed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Usp pn. I'm not sure if Usp pn or Usp.uday is their sockmaster.Usp pn is inferred to be the sockmaster from their edit history. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 14:02, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
You wrote "I am slowly learning the process." but if one of your accounts is Usp pn, that has existed since 2008, and was editing Ram G Takwale back in 2012. All three accounts may be indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry. If you are left with one, I strongly recommend abandoning any efforst to edit the article in question, and instead turn to other articles that need improvement. David notMD (talk) 15:28, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
@USP Panchpor: Welcome to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1193. If you have worked with him for more than 15 years, I would exercise caution about directly editing the article as you have a conflict of interest. I strongly suggest you use an edit request to make suggestions instead. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:36, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
I cannot seem to correctly write the classification list.
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hello, Nephellium, and welcome to the Teahouse. Your question is not very clear, but I'm guessing that this is about Draft:Nephelium aculeatum, and that you are referring to the Taxobox. Please see Template:Taxobox for how to use this. (It may be worth viewing, or even copying, the relevant part of the source of an article on a similar organism, and then making changes as necessary).
For how to do references, please see WP:REFB. A generalised reference to a resource, rather than to a specific page or entry, is not usually regarded as very useful.
I always advise new editors to spend some time making improvements to existing articles and learning how Wikipedia works before trying the very challenging task of creating a new article. ColinFine (talk) 19:02, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago10 comments5 people in discussion
An article I submitted abut a playwright needs more reliable secondary sources to be accepted. Can you please help me with what does and doesn't qualify? I realize this is a multi-part question, so thanks in advance for your help.
Are the following acceptable sources:
- Reviews in newspapers and online (e.g. N.Y. Times, Albany Union Times, Playbill, Backstage, Library Journal, etc.)
- Publisher websites (e.g. Random House, Dramatists Play Service, etc.) that list the author's works. Some may add reviews, a bio and synopses.
- IMDB
- A college student’s honors project that analyzes one of the author's works
- Online blog interviews, e.g. “I Interview Playwrights” by Adam Szymkowicz who has interviewed 1100 playwrights
- Reviews in newspapers and online (e.g. N.Y. Times, Albany Union Times, Playbill, Backstage, Library Journal, etc.)
Yes, these are mainstream press sources and are usually acceptable.
- Publisher websites (e.g. Random House, Dramatists Play Service, etc.) that list the author's works. Some may add reviews, a bio and synopses.
No, publishers have a direct interest in selling the works.
- IMDB
No, the content of IMDB is user-generated with little or no editorial oversight
- A college student’s honors project that analyzes one of the author's works
No, unless it gets published in a recognised journal after peer review. Run-of-the-mill student works are not rigorously reviewed or generally published in journals or similar outlets. However, occasionally a Ph.D. thesis does attract the attention of subject experts who might comment on it, such commentary and critique may be useful.
- Online blog interviews, e.g. “I Interview Playwrights” by Adam Szymkowicz who has interviewed 1100 playwrights
Thanks Roger! That's very helpful, and I definitely appreciate it. A few last questions, if that's ok...
- Some of the author's older works were produced, published and reviewed several years ago, or pre-internet, so finding online sources is more difficult. The same is true with some awards. How is it best to handle those? If something doesn’t have a specific citation, do I cut it?
- Some works or awards have a very basic listing on a website, e.g., a brief listing by the British Film Institute, a famous artist colony, or an awards website. But the listing includes no discussion of the work. Are those citations worth including?
- An article briefly mentions the author, but it is mostly about the subject of a musical they wrote and gives historical context. Is that helpful to include?
- The university that the author graduated is briefly mentioned in an article but not discussed. Do I still include it?
Reliable references that minimally discuss the subject can be added but will not contribute to notablility. And I would mention the university as long as the source doesn't come from him or the university. ✶Mitch199811✶16:08, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
ArtsAdventurer, you wrote Some of the author's older works were produced, published and reviewed several years ago, or pre-internet. There is no requirement that article sources be available online. When citing offline sources, the most important factor is to provide complete bibliographic information about the source. Please read Wikipedia:Offline sources for the details. Cullen328 (talk) 17:04, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
It includes short summaries most of the time (and occasionally long synopsis') which the standard site doesn't contain.
However it's wording for credits rarely match what's written on screen ie "written by" (on-screen) vs "script" (BFI), plus it's not always correct with the type of credits, for example today on some 60+ year old TV episodes I've noticed that:
One person was listed as a presenter by the BFI, but was listed as a reporter by the BBC Programme Index.
One person was listed as a narrator by the BFI, but was listed as a reporter by the BBC Programme Index.
I'm not sure who is correct (as the BBC Programme Index lists people as unknown a lot of the time, plus they contain a lot of spelling/grammar mistakes), but as it's a BBC show, I added them as the BBC Programme Index said. However the second person was definitely a voice credit going off the episode description on both, as he reported/narrated on something happening in a country he wasn't in.
I've now just remembered that the BFI said that a producer was both the director and the producer on an episode. However the BBC said that someone else was the director. Danstarr69 (talk) 21:00, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
Mitch199811 I have the right thread, I just tagged the wrong person.
"- Some works or awards have a very basic listing on a website, e.g., a brief listing by the British Film Institute, a famous artist colony, or an awards website. But the listing includes no discussion of the work. Are those citations worth including?"Danstarr69 (talk) 21:05, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
I'm struggling to differentiate between the second two versions you've presented, but in general for cases like this, where a publishing service has an info page from which you can access the full text of the publication, we tend to link to the info page. This is where a DOI will usually point, allows the site to change how it stores and presents publications without causing link rot, and is usually in front of any paywall, rather than behind. Linking to webpages instead of (e.g.) PDFs also increases accessibility. Hope that helps. Folly Mox (talk) 20:17, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
Folly Mox Sometimes PDF links (and links for other files) automatically download when I click on them. However the download link on CORE doesn't automatically download.
I'm not entirely sure what your answer is, but as I've finished what I was doing, here's some specific examples:
Ok thank you for demonstrating the difference between versions. It's probably best to point your url to the Display version. That's what we typically do if there's a summary page, and you can see the DOI is visible on that page. I apologise if my answer was unclear. Is there a specific bit I can try to explain better? Sometimes I don't express myself well. Folly Mox (talk) 21:44, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
Folly Mox I suspected you meant the display page, but I wanted to make sure.
With things like Google Books, where sometimes all of a book is available to read, and sometimes just some of a book is available to read, I usually use the link where you can read the book/page itself, rather than the description/front cover page...
...As a recent example I came across on Google Books (I can't remember what book), didn't seem have a link to the readable bits of the book on the description/front cover page. Unless there's simple way to get the pages of the book from the description/front cover page which I don't entirely understand, as I usually stumble across these readable Google Books links from the Google Search itself.
However with websites like CORE it seems to have everything, as both the Readable version and the Download version are displayed on the Display version, unlike Google Books, therefore any of the links seem decent. Danstarr69 (talk) 22:09, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
Yeah that's very true that any of the three links would be good to put in your citation template. Google books is a very different beast than CORE. Google books is mostly non-open content, although you can often get results on pages that cannot be previewed in full by using the "search within this book" functionality. Links to the overall Google book entry also allow you to cite multiple pages within the book without needing to provide a different URL for each separate page number, which causes a lot of reference bloat and information duplication.It seems like CORE is mostly open content, so linking to the Display page has a number of benefits: readers can choose whether they want to download the PDF or read the full text in the publisher's reader thingy; the publisher can choose to restructure the URLs for the full text versions without breaking the link; the publisher can choose to paywall the full text and we would still have access to the abstract and publication information; and any citation created from the DOI will point to the Display page.Not linking directly to the full text does require readers to perform a second navigation task, but it's my opinion that the benefits of linking the Display page outweigh that, and it's also our most common practice here. Folly Mox (talk) 22:27, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
Would this be worth an RFC?
Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments3 people in discussion
User:Deauthorized, I think all you need to do is verify a citation, and see whether the current version or suggested version is accurate. You don't need an RfC for that, just an editor who can read Hebrew. It looks like the text is old and public domain, so accessibility shouldn't be an issue. Posting a question to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism is probably all that's needed, unless you have trouble attracting any editor to the task. Folly Mox (talk) 22:54, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments2 people in discussion
I'll phrase this as a hypothetical because it's a bit hard to explain:
After a widely covered public divorce, an artist, who is a multi-talented dancer, puts out a statement on their marriage while break-dancing. The statement is also widely covered with the breakdancing specifically included in many RS headlines and present in the text of all of them?
The question: Is it undue to specify that the genre of dance was breakdancing when describing the artist's statement as it could be argued the reaction would be the same if it were another form of dance? Like, "Artist gave a statement while dancing..." vs. "Artist gave a statement while break-dancing.."?
I've been watching a disagreement on a talk page/edit history record where Undue and Noteworthy are being used by some experienced editors, and I'm a bit confused as to what the issue about including the "break-dancing" is! I'm not really interested in that particular disagreement, but I am perplexed so I thought I'd come here for clarity on the issue, as the sections related to noteworthiness/undue/balance mainly address the status of viewpoints, not reported details! Thanks for everyone's help! Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 21:10, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
The problem with hypotheticals is that sometimes the person posing the hypothetical doesn't distill all the elements of the actual example correctly, and inadvertently leaves out details that may be pertinent or even crucial to answering the question. The fact that whatever the actual issue is perplexes you may indicate there's subtleties in the disagreement that you're not seeing. We always need links to the actual discussions or articles so we have all the information before we're able to answer questions to any degree of confidence. Folly Mox (talk) 23:00, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
Ah! That makes sense! The actual disagreement has been occurring in the edit history of the Colleen Ballinger article, and in a few threads on the talk page. It seems like multiple editors keep trying to include the fact she is playing the ukulele in a widely covered response video, while a few editors have been reverting the change each time it's added. The rationale for the undue/noteworthy remarks seems to be that if it were any other instrument and the reaction would have been the same, therefore it's not encyclopedic to include. My confusion is the same as described in the first post! Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 23:11, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
User:Goodlucklemonpig, I suppose I can see both sides of that argument. The BBC source even mentions the ukelele in the title of their article. I believe the argument the people against inclusion of the particular instrument relies on the idea that in the whole scheme of accusation, apology, and reaction to the apology, the ukelele is not significant. If there were an article specifically about the apology song video, the ukelele would definitely be encyclopaedic to include, but since it doesn't seem to play a role in the larger events of the paragraph, it's not necessary to mention. Having said that, it is an interesting detail, and I wouldn't personally remove it from the article if it were in there. I hope that helps explain things a little bit. I don't feel like I've done a much better job than the editors on the talk page. Folly Mox (talk) 01:00, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
Editors citing WP:DUE are probably relying on this part of the guideline: Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail... (emphasis added). Folly Mox (talk) 01:03, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
You definitely cleared things up a bit, especially the direct "depth of detail" citation and contextualizing the paragraph vs. a hypothetical article! I'm partial to including the aforementioned ukulele (as a fairly unique instrument in a fairly unique video), but the reasons given make a lot more sense now! Anyways, from the number of reverts I've seen, it seems like a sore subject not worth getting involved in. Thank you for the well-put explanation :) Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 01:35, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
Dropdown menu bug in other wikis
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 1 year ago8 comments4 people in discussion
The museum has been given a new name (formerly Albright Knox Art Gallery) and i try to add info on the renovation and namechanging into the German wikipedia-article on the museum. But i have difficulties to understand of which buildings the museum consists. In English-articles various places are given, also with asigned names, but i still have difficulties to understand the structure and i would love to have a list of the buildings. And even better would be if someone would visit the museum and take pictures for commons so that we could add pictures into the article. Can anyone help me? Naomi Hennig (talk) 13:05, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
@Naomi Hennig Welcome to the Teahouse. I think these suggestions are best made at the relevant talk page. I assume you'd hope visitors might add to the existing image collection found here? I'm afraid your request is really not suited to the Teahouse, as this is a help forum aimed at assisting people with using the Wikipedia editing tools, not actually to research content matters. But thank you for dropping by. Good luck with your work! Nick Moyes (talk) 13:37, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
Ah, sorry, Nick Moyes, i did not know that. Yes, i really would be thankful if someone could add the newly renovated buildings and pictures from inside. I guess, i will just call the museum and ask if they would give us some pictures. I'm sorry, i did write this request on the wrong page, please excuse me! Naomi Hennig (talk) 19:41, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi again Naomi Hennig. No worries. However, please don't ask the museum to send you the pictures to upload. Instead invite them to upload them themselves (as they are the copyright holders, not you) or, as kif they would be prepared to complete one of outrstandard release forms and email them to the right section shere o twe can upload them on their behalf, and their release form can be checked and approved as part of that process. We take copyright ownership very seriously, so you can't simply upload them on their behalf as it would be you who would be claiming image ownership, and that would not be true. It would also be sensible to specify what image gaps you have identified that they can fill, rather than simply say Give me lots of pictures!
Note: I'm going to have to ask a fellow host to supply the link to the release form as I am being called away as I write this. I'll check back later and add it if nobody else has. regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:54, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi, Nick Moyes, i take rightholderissues very seriously as well as i used to work as a journalist, when i was still working... i thought, i just then - if they are willing to accept the licence - , send them the email which they have to send to permissions? When i use the upload wizzard, it always asks where the picture is from and who is the rightholder, so the procedure should be okay?! Naomi Hennig (talk) 20:59, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
@Naomi Hennig The problem with you saying where the picture is from when using the upload wizard is that this doesn't give you the right to release the copyright: only the owner can do that and your naming them doesn't help unless they also contact the volunteers on Commons who keep track of these things. The way for copyright holders to release material to Commons is via the email templates listed at c:Commons:Email templates. That page has a full description of how to do things, which includes the possibility that you upload files on the copyright holders behalf and have them contact Commons in a separate step. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:45, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
Of course it is not me that has the copyright, that is why i send them the email to send to permissions and meanwhile add the "pending" template - and when the permissions-people have received the permission of the museum, they change the info on the page of the picture. We do have a template for the mails we send to rightholders in the German wikipedia and even the text in English as well. But we don't even know yet whether the museum is at all willing to give us the permission - i have to wait until 4 pm my time to be able to talk to someone there. Maybe they don't want to give the permission. I'll keep you updated. I guess, i already uploaded 100 pictures to commons and as said, i'm very concerned about rightholder-issues and of course do follow the protocoll every time!!! Trust me a bit :-) Naomi Hennig (talk) 12:13, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
How to view talk page discussion on a redirected page
Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Just wondering if it is possible to view the talk page of a page that existed in the past but has now been redirected. Obviously when you try to go to a page with a redirect you get sent to the destination page of the redirect, but the discussion from the old page doesn't appear on the talk page of the new destination of the redirect.
When the page gets redirected, does the talk page just get deleted? Or is the discussion saved somewhere?
@Chagropango When you go to an article via a redirect, there will be a link at the very top which says "(Redirected from [what you searched])". If you click on that, you'll be taken to the page where the redirect exists and you can then view its Talk Page or History tab in the usual way. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:19, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
@Chagropango Another trick is to go to the target page, e.g. Joe Biden, click on the option "What links here" and then on the page that comes up, check the boxes "Hide transclusions" and "Hide links": leaving only "Hide redirects" unchecked. Then when you click "Go", you'll see all the available redirects for the article. In the case of Biden's article that's a whole lot of redirects! Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:43, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
Question about screenshot of free, open-source software
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I want to upload a few screenshots of Mastodon to Wikimedia Commons of a free and open source program known as Mastodon (since there don't seem to be any screenshots of the administrator, moderator, nor advanced web interface). It's a self-hosted instance by me, so I'm wondering what license I should use when uploading and if there would be any troubles doing that, or even if I shouldn't do it in the first place. Thanks! Technogod (talk) 16:44, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion
I work for the company which I was trying to edit according to their task. I understand that the issue is about self-promotion but it's only because I am the new member and never did it earlier, anyway I am following all the guidelines. I see I can be adopted but they say that if I never did edit in Wiki, then I cannot be adopted. But I'd like to gain trust to my account of course so that my work is not wasted and the content is not removed.
If your problem is about the article on the Spanish Wikipedia, I think you need to contact the support there as we can't do much from here. But as far as I know, if you're following the guidelines from now on and disclosing your Conflict Of Interest (you shold do this as soon as you can), you should be all good. I would take a second look at WP:NPOV and WP:WHATNOT if you haven't already. If your edits haven't been neutral, they have probably been reverted on both Wikis. Feel free to review your edits and redo them as edit requests according to WP:DISCLOSE while keeping the guidelines in mind, and choosing a rather neutral point of view.
Welcome to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1193. Did you have a question about using or editing the English Wikipedia? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:05, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
Hello. If you are trying to publicize a newly patented invention, please undersatnd that Wikipedia is not the place to do it. Until there are multiple independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the invention, it will not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and no article is possible.
Also note that even if/when it reaches that threshold, Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. ColinFine (talk) 18:55, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
Delta Air Lines citation link fix
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Hello. Go to above article, scroll down to hijackings section (below accidents and incidents). The February 21, 1968 incident, citation #183. Go into edit window. I cant link it to the article.Name of article is: From FAA Peace Officers to Air Marshals. I know I typed in the link exactly as it appears in the URL of the article.Thanks for your time.Theairportman33531 (talk) 19:37, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments4 people in discussion
Hallo
My Name is John A, M, i am musician, and online ecommerce person. I just want to create an article for myself. My first attempt to write article wasn't successful some time back before pandemic.
I try to contact few writing company but the prices put me off.
I wonder if there is any assistance around TEAHOUSE.
I will real appreciate if i can get some one to give me some advice on where to start.
As you might have seen my profile name is Njiwa Jogoo, but in real, those are just my AKA's.
Thank you all for the best work you do. Wikipedia have been like my second home online for a loong time.
Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments3 people in discussion
So recently, a source I consult quite frequently, Página Siete, shuttered its doors. Given that the paper's website remains online, links to previous publications are all still live. In practice, however, their usability is rendered moot by a subscription block—now inaccessible, for obvious reasons. (Here's an example) The question, then, is whether I should mark the links as dead when citing so as to direct users towards an actually usable archive, or continue marking them as live and tagging them as subscription-only. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 04:41, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
They're live, and the links remain valid. There is nothing wrong with referring to subscription-only sources (though obviously it's lovely if information is available for free, and many editors will favour open-access sources). We are an encyclopaedia summarising information that can be traced back to reliable sources by someone wishing to do so; we do not guarantee that the information is available for free, nor do we have any moral viewpoint on the freedom of other people's information - only on the free availability of Wikipedia itself. So no action is absolutely necessary. Elemimele (talk) 09:11, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
Given that you can no longer sign up for a subscription to gain access to the content, I would certainly add archived snapshots, if any are available (assuming, that is, that the archiver, eg the Wayback Machine, has itself been able to navigate past the paywall). Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs09:30, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
... just being pedantic, but if you do add archived links, you should, technically, check that the archived version says what we claim. The original citation applied to the source on the date the original editor inserted it. Most magazine and newspaper articles shouldn't change, but a situation I've met before is where someone's inserted a Wayback Machine link to an archived error page instead of (presumably) the original content. This is worse than leaving the original, unavailable link, because it now means that I've no idea of the date on which the information was once available. Elemimele (talk) 16:51, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
For me, I always add archive links for every source, whether its dead or not. I think the meat of my question, then, is whether a subscription-only source where the subscription is no longer accessible should be marked as dead (because it practically is) or not (because it technically isn't). Krisgabwoosh (talk) 06:15, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Outing users
Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Users 1 and 2 edit a page together to add a mention of a certain person to a different page. User 3 takes note of this and discusses that the person should be deleted. User 4 sees the discussion and while doing a search, notices that a Twitter thread talking about pushing to get the information included on the Wikipedia page, and mentions that the author of the sources used on the page is helping them edit. The Twitter poster uses their real name. In a discussion about the content's inclusion, User 4 posts a link to the Twitter thread, which shows that the author of the sources used on the page is also attempting to add content to the page. User 4 does not attribute or connect the poster or the author to any Wikipedia editor. It is not obvious or clear which editor(s) out of many are named in the Twitter thread. However, it is possible to make a plausible not uncertain guess based on shared interests if one were to search more about the Twitter poster. Does User 4's actions violate any policy, such as outing? What should User 4 have done differently in this scenario, if anything? Chamaemelum (talk) 07:42, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
Chamaemelum I read all this expecting you to have a problem with users 1 & 2. Yet it seems you have a problem with user 4 who's trying to show the information might not be true? Make me make that make sense.
It seems to me that user 4 is doing everything right.
I can't remember what the term is, but there's a word for people like users 1 & 2, who are trying game the system, by pretending to be unconnected to the subject...
In a similar way to what a lot of new filmmakers try to do on IMDB, by asking the cast, crew, their friends and their family, to give their new productions a 10/10 rating to game the system.
However what they don't realise is that IMDB removes high ratings which are done in bulk, in a short space of time, especially when they're done by new users, as it's very likely they have a connection.
If the person they're trying to add is also famous and is connection I don't see a problem with people trying to add them, however it doesn't change the fact that users 1 and 2 are not doing it in the correct way.
However if the other person isn't famous, then user 3 and user 4 can remove them, even though that's a Wikipedia policy I disagree with, as when people are in the public eye, people like their family will be in the public eye too, whether they like it or not.
Pretty soon I will be adding the brother of a late TV presenter/journalists article, once I've updated the TV presenter/journalists article a bit. However there should be no problem with me adding the brother, as the late brother was a TV cinematographer/cameraman, so was in the public eye too. Danstarr69 (talk) 21:28, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, that's helpful. I'm specifically wondering how the outing policy works in this weird circumstance where it's relevant to a COI, semi-public, and not explictly connecting a Wikipedia user with a name (but someone could infer if they chose to look). Chamaemelum (talk)
It's all nonsense imo. If their social media profiles have the same name as their Wikipedia accounts, and are open for everyone to see, then it's their own fault. If they don't want everyone to see their little schemes, then they should've changed their privacy settings.
I got banned from the IMDB "community" by the founder Col Needham around 18 months ago, for stating the fact that roughly 95% of the admins are useless, as they ignore unanswered/unresolved community posts for months (only bothering to resolve a few of the newest questions/problems a day), and decline contributions because they don't know how to read or click on references. He banned my 3 other email addresses in quick succession too, as soon as he noticed me, even though I had done nothing wrong on those occasions.
The first time he noticed me was when I had proven a female co-director was lying. She claimed a man had not worked on any of her productions, so she wanted them all removed, even though he had co-directed, produced, edited etc and starred in them all. He was listed in the credits of the publicly available films themselves on her public Youtube and Vimeo channels, plus on her public Facebook profile, there were photos of them all together on the sets of those productions. I had posted screenshots of all the credits, the films themselves, along with all the cast and crew photos. They had clearly fallen out over something, so was trying to ruin his career.
She might have been able to persuade the gullible admins her lies were true, if I wasn't around, or if all her videos and profiles were private. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danstarr69 (talk • contribs) 06:49, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Finding who to write about
Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments5 people in discussion
Hi there,
I am interested in Canadian businesspeople and politicians, and I have written a few drafts but am struggling to find people to write about that are notable enough but also do not already have a wiki page. Is there a forum somewhere that has names of people who should have wikis (because of notability) but do not yet?
Thanks Qgrunklebert (talk) 20:03, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
Hello, Qgrunklebert. Wikipedia:Requested articles is a place to get ideas. However, there is no guarantee that the topics listed there are truly notable. If an editor has done enough research to be sure that a topic is notable, then it is a fairly easy matter to write the article. My sense is that most requests come from inexperienced editors who lack the skills to assess notability or write an acceptable new article. At least it is a source of ideas. Here are subpages related to your areas of interest, Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics and Wikipedia:Requested articles/Biographies/Political figures. Worth noting is that national and provincial legislators have a strong presumption of notability according to the notability guideline for politicians. You should be able to find many 19th century and early 20th century Canadian parliamentarians who lack biographies. Cullen328 (talk) 20:21, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
Qgrunklebert, the Women in Red project keeps lists of women who might be notable but don't have articles. Here is the list for women from Canada. But like any article, make sure you check for sources before you create it so you can make sure the person is notable. And make sure that the sources you use are independent from the people you write about; their own personal website and promotional material don't count. Alternatively, you could add things to articles that already exist so you don't have to worry about notability. Here is a list of Canadian businesspeople who have really short articles which need more content. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:47, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
Check out petscan and search other language wikis for Canadians who don't have an english page but do have a lot of links directed to them.
@Qgrunklebert:, another way to find them, is to mine foreign Wikipedias for articles that they have, which we don't. There's a tool that will help do this, by category. It will create a list of articles in your area of interest that do not exist in English, and then you can write those. (If you are bilingual and can read the foreign article, then you can translate it into English.)
Using this tool for Politicians in Quebec will get you a list of 257 politicians without English articles, that do have articles in French. See, for example, list of the first 100 Canadian politicians from Quebec who do not have articles on English Wikipedia. (Hit next to get another 100.)
So, how do you get to that link?
Let's try this out. Say you are interested in "politicians in Quebec":
This category is available in 9 languages (left sidebar on desktop), including Arabic, Chinese, French, and six more. Let's pick French, as the most likely language to have articles we don't.
If you are looking to start over with a new account see wp:FRESHSTART. If you are concerned about getting reverted, don't worry, learn from your mistakes and keep editing. ✶Mitch199811✶20:51, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
@HilarysaurusRex: That date in the "advertisement" maintenance tag isn't something that needs to be updated. Were you planning to improve that article? Feel free to ask questions. This is the place for stupid questions. And Mitch is right, we all get reverted sometimes. Rjjiii (talk) 08:08, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Can I remove the "citation needed" statement
Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Welcome to the Teahouse, @Aayushma Sharma. Yes, please do remove these tags, provided you are sure that the citation you have added covers all the information now in that part of the article. So, for example, if the tag was at the end of a paragraph and your citation covered most but not all of the information in the paragraph you might move the tag to be next to the portion that was still lacking a citation: the point being that we want readers to be able to verify everything present. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:55, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Many thanks. How do I attach the citations regarding the completion of certain educational degrees if we can not find the records because it was a long time ago? Should I add the link to the educational site or shall I leave it as it is? Aayushma Sharma (talk) 12:02, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
@Aayushma Sharma I see you have been editing Wibool Piyawattanametha, so let's take that as an example. It had the tag at the top of his "Education" section but now has a perfectly good citation for the fact he is an alumnus of KMITL. However, the UCLA "citation" is worse than useless as it just links to the top level domain of that university. Hence, while you could now remove the section's tag, I would be inclined to delete the UCLA link altogether (it is misleading) and place a {{cn}} tag at the end of the relevant sentence. At some point in the future, another editor may be able to find a good citation to back up his MS and PhD credentials. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:14, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
fr:Modèle:Unité?
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, does an equivalent of fr:Modèle:Unité exist in English Wikipedia (I can't seem to link; it's trying to transclude or something)? It's a template for formatting of numbers, e.g. AFAICT it puts in commas, spaces or points as thousands separators, according to the reader's locale settings. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 10:48, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago7 comments4 people in discussion
From Slim8029. I am working on a draft article. My current focus is on completing the references. When I go to the article it shows a triangle with an asterisk in it and I am unable to add any more references. When I click on the triangle, the pop-up says "1 Notice. Find sources and references google, NYT and other acronyms. But these are not relevant.
Whoever made the notation was perhaps objecting to a reference to academia.edu. Is that possible? How do I fix this so I can move forward? Thanks.
Hello, Slim8029. Your ref name=":0" and ref name=":1" are in the wrong place. Inline references belong in the wikicode for the body of the article, right after the content that they verify. They do not belong in the "References" section itself. There is also some unconventional coding in the "References" section. Try Template: Reflist instead, which is the standard way to organize references, and is used in over five million articles. Cullen328 (talk) 00:47, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. I'll work on Reflist in the next few days. I've got some busy days coming up so may not get to this immediately.
It was probably academia.edu. Is that likely? I assume if I delete the reference the problem will go away? I'm searching for an alternative source for the information.
User:Slim8029, academia.edu is not blacklisted, and is cited over 40,000 times throughout Wikipedia. What are the references you've been trying to add to the ones already present? Folly Mox (talk) 02:44, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
I am swamped the next few days but will get back to you when I get my head above water again. Helpful to know that academia.edu is okay. Regards. Slim8029 (talk) 14:36, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Question regarding to publishing
Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments4 people in discussion
Hello! I need to be helped as a new editor. Can a new user confidently publish an article to main space if he or she is sure of it notability? Oringarcejs (talk) 16:22, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. To directy create an article you must be autoconfirmed(account is 4 days old with at least 10 edits). If you are, you are free to create articles, but if are doing your first one it is highly advised that you submit it via WP:AFC. 331dot (talk) 16:26, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
... and there is no penalty for submitting an article on a non-notable subject via AFC beyond getting it declined! Find the best independent sources you can; you don't need to include huge numbers. If you can find three good sources writing about the subject independently, and in reasonable depth, then you stand a good chance. Have a go, and listen carefully to the advice you get from whoever reviews it. But be patient, it may take some time to get reviewed. Elemimele (talk) 16:45, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
Oringarcejs You have more than 10 edits, not quite four days, yet you created Brunello Rosa as an article rather than going through AfC. It is possible the article has flaws that a reviewer would have identified. Instead, this will be looked at be a New Page Patroller, who may accept, kick back to draft, or delete outright. David notMD (talk) 20:47, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
In my opinion, the article is poorly written, does not establish notability, and will either be kicked back to draft, or deleted. If not, then an AfD should be started. David notMD (talk) 20:56, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
article submission was declined
Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments5 people in discussion
Hello,
I'm made article on English about Dubravka Oraić Tolić, and he was declined. I would like to know why??
I think that you should have been left a notification on your talk page with the reasoning for the deletion. Did you create the article using an account? NotAGenious (talk) 12:01, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
@TomislavGorsic (Please log into your account every time you edit Wikipedia). As the declining reviewer said on Draft:Dubravka Oraić Tolić, the problem is lack of reliable sources. Here on the English Wikipedia we insist that everything stated in biographies of living people are very fully backed up by inline citations. None of the biography section you drafted has any such citations. Please read the links I have supplied carefully and try to comply in any re-draft. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:02, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
The draft was created by TomislavGorsic. It contains a photograph, clearly created with the cooperation of the subject. The photograph was taken by TomislavGorsic. This suggests to me that the subject and TomislavGorsic are acquaintances. Is there perhaps some conflict of interest here? -- Hoary (talk) 12:45, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago9 comments4 people in discussion
marblemedia Inc wiki page seems to have been removed and wanted to know if there is a way to get it back. I work with the company and have been asked to see if this is possible? If not what would be another option RLD360 (talk) 20:01, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for the help. I believe i was able add the disclosure correctly. Any chance you could confirm I have done it correctly? RLD360 (talk) 20:33, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
@RLD360: Hi there! Thanks for adding the disclosure to your user page. I removed the <nowiki>...</nowiki> tags so the disclosure displays properly. GoingBatty (talk) 20:55, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Thank you very much i do appreciate it and all of your patience as i learn how to contribute properly. RLD360 (talk) 21:03, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for this. Some good insight. Im going to pass this along and then maybe i wont have to do anything at all! :) RLD360 (talk) 21:37, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Categorization
Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hi! So I'm kind of confused about the categorization policy and stuff. I did read the help article but since I'm new, it's kind of hard to know where to draw the line especially since the help article in question only had a few examples.
1. How many categories should an article have?
2. Can someone give me a few examples of good and bad categorization? I'm kind of struggling with what is too broad a category and what would be okay.
3. Would 'Fluid Dynamics' be a good category for 'Thermal Pressure'?
Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments4 people in discussion
Hello there, I have my own user page, I present myself as a newcomer on that site, could you please help me give me a suggestion on how to edit Wikipedia? And do I need to cite sources while inserting content into articles? Thanks. |-CrayonOfWorld92(talk) 09:32, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Even uncontroversial facts need citations. For a new editor, I recommend adding a citation to every fact you add to articles, no matter how mundane. Catalk to me!14:55, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago14 comments7 people in discussion
I have supplied three secondary sources of information and they have not been listed
Also the name of the inventor of the shark cage,( number 4166462.) James M Ellis of Port Lincoln south Australia, is not listed.
regards Margesson (talk) 11:15, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
Shark cage diving includes a subsection: "On September 4, 1979, US patent number 4166462 was issued for a self-propelled shark-proof cage;[6][7] being designed to allow abalone divers to collect abalone without becoming vulnerable to attack.[6] Thanks to the propulsion system, abalone divers would exert themselves less and, therefore, be able to collect their prey for longer periods of time.[6] The patent abstract details a self-propelled cage with at least one access opening and a mounting frame that carries both an air motor and a propeller. Buoyant material is attached to the frame so that the cage may be made neutrally buoyant.[6] This patent expired on September 4, 1996.[6]" Both references name James M. Ellis as the inventor. I see no need for his name to also be in the article, as the refs are sufficient. David notMD (talk) 11:53, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
I disagree.
The name of the inventor should be listed with the patent number and description.
Hi Margesson, if you feel strongly that the paragraph on self-propelled cages should remain in the article on shark cage diving you have two options: either find a good secondary source, or tiptoe quietly away and hope no one notices the article! The current situation isn't great. The paragraph is sourced to a patent and to a MentalFloss article. The problem with patents is that an enormous number of things get patented, but never make any impression on the world. For this reason, a patent is viewed here as a primary source, merely indicating that someone once had an idea - it doesn't mean that anyone picked up the idea and did anything with it, to the extent that an encyclopaedia would write about it. We are not interested in the millions of ideas that got patented and never used; we need proof that the idea was written-about, at least considered seriously by someone other than its inventor. The MentalFloss article is secondary and independent, but it's of the light-hearted click-bait sort, "here are some things you didn't know about a concept we thought might grab your eye", and it says nothing apart from the fact a patent exists. It's very weak. What you really need is a write-up from a nature, diving, or recreational magazine describing how some organisations actually use self-propelled cages, or something similar. Elemimele (talk) 16:43, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for your assistance
A secondary source article.
The book AB YARNS. 50 years of blowing bubbles( 1969-2019)
History and folklore of the south Australia western zone abalone fishery. Eric Kotz. All the divers use the shark proof cage. I will forward some more facts.
Margesson, I'm afraid it's not the ideal book. So far as I can see, it's listed as authored by Abalone Industry Association of South Australia and also published by Abalone Industry Association of South Australia Incorporated (and also authored by a specific person, Eric Kotz, who has self-published books in the past). This leaves it with a suspicion of being self-published, or published with little editorial oversight. Written paper sources don't have to be available on Amazon, but it's generally a really bad sign if a book is neither available in major libraries nor from Amazon! Is there anything from a mainstream news-source or publisher? Elemimele (talk) 15:44, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for your assistance. I thought the book (AB YARNS) which was compiled by the fishing industry in South Australia would be considered a very good reference. 
Another secondary source: THE NATIONAL MARITIME MUSEUM SYDNEY.
under the heading Covering your tail: inventing the self-propelled cage. 
I will forward another article in the magazine by the California USA Abalone divers association. I can forward newspaper articles when I learn how to. I look forward to the same rigour being applied to some of the claims made about the shark cages on Wikipedia. Margesson (talk) 01:56, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hello, I have a few questions about Wikipedia. First, you know those words at the top of Wikipedia articles? Like For other uses, see Word (disambiguation).? What is that called? And on talk pages, I see people with cool looking usernames. How do I get one by default? Waterard (talk) 03:12, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
@Waterard: Welcome to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1193.
First, you know those words at the top of Wikipedia articles? Like For other uses, see Word (disambiguation).? What is that called?
Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments4 people in discussion
Hello, you declined my page, i warmly understand, however, you should understand that my article is clearly promotional-free. In this case, because you don't understand Nigerian references dosent mean you should be immediate to disregard. I spent 2 days doing research, editing and committing. Moreso, the subject is duely qualified, with backup references to which i have referenced. The funny thing is that, you guys only review nonsensical articles which dosent deem fit. With my Other wikipedia account before i migrated here, i and the team at some point are appointed by the National Security Adviser Himself to create a digital presence. We worked on the wikipedia, with valueble references. But a random reviewer like you just trashed the work, claiming it to be pointless. I think its basically getting to a limit of racism and not education bro. I cited atleast 20 references in my recent work and you trashed it, claiming Nigerian references are Ambigous to you, GND and stuffs?? No vulgar, i should have said my mind.
Wikipedia shouldn't be easy to access i understand, but not with legit access. You guys are really making it tough. Please be considerate Amalgoni (talk) 02:15, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
@amalgoni: third sentence of the article. Whingan has dedicated himself to making a positive impact on society through his charitable endeavors. this is obviously promotional, and sentences like these are rampant throughout the draft. lettherebedarklight晚安02:21, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
I am highly sorry, new to the process....i thought if i don't find suppport here, maybe i will get there Amalgoni (talk) 02:59, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
SO MUCH promotional phrasing, also duplication of content in Lead and text, ditto duplication of refs. This has nothing to do with the subject being Nigerian. Do not disparage reviewers. Do not resubmit without addressing what the reviewer identified as not adequate. Quantity of refs does not count; quality does. David notMD (talk) 03:41, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
i have finished publishing my wikipedia page in the sandbox, but its still showing draft
Latest comment: 1 year ago7 comments5 people in discussion
I have finished working on the page, but in the sandbox, i am still seeing "draft", when will it published? Amalgoni (talk) 02:42, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Hello! You need to click on the blue button that says "submit draft for review." If it's not there, add {{subst:submit}} to the page. Once you click that, you need to wait for a Articles for creation reviewer to review it. This can take a couple of weeks. Hope this helps! If it is accepted, it will be moved to the article space from the draft space. Grumpylawnchair (talk)04:13, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Hello, Kindly understand that there is prounciation difference in africa, same word can yeild different pronunciation which i understand that english also entails. the Kenyan Pronounciation is slightly diffrent, maseno in kenya is pronounced as /masenoo/ while the yoruba peoples pronunciation is /macenaa/ /macenoo/ or something like that because the yoruba people understands A as O in any context. However kindly note that there is nothing as word/name copyright in Africa, as something entirely diffrent in Kenya can prove to be something else in Nigeria. The Nigerian Maseno Kingdom is of a small group of people who dates back to the early Nigerian Slave trade. They settled in Badagry, Lagos Badagry the slave center of Nigeria and are currently. The person i am writing about is a prince there. please reference to this "[1]https://www.jstor.org/stable/1159502" Amalgoni (talk) 15:04, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Hello there, I am glad you advised, however, note that all content here comes from my research. I don't understand how promotional my content is but right now, i am trying to remove anything promotional from it...For me, i think i should be referencing the thirdparty, in whose favor i am writing. His Achivements and everything. After Observing for a little of time, i observed what you mean. However, i don't mind if you give me a guide on how to remove promotional reference from context. I will be glad if you reply me back, i need a guide please Amalgoni (talk) 15:08, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago10 comments5 people in discussion
Hi Everyone, i need to know should we publish page directly or submit the draft and wait for the reviewer to publish it. Also, is there any indexing issue if we publish the page directly? Love2read&write (talk) 05:31, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
There's no requirement that an article be first submitted as a draft; in other words, anyone can be bold and create an article in the mainspace if they want. However, there's no guarantee that anything created directly in the mainspace will not quickly be nominated for deletion if it's found to not meet relevant policies and guidelines. If whatever is created in so bad that it's unsaveable, it might end up being deleted rather quickly without any warning or discussion. This is why newer or newish users without much experience at creating proper articles or who aren't very familiar with Wikipedia's various policies and guidelines are encouraged to submit drafts to Wikipedia:Articles for creation for review. This gives more experienced users a chance to assess a draft and provide suggestions on what they think needs improving. It also gives the draft creators a chance to work and learn at their own pace. Most drafts are going to be left alone unless they suffer from serious problems that require attention asap, but articles in the main space are there, for better or worse, to be edited by anyone who wants to edit them and there's not real way to stop others from editing them. Now, if by chance you're someone connected to the subject you want to try and create an article about, you probably should take a look at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for reference. What I posted about still would apply, but there are some other restrictions that may come into play depended up the nature of your connection to the subject of the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:22, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
hi @Love2read&write and welcome to the Teahouse! in addition to the above, pages are not indexed in search engines at first, however they are indexed after being checked by a new page patroller or after 90 days, whichever comes first, however I think those who do go through the AfC process are likely to be reviewed quicker if not immediately (though having created exactly zero articles, I don't really have firsthand knowledge on this). happy editing! 💜 melecietalk - 07:22, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Hello Love2read&write, most articles published directly end up quickly deleted. The idea behind submitting a draft and waiting for a reviewer, is that new users get feedback on why their article would be deleted and can fix those issues before publishing. Good luck, Rjjiii (talk) 08:13, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia guidelines are very broad and open. I often read them for clarity. As you mentioned in your previous comment, 'most articles published directly end up being quickly deleted.' Here, I want to understand if we create an article that adheres to WP:NPOV and presents the information in a friendly manner, would it still be subject to deletion? Love2read&write (talk) 06:30, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Can a dynamic IP evade a range block?
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, there's a long-term, disruptive, Chile-based dynamic IP who was taken to AN/I and range blocked (previously 1 week, then 1 month, now 3 months). If they again engage in disruptive editing, from IPs outside the blocked range, (a) is this block evasion and (b) should we give them a clean slate and begin with level 1 user advice, or should we give them sterner warnings (as would be the case for a fixed IP or registered user)? I made a note of the blocking admin's username. Note: it's clearly the same user's M.O.
@Esowteric If the block is still active, then it's block evasion. This would merit a level 4 warning, stating on their talk page that you believe them to be the blocked IP. I'd go straight to WP:AIV and report them, explaining your beliefs. An admin would then look at the IPs talk page and probably check out the contribs of the other IP and make an assessment. You could go back to WP:ANI (or to the original blocking asdmin), but it might be easier to report them immediately to AIV, and resort to ANI if your report gets turned down. (I turn down quite a few reports on the grounds of 'insufficient warnings' so anything that helps me quickly appreciate this is a block evading IP, or someone now using a different address but the same modus operandi is most useful.)
Follow-up: If it is found to serve no purpose to Wikipedia, can we please keep it anyway? I laughed far too long at it. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 22:21, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
given it's a special page that comes packaged with MediaWiki, i don't think it's possible to remove it anyway (or if it was, it'd be more effort than it's worth) 💜 melecietalk - 23:46, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago12 comments5 people in discussion
These don't seem to be used for anything anymore... You put questions on them, people don't answer. Instead of raising questions or discussing the article there, just go straight to prodding and AfDs or use edit summaries or just hack out/restore information. It just seems so pointless putting any sort of comments into the things. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 14:37, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Hello, since Wikipedia has 6 and a half million articles, it is possible that no one is keeping an eye on talk pages. If you haven't received a response, you may contact the relevant WikiProjects' talk pages. When I have useful information/sources to share, I like to put them in talk pages so other editors can reference them. Catalk to me!14:53, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Eh, it's more a general trend than any specific article. I realise people don't always have time to chat away on the talk pages or answer literally any question, it's more when people make reversions and the like without checking the talk page for reasoning, or prod rather than opening any sort of discussion about a page's problems first. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 15:03, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I'm guessing this is prompted by Special Executive. You have a valid point. A lot of editors watch recent changes. This means that a low-quality article can survive for a decade provided no one actually edits it, but the act of editing means it becomes visible, and someone suggests deleting it; improvement leads to deletion! Worse, AfD is desperately short of good contributors. If you take away the hard-core deletionists and keepers, who always !vote the same way (with little explanation), many AfD's come down to the opinions of two or three people at most.
The whole point of AfD is to discuss, so in a sense it doesn't matter whether the discussion is there or on the talk page. If getting engagement is difficult even at AfD, you'll probably get even less engagement on the article's talk-page. Also, talk-page discussions tend to be dominated by one or two individuals who keep that subject on their watch-list. Many of us are discouraged from talk-page discussions because whatever we say is met by a polite response that boils down to "It's been like that since I wrote it, and I know I'm right, so it's staying that way, because I have arrived at consensus with myself, and any disagreement with what I agreed with myself was right when I wrote it is obviously against this consensus." AfD discussions tend, at least, to be a bit more genuine. Elemimele (talk) 15:21, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Special Executive is what caused a bit of a boil-over, yeah, but without giving you a boring guided tour of spats it's not the first time similar has happened over whole articles or individual edits. IMHO the problem with AFD as a first point of debate is you're on the clock, and like you say there are Christopher Chopes in the area who just vote delete as a point of procedure, often as a mere drive-by. It's incredibly frustrating, and doesn't help when there's the usual cherry-picking of policies and dismissive jargon involved. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 15:26, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
The clock isn't as bad in practice as it looks. You have various options. If you think the article is salvageable but needs more time, you can always ask for draftification instead of deletion. If the article is deleted, you can also ask the deleting admin to refund it into draft-space or your sandbox for further work (it's a good idea to accompany your request with some evidence that the article can be improved, e.g. a source that exists and hasn't yet been properly used). And very often the 1-week clock at AfD becomes a 2- or 3-week clock because the closer (rightly) doesn't feel that two barely-justified !votes is enough. But we need more editors applying diligence at AfD. Elemimele (talk) 11:14, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
The clock is a bad thing when I can only pull so many publications from storage at a time and am currently focusing on other areas (having returned the related material for Captain Britain, Alan Moore and the SE in favour of a ton of Fleetway stuff as there was no indication the sources already included weren't satisfactory until some random discovered Twinkle and started mass-prodding) and AFD voters' due diligence largely involving hammering the article title into Google.
Draftification would in this case be a soft delete, IMHO - the only thing harder than clearing a new article past review is clearing a new version of a removed article, due to the aforementioned double standards. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 11:44, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Hello BoomboxTestarossa, confusion or exasperation seems warranted regarding the talk pages. I have had wildly different experiences, depending on the article. Sometimes it can just depend on who is interested. For example, I took part in a productive discussion on the seemingly niche topic of Giant human skeletons, but am still waiting on any kind of response over at the more widely watched Wikipedia:Manual of Style regarding how to cite comic book references. It can help to {{ping}} major contributors to an article or the specific editor who added material; this will create a notification for them when they log in.
On any Wikipedia article you can go to Tools (menu) >> Page information >> Revision history search (all the way at the bottom), and copy and paste a line from the article into the "search for" box. This will let you find out who added material into an article. For example, here are the results for "Prince Charles" on the Lion (comics) article. The diff shows that Terencemagee added this material back in November 2013 with the summary Just remembered an interesting fact about 'Lion'. I was the office boy in 1960 and had the job of sending issues off, including to Prince Charles!, indicating that his update was from personal experience. It doesn't hurt to leave a {{ping}} on the talk page, but as he has made less than twenty edits in the past decade, it's not likely that he is still an active editor. Rjjiii (talk) 15:15, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I've begun an informal RfC here regarding the potential removal of a timeline from an article. It hasn't generated any discussion yet, but I'm going to leave it open until I'm finished updating the rest of the article. My question regards my intended action should consensus fall on removal or if I still have WP:SILENCE.
Apologies that I don't know how to link directly to it, but there's a template at the bottom of the talk page template here that says,
What does that mean for me practically in regards to removing the timeline from the article? Would it be allowed? Would I break anything important? Thanks in advance. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 15:17, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
User:DrOrinScrivello, you're all good to proseify the timeline content and cut anything that doesn't seem relevant. The talk page template is saying the standalone timeline article shouldn't be deleted; there's nothing forbidding editing the material that's been split to the Roanoke article. Folly Mox (talk) 02:44, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments3 people in discussion
How do I increase the font size to Wikipedia's page, not necessarily items in left and right borders? Squay (talk) 16:35, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
Most browsers allow you to change the display font size. The pattern is often CTRL+ for larger, CTRL- for smaller, and CTRL 0 for default size. I don't believe there is any such facility in Wikipedia itself. ColinFine (talk) 18:56, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
Thank you! After increasing the font size by pressing Ctrl = ("=" instead of "Shift +") twice, I'm able to read the pages without some type of magnifier. And testing, by opening new Wikipedia pages, my new font size selection remained as my default. If I lose my new selection after turning my computer off, then on, and opening Wikipedia, I know, now, how to correct the font size.
@Squay: There is actually a way to change only the font size in articles. You can create your common.css page, and place only the exact text #mw-content-text p { font-size: 1em; } on that page – to alter the font size you can change the 1 to any other value like 1.5, which would make the font 1.5 times larger than normal. Tollens (talk) 17:34, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
Thank you! Your instructions seem to apply to a time in the future, perhaps, when I would want to create content for/in Wikipedia. I was not clear enough in my question that I just wanted to be able to read Wikipedia pages which, for some reason, began appearing in tiny font. I never intentionally changed the size of the font on the pages. I suspect that Sami, my female cat who likes to place herself between my keyboard and me forcing me to reach over and around her, especially when she sits up, may have caused this change. When she lies on her side she often stretches her "arm" onto my keyboard and has, more than once, triggered a change to my screen. (That's my story excuse and I'm sticking to it.)
Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments5 people in discussion
Hi, I recently created two articles on Wikipedia that are not "Patrolled" by anyone. However, both are important and are currently being searched on Google. The articles are about the Bhagwa Love Trap conspiracy theory, which is a topic trending on social media; another is about Sampat Prakash, a renowned Kashmiri Pandit and Trade Unionist who passed away on July 1, 2023. Kindly do the needful. ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 02:03, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
TheChunky Teahouse Hosts are not New Page Patrol reviewers. Only after your articles have been NPP approved or lacking a review, 90 days pass, would the articles be visible to search via Google pr other. Per your Talk page, you are an experienced NPP reviewer, and know all about this. David notMD (talk) 03:31, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
@JesseSeverson, do I understand it correctly that you want to put a logo on Draft:Modern Rail Capital? Logos don't go on Commons, that site don't accept "non-free" stuff. HOWEVER, IF your draft is accepted as a WP-article, you can then (not while it's a draft) upload a logo on Wikipedia, go to Wikipedia:File upload wizard and chose "Upload a non-free file". But again, only if and when your draft is accepted. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:09, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
JesseSeverson, in my opinion, that logo should not have been uploaded to Wikimedia Commons under a free license. You have allowed anyone to use the logo as they see fit, including competitors or railfans making t-shirts and coffee mugs. Was it your intention to dilute the copyright like that? This is intellectual property that your company has pretty much given away at this point. If that was not your intention, you should go to Wikimedia Commons and explain that it was uploaded in error, and ask for it to be removed. Try this page. Cullen328 (talk) 20:25, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Cullen is right of course, but if that is the company's intent, then I'm wrong above. They may have to prove that JesseSeverson represents the company though. I see also that the logo is marked "It does not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection," but I wonder if that's correct here. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:47, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
I am not a Wikipedia copyright maven, but I am a former professional publisher's editor and consequently somewhat familiar with copyright and graphic design – I am absolutely certain that the logo does meet the threshold of originality. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.177.243 (talk) 16:22, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
I agree with the IP editor. The logo contains creative artwork. I cannot imagine that it lacks copyright protection. Cullen328 (talk) 17:36, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Draft:CHINT Group
Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Good afternoon, please help me with my article. I want to publish an article, that I have already written. I specifically chose the topic for an article about a well-known company whose products I come across every day at work. I found a lot of great references in different languages and in the most reliable sources, but something went wrong. I want to publish an article so that I can expand it later. Thanks for the help friends LTTB (talk) 09:38, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, LTTB You have received various comments on your draft, and you should also read these notability criteria for businesses. Unless mainstream media have written about any business in detail and in depth - and you should ignore insider business newspapers and press releases - an organisation would not merit an article. There are millions of businesses in the world, and only a few get noticed by the wider public and get written about. Find sources that do that, and your problems are solved. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 11:42, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I understand, but I thought that my sources covered these requirements in full. because I have Significant, Independent, Reliable and Secondary referenses. Although I understand that I am most likely mistaken, since we are having a conversation here, and the article has not yet been in article space=) LTTB (talk) 16:43, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Well, for starters, nothing called a "company profile" is likely to be of any help for notability, and most information that comes only from such sources is probably not appropriate for an encyclopaedia article anyway. Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources.
Hello! I'm not an admin, but the article already has a cleanup tag for promotional content. It is the tag at the top that says "this article has content that is written like an advertisement." You may want to start a discussion on that article's talk page or add a request at WikiProject Cleanup. Grumpylawnchair (talk)19:59, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
So, the article Patit Pavan Mandir is up for deletion. It's a Hindu temple, and the nomination description is the temple is "totally not notable". It's the first temple that was built to allow all members of society to enter. Sounds significant right? I even found a newspaper with a two part, in depth article ABOUT the temple. [2][3]. I added it, and it was removed twice for "not being a reliable source" by an editor... the same editor that nominated the article for deletion, and I just realized it.
So, the guy who encouraged the temple to be built has his own article, and when he was in some kind of exile, he did a bunch of stuff for the lowest caste in his society, and none of that is in HIS article, that whole section of his life is blank when it's obviously important and... there is some political land mind here I don't comprehend.
The replacement for the text I added is a book that only has two sentences about the temple in it. And the text they used from the book is before that sentence (not about the temple) and the second sentence, but... careful skips the sentence that actually mentioned the temple.
Something is up and I am not sure where to go with it, but it looks like this period of this person's life (where they advocated for the most disadvantaged people of their society) is being erased from Wikipedia on purpose. Denaar (talk) 19:06, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Hello! The sources you've cited are from News Bharati, which seems to be a local newspaper that isn't citing any sources. The about section on News Bharati's website states that they "clear doubts resulting out of this left-liberal-secular propaganda." This points to a non-neutral source. All of this combined probably made that editor say that it isn't a reliable source. I'm pretty sure there isn't a cabal to erase this person's life off Wikipedia, guessing by the page's deletion discussion, where the consensus seems to be leaning towards "keep." Grumpylawnchair (talk)19:23, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
adding a topic
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello! What exactly do you mean by "start a new topic around the web?" If you mean to start a new article, please use the the Article wizard. That will create a draft article that will not be in the main Wikipedia article space. Once you are done editing the draft, you can submit it to articles for creation by clicking the blue button on the top of the draft. It can take several months for it to be approved, but when it is, it will be moved to the main article space. Hope this helps! Grumpylawnchair (talk)19:28, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia Page "Longest pieces of media by word count"
Latest comment: 1 year ago14 comments5 people in discussion
Hello, Bobbyjones81. I see that your draft lacks references to significant coverage of this topic by reliable sources. Such references are essential to creating an acceptable Wikipedia article. What leads you to believe that "Longest pieces of media by word count" is a notable topic? Cullen328 (talk) 18:38, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
I note that your list only contains works of fiction. Wouldn't a more accurate title be "Longest works of fiction by word count"--Shantavira|feed me18:50, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Right, I didn't think of that. I do think there is a good chance however that there are non-fiction pieces that have similar lengths. It is a lot to compile, and the stuff currently on the page serves as an example for what the page might look like. However if it would increase quality to focus specifically on fiction for the page, then that would definitely be better than what I currently have as the title and description of the page. Bobbyjones81 (talk) 18:56, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I am just compiling the list and seeing what the layout might be right now, I'll add sources.
as for notability, I was looking at List of longest diaries and others, I figure it would be beneficial to compile a comprehensive list of longest pieces of media by word count. This not only serves as an interesting comparison across various types of media, but also provides a resource for those interested in the topic of long-form content.
Of course, I am aware that simply having a list is not enough. Each entry would need to include references to reliable sources discussing not only the word count, but also the significance of the work itself. This is my next step and as soon as the guidelines for the list are nailed down, I intend to immediately work on this aspect, most of the information currently on the list can be cited, and entries that cannot, would of course be removed.
Bobbyjones81, I suggest that you read WP:BACKWARDS. Unless you can find reliable sources that devote significant coverage to the topic "Longest pieces of media by word count", then I do not see how it is possible to create this article. Cullen328 (talk) 19:00, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Oh I see what you meant. I was thinking that it would be possible to use sources that show word counts of the pieces of media, and compile the list together. I guess you are right because this has never been done before to compare this many different types of literature with their word count. What is WP:BACKWARDS? Bobbyjones81 (talk) 19:03, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
I was looking at List of longest diaries and figured I would do a similar type of list, just a list of diaries that have large word counts. Is it not possible to do the same thing with a broader range of types of literature? Or is there a reason why such a thing is not possible? If it's not possible, would it be possible to do exclusively stuff like novels and series? Bobbyjones81 (talk) 19:09, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Is it truly essential to have a news article as a primary source for collating and comparing the word counts of books in a chart? Much like the "List of longest diaries" page, these pieces of media are notable for their exceptional length, both in terms of word count and duration. I fail to see the absolute necessity for a news article to precede the creation of a page dedicated to comparing the word counts of books. I believe that with appropriate references and citations, this page can still maintain the standards of accuracy and reliability that Wikipedia upholds. Bobbyjones81 (talk) 19:16, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Is it truly essential to have a news article as a primary source for collating and comparing the word counts of books in a chart? Not for the exact contents of the list, no. Per WP:LISTN, The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Basically you just need to find sources that establish notability of the concept of "the longest pieces of media", which I would think shouldn't be tremendously difficult. WPscattert/c19:44, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Hello, due to a recent edit summary on Wikipedia:Requested articles/Arts and entertainment/Internet and tech culture, I was wondering if there are requested articles listed under "...Requested articles/United Kingdom" or something similar. It would be nice to let me know so that I can transfer one of the requested article entries into that page, if that page is appropriate for such entry.
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi there, I've submitted quite a few notable, published, secondary sources from major fashion/editorial/mainstream publications for Andrew Kung. Can you please let me know specifically what the issue might be? If a few of the sources are just passing mentions that verify Andrew's awards/prizes, should I take them out and leave the larger features/pieces for a secondary review? Thank you! Chocobunnee (talk) 12:49, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments4 people in discussion
I've written my first article about a musician. It's currently a draft in the Articles for Creation space. Since I'm an autoconfirmed user, I guess I can take the article out of AfC and publish it directly – but I'd like to get feedback here if possible, to make sure it's good enough in the first place. I mainly used secondary sources, but I also used two sources that seem to be somewhere between primary and secondary (at least the way I understand them).
Hello, CerebrumNonHabeo. AfC is entirely optional for autoconfirmed editors. In my opinion, your draft good and is ready to be moved to main space. No need to add to the burden on the AfC reviewers. Thanks for your contributions. Cullen328 (talk) 20:36, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
@CerebrumNonHabeo I agree with Cullen328 that your draft is fine to be moved to Mainspace, especially since AfC has a large backlog at present. It will still be reviewed by the WP:NPP but I don't think they'll see any issues. Mike Turnbull (talk) 20:59, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, would like an uninvolved editor to have a look at this one. I reverted a recent edit which had a summary suggesting CoI ("Revising article at artist's request ... "), and which was unsourced. I posted to the editor's Talk page re CoI. Editor has reverted my reversion and the addition I'd made of copyedit and BLP sources tags. Editor has left a summary implying that I may have a CoI - I don't, I'd never heard of this person until the article came up in Recent Changes. Not sure what to do here as further changes might just suggest further that I have a CoI, but I would prefer not to leave a BLP article in a poorly sourced state. Thanks. Tacyarg (talk) 22:56, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Is there a article about a Robert Haag on here? He buys and sells these things, and he was in the Tucson, Arizona area. Allegedly one was priced @ $20,000 US. Unfriendly Aliens (talk) 02:00, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments4 people in discussion
Hello! I'm interested in completely rewriting the article for Junkie by William Burroughs. The current article looks like it's barely changed since ~2005, nearly every paragraph has a Citation Needed tag dated 2017, it's filled with emotionally charged language like "agonizingly candid confessions", etc. It doesn't seem like there's much that's worth keeping.
Is there an etiquette to essentially ripping everything out of an article and starting from scratch? Should I create a draft and go through the new article review process? Is it better to make gradual changes instead? Or am I overthinking this, and I should just go ahead and be bold? Ghosts of Europa (talk) 23:27, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
With an article with just one citation, you shouldn't get pushback as long as you properly cite your version. It really depends what state the article is in whether a rewrite without discussion is acceptable by etiquette or not – on articles that are already decent, you should probably bring it up on the talk page or another place where interested editors will see, even just as a courtesy measure. Here though, basically anything with better sourcing is an improvement. Skarmory(talk •contribs)00:02, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Wikipedia:RECKLESS is a good
(edit conflict) Welcome to the Teahouse, Ghosts of Europa. Yours is a laudable aim. The only thing to definitely avoid is trying to create and submit to AFC a duplicate article that will run parallel to this one. Stick with fixing this one. My advice would be to start on the article talk page and explain your concerns and plans to improve the page. Point out the things that are wrong. Invite others to express an opinion. Leave it a week to get any feedback, and, if nothing comes of that, yes, WP:BEBOLD applies.
Now, you could work on a rewrite in your sandbox and invite other editors to contribute. When you're ready, you could then replace the article contents with your new version. Obviously, it should be based on Reliable Sources. You could even approach the major contributors to the page. The most active (and currently active, too) of them looks to be User:23skidoo. They might be able to offer an opinion and maybe even collaborate with you on a rewrite. Just remember that rewriting a whole article based on reliable sources is harder than making piecemeal improvements, using clear edit summaries of each step you make. Hope this helps a bit, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:07, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
@Ghosts of Europa: You'll get varying advice on this because people disagree. Some regular FA contributors seem to prefer ground-up rewrites. Most editors seem to work gradually.
My advice: start looking for sources and make a talk page entry. Mention you're doing a rewrite and list your sources on the talk page as you find them. If anybody wants to contribute they can join in at this point. Once you have the sources, you can just edit the article where it currently is. Also, if you change the awkward header like "Ginsberg as editor and literary agent" to something clearer, a bot may leave an error message on the article's talk page. The soulution is just to use the {{anchor}} template where appropriate in the rewritten article ({{anchor|Ginsberg as editor and literary agent}}). Hope this helps and feel free to {{ping}} me if you run into a snag, Rjjiii (talk) 04:47, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Should this character list be formatted in a table?
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion
I'm currently copyediting this article. As I've observed, some of the character descriptions go on for a few paragraphs and have no citations, while some of them are too short (one sentence long, to be precise). Would it be completely fine to format the character list into a simple table with basic summaries? Thanks, TarantulaTM (speak with me) (my legacy) 04:13, 7 July 2023 (UTC).
@TrademarkedTarantula: It's looking good! A quick glance back at the history shows how much more usable the Table of Contents has become. Also, those dark grey blocks in the "Miyagi-Verse" section should probably have something like ''none'' as their contents. Rjjiii (talk) 07:25, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Should article title terms be bolded in a note in the lede?
Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments3 people in discussion
The bolding in the draft as it currently is looks correct to me. As a note however, you shouldn't be emailing organizations to find out their preferred name. Not only is it pointless since it's not verifiable, the title of articles (and in fact everything in them) should be supported by what reliable sources are saying. WP:OFFICIAL titles are often not the proper ones for articles. See WP:TITLES for more info. WPscattert/c20:39, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
QuickQuokka it'd be much easier if companies kept the same name everywhere, but they rarely do.
Their official website URL company name, their website/logo company name, their official Companies House company name (I'm not sure what other countries use to check companies), and the name they call themselves in standard text, rarely match as I've found out from years of adding/correcting companies on IMDB.
A few months ago I updated a lot of Bollywood films which had filmed in the UK, and practically every company (mainly hotels from what I remember) had a different name to what they were actually called. And no it wasn't because the hotels had got new owners and changed their names since the films came out, although there were a few of those cases.
And sometime in the last month or two, on a production I can't remember, I spent hours/days searching for companies to find out what they were really called, because they were credited with their official names which were all completely different to what they were actually called on their logo, website, and in general. Danstarr69 (talk) 10:57, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Moving....
Latest comment: 1 year ago7 comments3 people in discussion
...Need a Admin to move everything from User:Unfriendly Aliens to User:Nuclear Sergeant. I attempted to log on here, got thrown out by a bad pass code on the former user page repeatedly. This is NO sock at all. Can the old User:Unfriendly Aliens page, etc. be deleted so that no one will have to worry about socks, worse? Thanks.Nuclear Sergeant (talk) 06:37, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Hello, Nuclear Sergeant, and welcome to the Teahouse. If you forgot or had problems with your password on your previous account (which you created on 6th July), you did the right thing by starting this new account and simply linking the two pages together on their respective userpages. We don't need to merge them together now, so, providing you never use the other account at the same time (that's called sockpuppetry), there's nothing else we need to do here. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:34, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
@Nuclear Sergeant No, that's not possible. I'm not sure what 'funny business' you might be envisaging, but you can add those user and talk pages to your WP:WATCHLIST and be alerted by email or onsite notification if any changes are made. You can adjust what alerts/notifications you receive (and how you get them) by going to your Preferences and changing the settings there. Hope this helps, Nick Moyes (talk) 11:44, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Read something called Compsock that states that, in my situation, I can have a Admin put a permablock on the old account. How can I have that done? Thanks 😘🥰 Nuclear Sergeant (talk) 11:41, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Your old account is not important enough for anyone to worry about, nor has it been compromised, per WP:COMPSOCK. Just leave it, and proceed with using your new account. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:46, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Conflicting links
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Hi, I'm not sure if they actually conflict? There seem to be two articles covering two different uses of the term "civil", one as the opposite of "criminal" and the other as the opposite of "common law". The Scottish article says that the English & Welsh court is civil as opposed to criminal (presumably making the point that it's different to the Scottish court, which is both criminal and non-criminal-civil). The English & Welsh article says the court is civil in the sense of not common-law, and then describes the Scottish court as having both criminal and non-criminal (civil) responsibilities. I'm no lawyer, but as far as that goes, it makes sense as English language. Am I missing the point? If I am, feel free to boldly change the links! Elemimele (talk) 12:52, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
You're right, Elemimele. It is elementary in the study of law in England and Wales (and no doubt other countries) that there are two completely seperate meanings for "civil law", as you have sketched. ColinFine (talk) 14:48, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Can I submit my page yet?
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
In its current form your draft would be declined as you only have a single source. It is nowhere near ready for submission to the Articles for Creation review process.
Every fact and statement in your article needs to be backed up by independent and reliable sources. This is so anyone can verify that the statements in your article are accurate and to ensure that your topic is notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. If you do not add any sources then I am afraid your article will never be accepted onto Wikipedia.ada
The easiest way to fix your article is to find reliable, independent, secondary sources that cover Diane in detail, and then summarise them in your own words. That should make up the content of your article draft. Note that the sources must be:
- Reliable: Your article should rely on strong, reliable sources that are published by reputable institutions. Primary sources can be used for basic facts (such as a date of birth), but they should be supplemented with strong secondary sources that offer analysis or interpretation.
- Independent: Your sources should be independent of the subject, for example not self-published or from the subject's own website.
- Show significant coverage: Your subject should be discussed in detail in the sources you find. The sources should provide in-depth information or analysis about the subject, going beyond basic facts or promotional material.
- From multiple places: You should find at least three separate reliable, independent, secondary sources that discuss your subject.
- Not original research: Wikipedia articles should summarise existing knowledge about a subject, not present new research. This means you should avoid drawing your own conclusions or analyses from the sources. Stick to summarising what the sources say in a neutral tone.
If you cannot find multiple, reliable, and independent sources then I am afraid that Diane would not meet the notability threshold at this time and therefore cannot have a Wikipedia article. Remember that Wikipedia is not a place for any type of self-promotion or advertisement. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia: not an advertising platform, directory, or a way to promote a subject.
Finally, please note that if you are connected in any way to Diane then you must declare your Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.
How to work on this issue "This biographical article is written like a résumé."
Latest comment: 1 year ago12 comments5 people in discussion
Hi, I am trying to create this biography page of Wibool Piyawattanametha. I have followed the format of these ( Feng Zhang and Olav Solgaard) previously published pages from wikipedia. However, I am having some issues with the format. How is this article considered as a resume although I have followed the same format of those 2 pages. Please provide some suggestions and advice on the necessary steps I need to follow in order to publish the page! Thank you! I would appreciate your advices. Aayushma Sharma (talk) 08:10, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
@Aayushma Sharma: disregard my question about paid editing. I see your post now where you say I am a student of Prof. Wibool. Many editors would still consider that a conflict of interest on Wikipedia. If you check out the link posted by 331dot, it describes something called a "request". No matter how closely affiliated you are, you are still always welcome to use the {{request edit}} template to update his page.
Additionally regarding looking for examples, Wikipedia has two tiers of peer review. The lower tier (WP:Good Articles) are reviewed usually by a single editor, and the higher tier (WP:Featured Articles) are reviewed by a group of editors against a stricter standard. Here the links for biologist biographies that have been reviewed at each of those levels:
Note that even as a student they could still be receiving compensation(a better grade, consideration for a job, etc.). 331dot (talk) 08:39, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
@Aayushma Sharma: the WP:COI policy page puts it like this, "You should generally refrain from creating articles about yourself, or anyone you know, living or dead, unless through the Articles for Creation process. If you have a personal connection to a topic or person, you are advised to refrain from editing those articles directly and to provide full disclosure of the connection if you comment about the article on talk pages or in other discussions. Requests for updates to an article about yourself or someone with whom you have a personal connection can be made on the article's talk page by following the instructions at WP:COIREQ." Rjjiii (talk) 14:50, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi, Rjjiii! I want some help regarding the article I am editing currently. Since I am still not so familiar with the wikipedia's policies and guidelines I would like to ask for help. Could you please help me to edit the article because I have tried my best to make it in neutral point of view. With that being said, I wanted further advice and suggestions in order to remove this template - "This biographical article is written like a résumé."
I would like to submit this article in order to get it published but first I have to edit the article according to the attached templates and remove those from the article itself. However, in order to do so I need some help from the editors. I tried asking for help with Gråbergs Gråa Sång and Cordless Larry but they might be too busy because they have not replied to my concerns yet. That is why I am here to ask for help! Many thanks for your time. Aayushma Sharma (talk) 13:46, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Published just means visible and searchable for all readers. That article already is "published" in the Wikipedia sense. Regarding, the problem templates, you should address the sourcing first. At a glance, I still see several "citation needed" tags. When I was looking through the sources, I noticed that they all seemed connected to the subject, either written by him or by an institution he was affiliated with. The article will be eventually deleted unless you find some (3 is usually taken as the minimum number) reliable, secondary sources, that discuss the article's subject beyond just mentioning him. And finally, you personally should not remove the COI tags given you are a student of Wibool Piyawattanametha. Once you resolve the sourcing, you'll need to find an editor with no connection to go through the article and check it out. If you do get everything ironed out, use the request template to make updates and correction in the future, or someone will the COI tag back. Rjjiii (talk) 19:01, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Articles about academics are particularly prone to coming across like résumés, in my experience. This might be because an academic can meet the notability criteria set out by WP:NACADEMIC by having lots of citations, etc., without much having been written about them as a person. So whereas we'd base most biographies on summarising what secondary sources say about the subject, those sources are often lacking for academics, leaving just a list of their achievements. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:18, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
(ec) Aayushma Sharma Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. It's preferred to refer to the content of the encyclopedia as articles, not "pages" which has a broader meaning. Though it sounds like it might be, it is not always a good idea to use any random article as a model or guide, please see other stuff exists. It could be that these other articles are also inappropriate and you would be unaware of this. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible to get inappropriate content past us. We can only address what we know about. If you want to use other articles as a model, use those classified as good articles, which have been vetted by the community.
Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about someone and their accomplishments(that's why your article was tagged as looking like a resume). An article about a person must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. Sources should describe what they see as important or signficant or influential about the person, not merely describe their accomplishments.
An example of "reads like resume" is including stuff like "Invited to be on a Plenary Session on Ethics in Science Communication at the World Science Forum, Budapest, Hungary." and " Senior Member Status" under "Awards and honors". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:56, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi, Gråbergs Gråa Sång could you please check the page again. I have made some edits onto the education and honors section. Since the status itself is a "Senior Member Status" I believe that is already in neutral point of view because I am not promoting any awards but listing the particular name of the award. Thanks. I appreciate your response. Aayushma Sharma (talk) 11:37, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
How to get signature for service hours from volunteering
Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments3 people in discussion
For my class, we have to get service hours and my teacher said I could do Smithsonian Wikipedia Digital Volunteers. I was wondering how I would be able to get the signatures saying that I volunteered? Masonwooldridge (talk) 19:26, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
I wonder if you could just share your contributions page with your teacher? This is at Special:Contributions/Masonwooldridge and would show every single edit you make, including how many bites of text you've added or removed.
There's no tool I'm aware of to show how many hours you've spent editing Wikipedia. One edit can take anything between 1 second and 1 hour to make. However, why not knock together a little spreadsheet in which you can record the times you log on and off Wikipedia to do some editing or learning. You could include a column to say what article(s) you were working on. That, together with the suggestions given above, should show very well how much effort you have made.
Furthermore, if you go to your userpage and click the 'Homepage' tab (try this link), you'll see an 'Impact' section. Once you've edited some articles, it will display the pages you have contributed to over the last 60 days that have been viewed the most. It's just indicative, but it can give us a nice way of seeing how our voluntary efforts get seen by others - even if all you've done is just swap a few commas to semi-colons! Good luck! Nick Moyes (talk) 20:25, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Question about AWB
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion
@QuickQuokka Hello again. I'm not sure I fully understand your questions.
In 1) I think you're asking if you can use the section on the Commons image page that shows where an image has been used to follow a link to the relevant language page to make changes to those other language articles. If that's what you mean then, absolutely yes, that's a very good way of doing things.
2) I believe AWB can be used on a number of other Wikipedias. But I very much doubt it cannot make automated global changes across different platforms at once. The spell-check function, for example, would be a nightmare. However, if you make a change to one single image on Wikimedia Commons that is used in multiple language Wikipedia articles, then that single image change will be seen on all those different Wikipedias without you ever needing to visit them. If you needed to replace the use of one image file with another, then I think you would have to visit each one, following the links in 1), above.
If you do have a very specific, practical need to work across different languages that you could explain more precisely, then you could do worse than re-ask your question at Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser. I'm afraid it's been a few years since I used AWB, and I only ever grasped a few of the basic functions! Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:06, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments3 people in discussion
I've just had an encounter with an editor who was adding spam links to the top of articles. They did this about seven times in about seven minutes. I was watching their contributions page and reverting their edits as they made them. Eventually an admin saw what was happening and blocked them.
In the future, how do I attract the admin's attention when persistent bad behaviour happens?
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello, I can see there was an article created for Gary Wales Actor back in 2014 but then deleted due to lack of sources, I think we need to look at him again. He has won many awards now and been talked about in lots of media outlets from his latest movie RAGE. 82.34.251.200 (talk) 01:06, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments4 people in discussion
I saw Ssundee, Zud, Biffle, etc. playing it on YouTube, and I thought it might be fun to play. My birthday is coming up, so I was wondering if it is worth getting. Marble Gamerz YT (talk) 13:42, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
This page is for questions about editing Wikipedia. We cannot provide opinions, and people's opinions will be different anyway. This is a question more suited to a social media site at which you might find people more familiar with this game. Shantavira|feed me14:19, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
To be fair, an earlier uw-chat1 notice actually suggested that If you have questions or ideas and are not sure where to post them, consider asking at the Teahouse.Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs16:34, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
It received a 9/10 on Steam, 70% on OpenCritic, and a 6/10 on Nintendo Life, and 91% of Google users liked it. From the Wikipedia page: Golf with Your Friends received "mixed or average" reviews, according to review aggregatorMetacritic. The game scored a 9 out of 10 from Lyle Carr of GodIsAGeek.com. J. Brodie Shirey of Screen Rant gave the game four stars out of maximum five, "Excellent". While he admitted Golf with Your Friends might have "minor faults", he described the game as "fun" and "colorful". Richard Dobson of The Xbox Hub sent out a 3.5-star review. A.J. Maciejewski wrote a review at Videochums.com based on his knowledge of the Xbox One version, rating 4.9 points of possible 10 to the game. So... maybe if you like golf? Try asking on Quora next time. Chamaemelum (talk) 07:18, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
COI editing
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I may have a COI with Northwestern University. If so, can I still edit articles related to Northwestern University, such as persons affiliated or employed by them? Chamaemelum (talk) 07:09, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Do you have a question about editing Wikipedia? This is what this page is for. If you want information about writing a resume for a banker, please use Google. Qcne(talk)12:50, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago9 comments6 people in discussion
the entry regarding this US Civil war vessel is completely inaccurate. How do I go about changing the text, please. I have already tried to log on to do this, but the article remains unchanged. *1quincey* (talk) 16:19, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
@*1quincey* Welcome to the Teahouse. Your edit {see here) was reverted by an admin, User:Discospinster, as it made a very significant change to the article, and damaged it significantly by removing content and making a mess of it. We don't address concerns about an article by annotating and damaging the page itself - that's bordering on WP:VANDALISM.
The thing to do now is to go to the article's talk page and explain your concerns, citing sources that clearly show that the article has confused two vessels and await the input of other editors. The clearer and more precise you can be, and the better your sources, the more seriously will your concerns be taken. If, however, there are two notable vessels, it may be necessary to create a completely new page for the other vessel, with some clarification to help users determine which vessel is which. We use a thing called a HATNOTE for that. In future, please do not make major changes to articles like this, but alert other editors to any concerns via the Talk page tabs. I hope this helps you. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 16:29, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
I would very strongly refute any charge of vandalism. I was trying, to the best of my knowledge, to remove the inaccuracies inherent in the article, but since there are no clear indications as to how you do change things with articles such as this, I clearly didn't do it correctly. I would have asked for help, but until I found this particular site, I had no idea of who I should ask. Thanks *1quincey* (talk) 16:46, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
@*1quincey*, you aren't being "charged" with anything. "Vandalism" is often used loosely on Wikipedia to describe any negative change to an article, and I would certainly say your edit constitutes it. But don't worry, there isn't any kind of "strike" system. As long as you learn the proper way to edit articles (see H:GS for a start) and don't continue to do it improperly, past mistakes don't count against you or anything like that. WPscattert/c17:04, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I give up. I went to the 'talk' page for the article on USS Glasgow, but all I get is page after page of bumf. Nowhere can I find a 'form' or similar, that I can use to put a question to somebody. Every time I click on something that looks useful,I am landed with yet more pages of stuff. Why is it so very difficult to find someone to talk to? *1quincey* (talk) 17:10, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
I've replied to your message at Talk:USS Glasgow, giving instructions on how to post your concerns. I'm sorry you're having issues figuring out Wikipedia's user interface, but unfortunately the things you're seeing "pages after pages of bumf" don't correspond to what everyone else sees so not sure where you are going wrong... Qcne(talk)18:43, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
i need a wikipedia editor who can make our wikipedia.
Latest comment: 1 year ago7 comments6 people in discussion
i want to get my wikipedia page made, i am a youtuber. i have 0 clue about how this wikipedia works. please help. i have been scammed alot by fake wikipedia editors alot. Dilrajsinghmih (talk) 04:57, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
@Dilrajsinghmih An article about you has already been deleted more than once following this discussion. It seems very unlikely anyone will want to assist you create another version, unless there are now many decent sources of information about you that could be used. If there are, please list them here in this thread. Mike Turnbull (talk) 08:31, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
hi Mike ,
so basically , i am a youtuber from india. my channel is "Mr. Indian Hacker" and i have over 31 million subscribers on Youtube. since i am an independent creator, i never knew about wikipedia and knowledge panel. recently i got to know about it from fellow creators, so i want to make mine also.
I don't know why i am blacklisted and why my articles were deleted, i don't even know who made my wikipedia. I really need help.
To authenticate that i am the geniune, you can drop me a text on my instagram account that is - Dilraj_Singh_Rawat. Just let me know your instagram username too. Dilrajsinghmih (talk) 12:16, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Hello, Dilrajsinghmih, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid that, like many people, you have a fundamentally wrong idea about what Wikipedia is.
First, nobody in the entire universe "has a Wikipedia page". People sometimes use that expression loosely, but unfortunately it suggests that the subject in some way owns the article: they don't. If there is ever an article about you, it will not belong to you, it will not necessarily say what you want it to say, and it will be based almost entirely on what people wholly unconnected with you have published about you, not on what you or your associates want to say. It may not contain any promotional content.
Wikipedia is basically not interested in how many subscribers you have, or how famous or popular you are, but only on whether or not you meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability - and unless those independent reliable sources about you exist, you will not do so. ColinFine (talk) 14:46, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Character has two different names, which one should I use?
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I'm editing the Clay Kids page. A character is called Jessie on the official website and the official Facebook but she is called Jessi (without the end e) in the theme song and also in S2 E31 - "A Day in the Jessi". Which name should I use? Thank you so much! - DaClayCrew (talk) 08:15, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
You can change the name as long as you provide the source. If another editor disagrees with the change and reverts it back, you should start a discussion on the article's talk page in order to not have an edit war breaking out.
I've drafted and submitted an article for the sandbox. With assistance from the Response Team, I moved the text to the Draft page and made some corrections. That page reads "Editing Draft: History News Service." "Edit Source" is underlined toward the top on the upper right. I'm told that I have only to hit the "Submit for Review" button. But I don't see such a button anywhere. All that I see is a button at the bottom that says "Publish changes." In short, I'm stuck. What must I do to submit the piece for review? Jmbanner35 (talk) 14:19, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
"Publish changes" should be understood to mean "save", it does not mean "publish this to the encyclopedia". I have added the appropriate information to your draft to submit it, this is provided automatically if you create drafts via WP:AFC. Please read conflict of interest as well. 331dot (talk) 14:27, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
At this point, I'm nervous about hitting a single button! So how/where do I find the "appropriate information" you've added to my draft? Simply hit the "reload current page" on my browser, or go to some link that you can provide? And will I find a place before submitting the piece to indicate my consideration of conflict of interest issues? Gratefully. Jmbanner35 (talk) 14:37, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Ah, now I see. It now says "Submit the draft for review." But one problem: I can't seem to change the font size of Note 5. Also, is there any place where I can acknowledge the possible issues regarding conflict of interest--that, necessarily, I have to be the author and submitter of a piece about an organization that I co-founded? Jmbanner35 (talk) 15:01, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
I fixed up the formatting a bit and added a References section at the bottom. If place your references in the body of the article using our standard format - see Help:Referencing for beginners - they will automatically appear in the bottom section (due to the {{reflist}} template I placed there). 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:07, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
My great thanks for your tweeks and the suggestion about a disclosure statement. But 1)I can't find an example of one to use as a model and 2) I don't know where I should add it to the text you've been kind enough to edit. I don't want to submit it until I get your advice on that score for fear of jeopardizing the submission. So can you help me there, too? Jmbanner35 (talk) 16:36, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
@Jmbanner35, I gave you an example in my first post. There's also an example at the page I linked, WP:COIDISCLOSE - it's in the box labeled UserboxCOI template. Another option is to click the blue link here - {{UserboxCOI}} - and read the Usage section. You need to add it to your user page, User:Jmbanner35. I can't do it for you since user pages are protected against IP edits (though someone with an account may volunteer to help).
I see you like to use the Visual Editor, which tends to insert <nowiki> tags in unhelpful places. Remove them if they pop up (or, again, perhaps someone will come along to do it for you if they appear). 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:44, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
On my user page, I have taken care of the grounds for anyone's misconstrual of my authorship of the piece as a conflict of interest. But you've confused me with your re-do of the footnote, and I can't figure out how to return it to its original place and form. Might you restore it so that I can, even in this perhaps defective footnoting style, submit the piece? A novice, I don't want to take risks; but also, like you, a busy man, I want to get it off my desk and in the works. Jmbanner35 (talk) 17:17, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
I don't understand. Mike Turnbull fixed the reference to show you how it should look. If you submit the draft with the references in their current state, it may well be declined. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk]13:21, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
The Publish changes button? Issues with it have been brought up more than once, but apparently it was an "above our heads" type of decision (see relevant help desk post for background and links to more background). 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:32, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Edward-Woodrow The decision to have the button say "publish changes" was made by the Foundation and its lawyers, I think, in order to emphasize that all edits to Wikipedia are public. 331dot (talk) 17:47, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Once I get a reply about the errant footnote from Mike Turnbull and correct it, should I then just hit the "Submit the draft for review" prompt? Jmbanner35 (talk) 18:36, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Jmbanner35, I highly recommend that you convert your references into proper inline references before submitting your draft. This makes things much easier for reviewers. To any experienced editor, your references appear to be a confusing mess. Please read Referencing for beginnersCullen328 (talk) 18:46, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Jmbanner35, you have not fixed your references. You have numbered them manually. Properly formatted inline references are numbered and displayed by the software, and readers can navigate back and forth from the content to the references with just a click. Please take care of this. It is important. Cullen328 (talk) 20:21, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Click this button!The references are not properly formatted, as the reviewer and Cullen328 commented. Do not just type numbers in square brackets, like this: [4]. If you are using the VisualEditor, click the "Cite" button, and it will help you generate and edit a reference. Proper references look like this [1]. I strongly suggest you use the Visual Editor, which, besides being easier to use, allows you to generate references based on a URL. We want to help you, but you can't ignore this problem. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk]20:38, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
My thanks. But after all this, the piece was at least temporarily rejected on substantive grounds. For the moment, I toss in the towel. Jmbanner35 (talk) 13:45, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
References
^Meshew, Catherine. "Scolopendra gigantea". Animal Diversity Web. Archived from the original on 20 Mar 2023. Retrieved 2023-06-03.
How do you add a box saying citation is needed?
Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Latest comment: 1 year ago8 comments4 people in discussion
I have never submitted an article for consideration, yet have been experimenting within a sandbox.
On July 8th, my sandbox was nominated for speedy deletion (G11 / Promotion) and then deleted within an hour or two without discussion.
The page was never submitted for publication, nor did I intend to submit the page for publication without learning more about editing, notability, suitability, etc.
What is the most expeditious way to have my page restored so that I may, at minimum, copy and move the syntax offsite and start over at a later date?
Please note that I have left msgs on the talk pages of both the user who nominated the sandbox page for speedy deletion and the admin who removed the page, but I have not yet received any replies.
My main concern: will me syntax be permanently erased while I wait for replies from either / or the user who requested that the sandbox page be speedily removed or the admin who removed the page?
This is all troubling in light of the fact that this was an experimental page created in good faith accoring to the sandbox page description.
hi @Skate history and welcome to the teahouse! from what I know, deleted drafts are never truly deleted from the Wikipedia servers (deletion is just more akin to hiding from public, non-administrator view, and admins can also undelete them if they so choose). the usual place for deletion is over at Requests for undeletion, however these would not accept deletions for advertising criteria (and only typically undeletes for procedural deletions like stale drafts), so I believe the best course is requesting Justlettersandnumbers to undelete your draft (and maybe sent through email) by explaining why you believe the draft wasn't advertising. happy editing! 💜 melecietalk - 01:51, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
melecie, I really appreciate your response and help! Couple of follow-ups:
I can't seem to find an email address for justlettersandnumbers. Am new to this. I know my email is found on my homepage, for example, but I am not seeing a homepage for them. Any pointers as to location?
@Skate history: You can try a restoration request at WP:REFUND. However, I saw your draft and I agree it came across as a publicity piece, not an encyclopedic biography. However, I think it may be salvageable and would support restoring it, even if Justlettersandnumbers (the deleting administrator) and Bbb23 (the administrator who nominated it for deletion) disagree. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:35, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Thank you. Still learning and am absolutely willing to revise in a way to remove any publicity tone. In the meantime, I am really trying to grab the syntax to use as a template for certain aspects (quotes, photo insertions, tables, etc) whether I decide to ever submit the subject of the sandbox as an article or not. I'll wait for the admins' response to my requests and then will follow your advice as to the refund route. Much appreicated! Skate history (talk) 02:45, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Thank you, ColinFine. I understand now that there is no need to try to email the deleting admin. I have left a note on their talk page and will await their reply to my request. Skate history (talk) 17:27, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
@Heimi Weiss Welcome to the Teahouse. Yes, it always does that by default unless you specify moving a page without making a redirect. It's so anyone watching or working on that page can find the article in mainspace after it has been moved. But normally, it's only the sandbox owner who works on it, so you don't really need the redirect. You can now simply edit the page and remove the redirect, and then use your sandbox for some other purpose. Hope this helps, Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 16:31, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
@Heimi Weiss, welcome to the Teahouse. Nick Moyes has explained it pretty much here - feel free to remove the redirect in your sandbox if you need to. Alternatively, if you want to delete the redirect, you can place {{db-user}} on the top of the page as users can request deletion of their user pages under the U1 section of the criteria for speedy deletion. In your case, because all previous versions of the contents of the page prior to the page move was written by you, you can request deletion of your user sandbox redirect if you wish to. Regards — Prodraxis {talk • contributions} (she/her) 17:08, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
How to revert multiple IP edits on different pages
Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments4 people in discussion
I have come across an IP which has made multiple problematic edits on a couple of dozen pages. I am wondering what tools are available for me to revert them all at once. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 08:06, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
I see. Is there a quicker way than going on each page and reverting them one by one? E.g. reverting them directly from the IP's page itself. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 14:59, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
@Dawkin Verbier I find the easiest way is to go to the offender's contributions page and then shift-click on each article entry I intend to revert. In most browsers, that will open a new browser instance/window where their edit was made, which I can then revert and immediately close the window to return to the main contributions list ready to do the next one. If you use the same edit summary each time you revert, you can paste that in without having to retype it each time. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:57, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
@Dawkin Verbier, you have the rollbacker right, so you can use Writ Keeper's massrollback script. Add this line to your common.js page:
Then on a user's contribution page you should see two new menu items "Rollback selected" and "Rollback all" which will allow you to rollback a number of edits all at once. As with any use of rollback, be careful that you are using it in accordance with the rollback guidelines. CodeTalker (talk) 18:43, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Matt Godden
Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments2 people in discussion
The article for Matt Godden has been vandalized three times this evening. I have posted a warning on the vandal's talk page. The website won't let me undo three edits in one go. I'm prepared to manually revert it, but I'm curious if there's an easier way... WorcestershireHistorian (talk) 18:30, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Is it ok to notify users that an ANI exists who would be likely to support me in an ANI, or is that seen as bad? Also, how do involved editors usually find an ANI when it's not posted about anywhere besides the noticeboard? Chamaemelum (talk) 19:21, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Ok, got it. Thanks! Wasn't sure if that applied to ANIs. I'm also wondering how might the involved editors, who usually don't take part in those discussions, found the ANI? Chamaemelum (talk) 19:45, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Involved editors who show up at ANI likely have it on their watchlist. They may also be watchlisting your user talk page, and thus would see that you were notified of the discussion. Specifically looking at your ANI thread now, most of the editors weighing in on your case are ANI regulars (or at least have been around the block a few times before): it would be weirder if they didn't show up to the discussion. signed, Rosguilltalk19:52, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
In https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinker_(boat_building) there is referenced "Stringer" which links to shipbuilding which includes "stringer" which links to a Wiktionary page where the third bullet point is what the Clinker page was referencing. Is there a way to have it when Stringer on clinker is hovered over with mouse to preview the appropriate definition from Wiktionary? Purin66 (talk) 23:32, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
I don't believe so, and I'm not sure how useful that link would be anyway. A dictionary definition is quite short and it seems more convenient for readers to just add a parenthetical of the definition if necessary. I'm not sure how common it is to link to wiktionary inline like Shipbuilding does but I don't recall seeing it before. WPscattert/c23:45, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
How to reach a consensus on the request to withdraw a hatnote without affecting your own comments?
Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments2 people in discussion
This request is happening on another wiki, osrs wiki, however they follow most of the guidelines here, it is a wiki focused on a game but I think the situation is understandable and adaptable.
There are certain types of subpages that are for special and specific information, a little more oriented towards the interaction that a player can do in-game and are exposed in hatnotes in the main articles. There are some hatnotes that contain disambiguation pages, the information in all of them are as simple as data table templates that can be reflected anywhere.
Some propose removing this type of hatnote and leaving it in a section with the reflection of the tables within the main article and the redirection link.
These categories are in practice important to highlight for ordinary players, others think differently and also consider that the size of the hatnotes is too large and a waste of time at the first impact of opening the article and add that the data reflections in a section It is more informative, I think that being there they would lose interest and despite the data it does not fully demonstrate what is necessary to decide to click on the redirection to said subpage.
I would accept that they remove the hatnote only if they keep a really informative alternative in the front of the page, I had an idea to make said table hideable behind a small button at the other end of the title, however I can't find the ways to make said dropdown. I have seen that only admins can do it, and several solutions occur to me, however I cannot without the acceptance of others.
I understand that this is not a topic for Wikipedia, I don't know how to reformulate this more neutral, think of it like this, something to guide me speaking with real terms from Wikipedia in a hypothetical scenario.
Hello, I fixed my comment.But yeh, it is a talk page where there are very different opinions that can affect the reality of the desired result, I think that until now there is a way to achieve something better, but the proposed ideas are the most voted. Eliasneg (talk) 15:25, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments3 people in discussion
Is there any tool that can be used to plug in and modify a given example of a piped internal link across pages, such as those that might have changed or need redirecting due to a page move, split or other change that affects page navigation? Iskandar323 (talk) 08:48, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
I think I need a bit more explanation here. Are we saying Page X got moved to Page Y, and you're trying to fix links that are [[Page X|Page Y]] to be [[Page Y]]?
Still, I think no matter what, my instinct is this is something you'd just use AWB for, but I'm not particularly knowledgeable on what tools exist. Skarmory(talk •contribs)09:40, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
@Bart Terpstra, you should not revert any edits on the page you were warned for edit warring on as you are involved in an edit war, where you revert to your preferred version of the page. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 12:41, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
public wikipedia for Song writer and entrepreneur in Laos
Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments3 people in discussion
i need help to public post in wikipedia which i try for atleast 7 month by now from january to july please help to guideline public Shinteamevo (talk) 11:30, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
@Shinteamevo I assume that this relates to your User Page, where you have placed a draft biography which was nominated for Speedy Deletion last January but for reasons I don't know was never actually deleted. User Pages are not places to create autobiographies and indeed we strongly advise against any such writing for the reasons given at that link. Note that we have special rules for biographies of living people which you would have to meet to have any hope of a draft being accepted. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:02, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
i have to use autobiography the link you given is that collect ? i have draft in sandbox i can copy paste right sir ? Shinteamevo (talk) 12:05, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
@Shinteamevo You have correctly pasted the information from your Userpage into your Sandbox. So I have deleted the duplicate content on your Userpage. You are allowed to create that page again, but not for making draft articles.
There are no references (citations) in your draft article, so how do you know any of the information now in your Sandbox is correct? Therefore, I must ask: Are you writing about yourself, or do you know the person you are trying to publicise, and of whose picture you took and uploaded?
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi. My Wikipedia skills got quite rusty over the years and I was never really too active on en:WP. Perhaps someone can help me out with a quick insight in how to deal best with edits done in malicious intent. I noticed a POV edit in the article Trusted Shops. Typically in de:WP I would simply revert the changes - but I work for Trusted Shops and want to avoid any WP:COI. What is the preferred way of handling this? Leaving a note on the associated talk page and see if a wikipedian reacts to it? Thanks. Avatar (talk) 13:31, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
Avatar Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The first thing that you should do is make the Terms of Use required paid editing disclosure. This applies to you just as an employee, you don't need to be specifically paid to make edits.
The usual thing to do in this situation is to make a formal edit request(click for instructions) on the article talk page, detailing the issue. This will draw attention to it. If you feel that the edit is unambiguous vandalism- meaning that no reasonable person would disagree with you removing it- you may do so yourself, but should still note the change on the article talk page. Removing vandalism is a permitted area in which a COI editor may directly make COI related edits. 331dot (talk) 14:09, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
Per {{Cite web}}, that template is used to create citations for web sources that are not characterized by another CS1 template. Thus I would think {{Cite act}} is the correct template to use, assuming that source is indeed a legal act. WPscattert/c22:38, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago16 comments5 people in discussion
Hi,
I don't understand why they say there is a lack of realable sources when there are plenty of sources. I looked at pages of other authors where they only put 2 sources. I put a lot of sources because they were telling me they were missing. From my point of view there are too many and I would put a third.
"Too much of the content is unreferenced" What's content?
They also asked me: "Not clear how you pass WP:NARTIST?"
Derivadeb Hello and welcome. Please note that while not forbidden, it is highly discouraged for people to write about themselves, please read the autobiography policy. This is in part because people naturally write favorably about themselves, and Wikipedia strives for a neutral point of view.
"Content" refers to the text of the draft itself. All information in the draft needs to have a citation to a reliable source. "WP:NARTIST" is Wikipedia jargon to provide a link to the special Wikipedia definition of a notable artist.
Any article about you should primarily summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose on their own to say about you, showing how you meet that special notability definition. The draft should not merely describe your work and accomplishments, it should tell what others consider to be important or significant or influential about you and your work.
Please also note that the existence of other articles has little relevance to your draft. It could be that these other articles you have seen are also inappropriate and simply have not been dealt with yet by a volunteer. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate articles to get by us. We can only deal with what we know about. If you want to use other articles as a model or guide, use those classified as good articles. 331dot (talk) 13:51, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi,
thanks for your reply.
Really don't understand why you say me that I'm writing about mysef, when that's not true.
If you read what I write about the artist there is only the description of how she works; nothing else.
To edit the article, I looked at more than one entry on contemporary artists. I can assure you that I carefully observed their writing to stick to the standards.
With respect to my article, since I was asked, I added a lot of sources covering articles published in the national and international press, as well as published books. This is not the description or a resume about the artist, rather these references are indicative of the artist's notoriety.
From my point of view there are far too many references, and I would yoglive more than half of them, but since I am continually chioesto add new ones it is impossible for me to figure out what kind of summary to affix to the article.
It is not helpful to accuse me of writing about myself or to throw a work done with dedication into the trash.
Derivadeb As pointed out by a draft reviewer, you said "I'm know as Laura Cazzaniga and Laura Pinta Cazzaniga". Perhaps this was a language misinterpretation. Do you know her personally?
Let's simplify this a little. What are your three absolute best sources that give Laura Cazzaniga significant coverage and describe what makes her important? 331dot (talk) 14:29, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
I was tired, and I did an error. I also write about her in third person.
Ok, will put only the 3 best sources.
In any case I notice that you pay more attention to an error than to content. So, the impression is that you are more open to censoring an article than to reading and constetualizing a person's work.
Hello, Derivadeb, and welcome to the Teahouse. The bit you are missing is that Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources.
Your draft says, for example, Her research is developed in the field of Installation art and Site-specific art. Which reliable published source, wholly unconnected with Cazzaniga, has said this about her? (Not herself, her agent, her teacher, her professional association, or a gallery that exhibits her work, but somebody entirely unconnected). If the answer is 'none', then a non-neutral statement like that does not belong in the article. ColinFine (talk) 14:55, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
About: Her research is developed in the field of Installation art and Site-specific art. Which reliable published source, wholly unconnected with Cazzaniga, has said this about her?
it seems more appropriate to me to put the sources after explaining her work in totality, at the end of the career paragraph.
As for art practice, normally it is the work that speaks; whether it is installation or site-specific art can be seen from the photos of the works that accompany the sources. If anyone does not know what installation art is, wikipedia explains it well. Derivadeb (talk) 16:32, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
I say this because there are several articles that talk about her work (of an installation; a site-specific art intervention or action). So, it seems absurd to me to have to put after "Her research is developed in the field of Installation art and Site-specific art" a whole slew of articles, whereas I could point to these articles as I talk about some of her works. Derivadeb (talk) 16:39, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
Derivadeb How to properly source content lesson 1.
When you've added a piece of information on a specific subject, like a single sentence, or a single paragraph, add a reference to prove what it says in that sentence/paragraph.
Make sure the cursor is after the full stop, press cite, paste in the link, then press generate, then press insert.
Now, click on the reference you've just added to make sure everything is filled in correctly, as some websites put things in the wrong places, plus a lot of websites don't add all the relevant pieces of information.
What needs to be checked and filled in?
Name of the website
Title which is the title of the article in the link
URL access date which is the date you added the link
Source date which is the date the link was written (if it has one)
First name and Last name which are the first and last names of the person who wrote the article (if there is one)
Language which normally isn't needed, unless the language isn't English.
How to properly source lesson 2.
If a reference can't be created automatically, then add it manually. How do you do that?
After you've pressed Cite, you then press Manual, click on the type of reference you're using (I always use website 99% of the time, even when I'm adding a book, journal or news story), then fill in the relevant boxes. For example, if the link is for a ebook, then you'll need to add things that you wouldn't normally add for a website like Page numbers.
All of the references you've added so far can be converted to proper references by clicking on them, pressing the Convert button, then pressing the Insert button, like you normally would when adding a reference. Danstarr69 (talk) 04:06, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, I am an employee of an organization, and I would like to suggest some edits for the company Wikipedia's page as some of the existing content is not accurate or up to date. Is the "talk" and "add topic" tabs the best way to submit these suggestions? Should I be creating an account instead? Thank you. 216.191.223.35 (talk) 18:33, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I would correct you in that you should not think of it as your "company's Wikipedia page", but a Wikipedia article about your company, no different than if the New York Times wrote about your company. The company does not own it and has no special rights to it- at least no more than any other editor. Yes, the Talk page is the proper place to offer suggestions for changes. If you mark your talk page post as a formal edit request(click for instructions) it will draw the attention of other editors who will evaluate your request.
First, please read about conflict of interest and paid editing for information on required formal disclosures. It is easier to make the required paid editing disclosure with an account, but even if you choose not to create an account, you must disclose. 331dot (talk) 18:36, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
info box weirdness
Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments3 people in discussion
Hello. Newbie here; this is my first visit to the Teahouse. I did a minor edit in an info box in Mormon missionary#Returned missionaries, and for some reason, after I published changes, the info box is now shifted to the left side of the page, instead of being on the right side with the article type wrapping around it, which is how it was before. Did I do something wrong? How can I fix this? Thanks in advance. Yesthatbruce (talk) 03:42, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
Yesthatbruce asking a legitimate question isn't a "bother," so there's no need to apologize. I'm glad that the info box problem seems to have resolved itself. Thanks for deciding to help out as a Wikipedia editor. Best wishes on all of your future editing projects. Karenthewriter (talk) 05:17, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
@Yesthatbruce Just to introduce you to a piece of Wikipedia jargon, an infobox normally refers to the formatted section top right of many articles that summarises the topic. Mormon missionary doesn't have one: it only has a simple picture where an infobox might go. You were editing within a section of the article where an {{infobox}} template had been used to create the gallery of images etc. for returned missionaries. That's a relatively unusual use of the template and I'm not surprised that was confusing! Thanks for your contributions. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:16, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks but no I did not see it. I'm new at this and don't know where to go. Will it be in notifications? Only your reply was there Pinaforemom (talk) 17:33, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
If you go into Preferences, Editing, then down to Discussion pages, there is an option to automatically subscribe. It will tell you whenever somebody messaged in a thread you are in. ✶Mitch199811✶17:46, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, by preferences where do you exactly indicate I go? In Wikipedia overall on the main page? Thanks again, I found settings, preferences, editing, discussions, Automatically subscribe to topics yet I find another bug... this setting will not save, after repeated attempts. Pinaforemom (talk) 19:05, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, yes, repeatedly, using android Firefox browser alone, and with desktop view. Now I'll try a different browser also Pinaforemom (talk) 19:41, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments3 people in discussion
I've done something dumb to a table in an article I'm prepping and I can't see what! =-O What stray line has left me with that thin empty column on the end?
Hi BoomboxTestarossa. Welcome to the Teahouse. I've fixed it for you with this edit. That annoying extra column was caused by one too many pipe characters (|) in the 'look and learn' section. The trick to finding the offending character is to start at the top and count how many times you have to hit the 'down key' in order to reach the next |- set of characters that dictate a new row. It was seven every time, except for just the one where I counted eight. Just clearing it out has fixed it. It's a perfect example of why it's always best to work on tables in one's sandbox. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:11, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
@Cog-san: If you are talking about making a report at WP:ANI, then yes. You are required to notify the person you are reporting. See the note at the top of the page. RudolfRed (talk) 19:53, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, YRhyre The answers, in order are as follows:
Yes, content should be a summary of what's in the main text of the article. If it's not included in the main text, it should be referenced in the Infobox. See WP:INFOBOXREF
There are >6 million articles on en.wiki alone. In past years we were less fussy about WP:V than we are today. Many old articles with unverifiable content in infoboxes still remain.
Fix them when you find poor ones. Or use the {{cn}} template to flag unverified content, or simply delete unverifiable content with a suitably informative edit summary.
They are intended as a quickly-accessible summary of an article's key points. I suggest you might find it of interest to work through MOS:INFOBOX for a valuable overview of the topic. Note that they are not essential, and sometimes arouse strong passions. Personally, I find them useful (when they aren't overcluttered with trivial content).
I have noticed lower standards in terms of verifiability in infoboxes. It's interesting how people might give a pass to things that are in infoboxes, when they wouldn't if they were in the body of the articles. YRhyre (talk) 22:23, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
Proper Syntax
Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments2 people in discussion
I am attempting my first "edit source", and cannot figure out how to format the info properly. Here is what I want to do:
Hello, @Bighammerer and welcome to the Teahouse. I don't understand what any of that stuff in that hyperlink is about - and, to be honest it looks highly promotional and not at all acceptable for an article. But lets just pretend for a moment that it were...
Firstly, I'd say that I prefer to use WP:Source Editor over WP:VE anyday. However, editing tables is horrendous in source editor. I suggest you use your sandbox and create a simple table with WP:VE and you can then experiment with adding content, and then look at the source editor version to see how it's constructed.
If you are determined to learn about table construction with Source Editor (good for you!!), then I hope Help:Introduction to tables with Wiki Markup/1 will be the right place to get you to start.
One tip is to look for another article containing a similar sort of table, and copy that tables source code into your sandbox and work on it there. Never try to create a table directly in an article - you will end up in 57 varieties of hell, and wish you'd taken up dominoes instead!
For incredibly complex tables, I work in Excel and then use a third party tool to convert the content to Source code. See this example of one that I would never have dared to do directly using either of Wikipedia's editing tool. Does this help answer your questions? Nick Moyes (talk) 22:06, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi Nick,
Thank you for your response I am not attempting to write an article. I want to supplement the content on the Table Shuffleboard page. There is already a link on that page to a company website that sells the kind of products that I am referencing. I think that what I am attempting to post adds value to the page by addressing a commonly asked question on the ingredients for those products. In this case, specifically Walnut shells. Given the seemingly ever increasing numbers of people with nut allergies, I was surprised that this issue has not been previously addressed. Here is a link to the Table Shuffleboard page.
@Bighammerer OK, but I'm afraid that link is no longer there as I have just removed it as being overtly promotional. A better source that does not link to a sales page would be acceptable; that one was not. Whilst it may be OK to highlight in one sentence the issue of nut allergies, I do hope you weren't intending to recreate the table of 'ultra-glide' products. it's important to remember that this is an encyclopaedia, not a sales catalogue.
hi ip user! this ip address does not have any other contributions apart from this edit, so I'm assuming you're referring to a draft you've made while under another ip address (they change) or logged-in. what draft are you referring to? 💜 melecietalk - 23:54, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago7 comments4 people in discussion
Can anyone tell me what to do to get the bot's attention so Tunica molesta's stub class can be reevaluated? I can't find a template and explanations appear to be written in coder-speak - which I would say is Greek to me except I actually have a little Greek. :-) (This article is on an obscure topic with very little written on it. I think I have exhausted what sources there are - all 6 of them!) Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:44, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
RudolfRed If I understand what I read about evaluations and how they are done, (which may not be a safe assumption), there's a bot - (isn't there always a bot?) - that notifies those that do said reevaluations that an article is requesting it. I can't find the template for it - assuming that it must exist somewhere out there in the ether... I tried contacting the various projects back in April. No joy. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:40, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Ok, successfully found the note that a source can be used for uncontroversial information about themselves. How would I annotate the adding of a first name from a twitch clip? Lethmio (talk) 02:33, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Hello @Lethmio and welcome to the Teahouse. Yes, per this policy, informations about biographies of living people from self-published sources can be added if the subject of the article has published or otherwise created said source. As for adding an annotation/reference which shows the source in a tiny note at the end of a sentence, add Template:Cite web while in the Source Editor mode and fill out the parameters for the template as needed, which include the name of the author, access date etc. (More information about how to use the template is inside of the link to the template). If you have any other questions feel free to ask me anytime on my Talk page or here at the Teahouse. Best regards — Prodraxis {talk • contributions} (she/her) 04:26, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
I am having some trouble with an IP editor
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion
I am having some difficulty dealing with an IP editor who persistently makes, what I feel are, problematic edits on a number of my watchlist pages. In short, this user does not use edit summaries, makes copyedits that change correct tense forms to incorrect ones, changes templates for seemingly no reason, removes content, adds unsourced and somewhat factually incorrect content, inter alia. I have left a comment on this IP's talk page, which they have read in the past. However, I believe that the IP is simply recalcitrant, as quite a number of editors have left specific advice (e.g. don't remove stuff without a reason), but they have ignored all of it thus far. My questions are:
1. Does this infringe upon any Wikipedia policies? Can someone advise if I should ANI this? (The specific IP is in my user contributions.)
2. This user repeatedly makes changes in the form of "Secretary-General of foo" to "Secretary-General of foo", where in both cases the wikilink is the same, but that the change is such that the whole title of office is linked to the specific organisation. I am wondering if this is correct per the MOS, or if I should revert these edits.
3. I don't understand how the uploading of images and how copyright policy works on Wikipedia. This user appears to have added various images. I would like to know where the relevant wikipedia policy is.
Hi Dawkin Verbier. While everyone is encouraged to leave an edit summary when they edit, not everyone does. In some cases, the reasons for the edit might be totally obvious, but in other cases not so much. If you find that the IP is making much more of the latter type of edit, you can either post a friendly message on their user talk page asking them to start leaving edit summaries or use a boilerplate template like {{uw-es}} instead. While it's considered good practice to leave an edit summary, not doing so isn't the kind of thing that is typically worth going to ANI about, unless it's a part of some more serious disruption. The other things you mentioned are more serious in the sense that they actually make articles worse. These too can be addressed by posting something on the IP user's user talk page and there are many different types and levels of user warnings that can be used. Generaly, you start at level one warnings and then move to higher levels if the problem continues. Going straight to ANI of things like this is generally not a good way to approach them since ANI is genreally considered to be last resort for discussing truly problematic or otherwise long-term problematic behavior; for example, blantant violations of some serious policy like WP:BLP, WP:COPY or WP:NPA, WP:LEGAL, WP:SOCK should probably be more formally addressed sooner than later. ANI isn't really for punishing people who make silly or simple mistakes; it's more for dealing people who keep making the same mistakes repeatedly even after being advised otherwise and who don't seem to care or give any indication that they're ever going to stop. Other stuff, like incorrect verb tenses, strange linking and the like shouldn't probably end up at ANI at all, but almost certianly not after a few bad edits without making any attempt to let the other user know why there edits are a problem. There are usually general guideline pages for anything having to do with Wikipedia and often they have WP:SHORTCUT ways to find them. Often the easiest thing to try is to search for them by using the syntax "WP:XXXX" or "MOS:XXXX". For example, WP:LINK or MOS:LINK. For images, Wikipedia has WP:IUP, but not all images used in Wikipedia articles are uploaded to Wikipedia; many if not most are uploaded to Wikimedia Commons which has its own policies and guidelines. If you have questions about the copyright status of a particular image, you can ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:46, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Regarding a Volleyball Player Name in Notable Section on Wikipedia
Latest comment: 1 year ago7 comments3 people in discussion
I want to ask a question that should I add a Indian Female Volleyball player name , on the notable person section of page (India women's national volleyball team) , that player had Won Gold Medal in First South Asian Championship held in Nepal, and Represented Rajasthan by participating in national competitions 15 times as a Captain and then become a player in India National Volleyball Team. WikiAnchor10 (talk) 05:51, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
hi @WikiAnchor10 and welcome to the Teahouse! the general question that should be asked before adding anyone to those kinds of lists is "do they have an article?" if yes, feel free to add them to the list; if no (like in this case), don't. happy editing! 💜 melecietalk - 06:36, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
But I think that this player is notable for an article because she won gold on international level and was a part of National team and that is a big thing, should I create an article ? WikiAnchor10 (talk) 06:46, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
WikiAnchor10, "notability" as most people understand it is only tenuously related to "notability" as en:Wikipedia understands it. If she meets "GNG", then somebody may create an article about her; if she doesn't, then they may not. -- Hoary (talk) 06:59, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Biographical stub article for a self-improvement coach
Latest comment: 1 year ago13 comments7 people in discussion
A friend and I want to have a biographical stub about our male self-improvement coach approved. Our initial attempt was deleted because we just lacked the necessary know-how about writing a credible biography with correct citations while meeting 'notability' criteria. So, we have done some reading around the Wikipedia and with more knowledge have drafted a new stub. Would anyone care to gloss over it and give advice? To facilitate such a review, where can I post the article? That would be the first useful advice! :) venzen (talk) 06:23, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi Venzen, thanks for joining. You could post a link here, or create a draft for the articles for creation volunteers to look at. Chamaemelum (talk) 07:05, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
As you will see, the subject of the biography is a former pornographic actor and the notability is established on several nominations and an award. I am aware that not all internal links are correct but the citations are. Please comment. venzen (talk) 11:36, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
@Venzen:No amount of know-how will meet the notability threshold. Notability depends on the existence of good sources off-Wikipedia. Start by checking whether such sources exist before writing a single sentence of the proposed biographical article (see also: WP:BACKWARD). You could drop the sources here and we could tell you our opinion of whether they would pass - it’s not an exact science and there are some articles that pass or fail depending on the mood of the reviewers, but most of the time it’s either a clear pass or a clear fail. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact)08:59, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
@Venzen One of the consequences of writing your draft backwards is that you have whole sections (e.g. Early life and Adulthood) that are completely uncited and hence in violation of Wikipedia's WP:BLP policy. There is zero chance of your draft being accepted until it complies with that policy. You seem to be basing the draft on things you only know because you have talked to your coach. You must base an article here only on what is published in exemplary sources and without bias introduced owing to the fact that you have a conflict of interest. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:53, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for your feedback, Mike. I was actually cautious to only write facts that are already public knowledge. Would it be good to cite those sources? e.g. where he discusses his childhood in a YouTube interview? Oh, and another point: is the achievement of a university dregree, a statement of fact that WikiPedia would prefer to be cited? venzen (talk) 12:08, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
Hello, venzen. A limited amount of uncontroversial factual information (places, dates etc) can come from non-independent sources, such as his own videos or interviews: see PRIMARY. But the great bulk of the information in an article must come from independent sources. If his video is the only source you can find for where he grew up, then that is probably acceptable (though a secondary source would be better). But anything about his childhood experiences, and especially his choices, decisions, concerns, do not belong in an article unless they have been published by an independent reliable source.
The fact of a degree could come from a non-independent source such as the university concerned; but if no independent source has referred to it, it is not clear that it belongs in an encyclopaedia article about him. ColinFine (talk) 13:25, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for a detailed explanation. It would be easier, then, to omit anecdotal and experiential information, except perhaps the bare minimum information about place of birth and parentage. Can you kindly confirm that the cited award and cluster of nominations meet notability criteria for an entertainer? venzen (talk) 02:55, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Venzen, in order for a reference to confer notability, the referenced source must be reliable, it must be entirely independent, and it must devote significant coverage to the topic. The majority of porn industry sources are not reliable, because they consistently spread promotional lies about the performers. A source published by the industry organization that hands out "Award XXX" saying that some performer was nominated for "Award XXX" is not an independent source, and such an announcement is not significant coverage. So, which sources do you have that fully meet the three part test of reliable, independent, and significant coverage? Cullen328 (talk) 08:24, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Can I add these info about Genius?
Latest comment: 1 year ago8 comments2 people in discussion
Hey! I am GrafiXal, who also contributes to Genius (I am not employed or a representive; just a registered user of their site) and I wanted to add information about their site such as how their website works (in a npov) + the roles they give users (similiar to how the article about Reddit explains how it works, what subreddits are etc). Would that be allowed? :) GrafiXal (talk) 08:24, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
I should also note, that if you wanted to take inspiration from an existing article, the Reddit article does not have Wikipedia:Good articles status so might not be the best one to look at. Have a look at that link and find an existing article with Google Article status. Qcne(talk)08:56, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Also, is it okay if the lead of the article is changed to define the site, instead of the company? Like, for example, “Genius is an American website that serves as an online music encyclopedia owned by…” or has this been discussed already? GrafiXal (talk) 08:56, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
I would probably leave it as it currently is, as the article discusses a bunch of various acquisitions and the history of the company, as opposed to just talking about the website. Qcne(talk)08:58, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Turn off the visual editor in your preferences to have an easier editing interface. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:11, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Moved to Commons:Village pump/Copyright on Wikimedia Commons
Logo
Horizontal logo
Large icon
Icon
Small icon
Logo (white)
Horizontal logo (white)
Large icon (white
Icon (white).svg){kind=logo}
.svg){kind=logo}
.svg){kind=icon}
.svg){kind=icon}
Logo (black)
Horizontal logo (black)
Large icon (black)
Icon (black).svg){kind=logo}
.svg){kind=logo}
.svg){kind=icon}
.svg){kind=icon}
Resolved
Done --QuickQuokka [talk • contribs] 10:54, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, 
Courtesy link: Draft:Oluwaseun Sesi Whingan
