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.
Articles are not notable, subjects are notable. The question is whether the subject covered by that Norwegian article meets the notability criteria for the English Wikipedia. CodeTalker (talk) 18:19, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
The sources used in that article would not be enough to demonstrate he was notable enough for the English Wikipedia. They all seem to be based on interviews. Given that his main claim to notability is his translation work, we would need to see independent sources showing why his translations were especially unusual and noteworthy. The formatting issue could readily be resolved. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:14, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
@Novo Tape, I left out the important part when googling. Click on the "Translate this page" link to the right of the article in another Wikipedia, and Google will do a fairly good job with translating. StarryGrandma (talk) 19:25, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
How do we talk about subjects?
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
For example, on the OSS article early on talks about how it, and other intelligence agencies, were combined into the CIA, and actually lists some of the other ones. When writing an article, should we primarily present it as “This is how it lives on, effects, and exists today” or just present it from a neutral point of view that doesn’t explicitly talk about it. I’m basically asking if an intro should be a summary of what it is, or talk about what you probably would have wanted to know first. Janlopi (talk) 18:29, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments5 people in discussion
Would someone mind having a look at Sean Delonas? I last edited this in December 2022 but have just had a message on my Talk page from someone who says he's the subject of the article. I'm not entirely sure I understand the message, and it probably needs a reply from someone who's more up with image policy than I am. Thanks. Tacyarg (talk) 14:45, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
@Tacyarg: Welcome to the Teahouse! I added {{Connected contributor}} to the article's talk page. You could recommend that the user should not directly edit the article about him due to his COI, but that he can post edit requests on the talk page. I don't understand why David Gerard removed the references to the New York Post just because the URLs are dead. Even if the URLs haven't been archived, the physical newspapers could be used as references. That's something reasonable that could be discussed on the talk page. Looks like the user posted copyrighted images on Commons that were deleted, and it's possible they didn't follow the correct Commons processes. Hope this helps! GoingBatty (talk) 15:36, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
it seems like this editor i'm a little iffy on referring to as sean doesn't know how to properly use talk pages or something, because he seems to have replaced an accidental unlogged comment with a seemingly unrelated sentence in his talk page (here's the diff) cogsan • (give me attention) • (see my deeds)15:49, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, everyone, that is helpful. Re the message at the top of my Talk page - there was another one there so that may have started the trend. I'll take the first one off now. Tacyarg (talk) 19:28, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
Report redriect page
Latest comment: 1 year ago8 comments5 people in discussion
The letters I and U are next to each other on keyboards, so I don't think that this is necessarily vandalism, but a plausible redirect. 331dot (talk) 20:58, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
So a plausible redirect would be anything with a single letter mistyped with the key next to it? That would mean about 80 plausible redirects for the above article. Shantavira|feed me08:56, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
Meh; the creator of the redirect has fifteen years tenure and 140,000 edits. If they're having a bit of fun within policy it feels pretty whatever, but the redriect is already at RfD, so any arguments for or against should be posted there. Folly Mox (talk) 20:43, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
@TheProEditor11 Full instructions at WP:AFD. The visual editor won't easily work in the deletion discussion, so you'll need to use the source editor to contribute, by clicking on "edit source" within the relevant section. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:04, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
Which deletion discussion do you wish to participate in: please link to it (or the article itself) and then I'll comment on your Talk Page with more detail. There is no point in my repeating here at the Teahouse the whole of the WP:AFD link I've already supplied. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:18, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
This body seems to have been appointed initially, and since has self-selected its members. I do not think this qualifies under WP:NPOLITICIAN. In my view, the notability of each individual member needs to be assessed by the depth of coverage of the person in independent, reliable sources. Cullen328 (talk) 23:44, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
Getting famous
Latest comment: 1 year ago8 comments6 people in discussion
Hi, The Anti-patroll, welcome to the Teahouse! I do have some advice for you: don't. Intentionally trying to get fame or notice on Wikipedia isn't what we're here for. Instead, just contribute to the encyclopedia in the best way you can, whether that's through anti-vandalism, copy-editing, or writing articles. Contribute to the project and you will probably get noticed sooner or later, but if you're setting out to get noticed, you will likely only attract the wrong kind of attention. Wikipedia is not an MMORPG, after all. Writ Keeper⚇♔15:19, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
The Anto-patroll is now indefinitely blocked, because after the above contribution to Teahouse, Anto went on to vandalize an article. The vandalism was reverted and the indef applied two minutes after the edit. This may be a record (?). It also may be unduely harsh. Anto does have the option of appealing the block with a valid explanation, as in "I was being childish and stupid and immature, and will never do it again." There is confusion here, as Contributions for User:The Anti-patroll and Anto both show this contribution to Teahouse, but only Anto shows a subsequent vandalism and block. David notMD (talk) 20:01, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
@David notMD: Well, one way to get famous is to become infamous. Setting a record for getting blocked is a logical consequence of that desire for fame on Wikipedia. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:23, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
Explained to me (my Talk) that adding "on wheels" to articles was a notorious vandal account activity, with subsequent imitators. Possibility here is that Anti-patroll asked a question in good faith and Anto-patroll jumped in deliberate name similarity and with vandalism. The latter blocked and the former free to wonder how to "get famous". A blunt answer would be to become skilled at Wikipedia editing and then raise a record number of articles to Good Article status. David notMD (talk) 12:45, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments4 people in discussion
Hi folks,
I tried to translate a national (German) wiki page for publication in an international version in English. Unfortunately, the attempted "transfer" was rejected. How can I fix the formal restriction (the contents are very much reliable and well-established in the German language version...).
Hello, Record straighter setter, and welcome to the Teahouse. In addition to what Sungodtemple says, note that he must meet the criteria in NACADEMICand the article must demonstrate this by reliable independent sources. Nothing written by Knör or his associates, or published by his institutions, counts towards this demonstration. ColinFine (talk) 20:19, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion
I want to change my user to "Scripts" but it says i cannot because there is already somebody with that user. But that can't be true because it also says there is nobody with User:Scripts can anyone help? Joshbanana (talk) 06:10, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hello,
I have a bunch of maps in User:Gor1995/sandbox4 and i want to display some text after all the maps, at the bottom of the page. When i try to do it, the text is "wrongly" placed in between the maps. (see example text "i want this text to be at the bottom of the page" in sandbox)
Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I gather that this refers to Draft:Great Infotech Web Solution. Wikipedia is not a place to merely document the existence of a company and tell what it does. Any article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. The vast majority of companies do not merit articles. Also, writing an article is the most difficult task to attempt on Wikipedia; we usually recommend new users first edit existing articles, to get a feel for how Wikipedia operates and what is expected of article content. Please read Your First Article.
As you said, the user page says: "Wikimedia Commons does not currently have a user page called Into oblivion". But there is a user account by that name. Otherwise there would be a box saying it like commons:User:Nonexisting user. It's optional for a user to create a user page. You haven't done it yourself at User:Nick Barnett. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:05, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
Help to become better wikipedia editor
Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments5 people in discussion
Hello dear wikipedia,
I must say that I am in love with actively participating here on wikipedia and contributing to the community. Unfortunately, I have not yet mastered the teachings of Wikipedia 100% and have been admonished and almost blocked more than once! I do not want to be blocked from this beautiful platform and continue to invest my time in making a meaningful difference here. Can anyone give me tips on how I can improve my edits? Links to all the major sources for editing on wikipedia would be helpful... Brizo1 (talk) 11:08, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
Have you used the new user tutorial? This may help you significantly. Beyond that, just heed the advice you've been given. I would say that you don't need to emphasize that your edits are done "without advertisement"- this makes it seem like you are trying too hard. 331dot (talk) 11:13, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion
perhaps 20 years ago I wrote the article "Leroy Waterman," but it has now been deleted. I can certainly understand that someone might consider that article inadequate in some way. but, really, is an article that someone considers not ideal (in their opinion) and therefore eliminatable really better than having no article at all??? 2601:400:C000:1640:54F8:3F30:823D:4455 (talk) 17:17, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
Hi IP editor, welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia has many less-than-ideal articles, but as long as the subject is notable, they still stick around. If not, though, then yes - the consensus is that no article is better than an article which doesn't meet our notability standards. That's what the standards are for. All that said, Leroy Waterman was apparently deleted as a copyright infringement, which is a different kettle of fish entirely. Wikipedia can't host material which is incompatible with its license. 57.140.16.56 (talk) 17:21, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
Can someone rollback my talk page on the Simple English wikipedia?
Latest comment: 1 year ago7 comments4 people in discussion
Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments4 people in discussion
Hello, a colleague wants to upload a new article, we are both newbies. Can I start writing article, and my colleague will edit and publish it? Ingainga321 (talk) 09:14, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago7 comments4 people in discussion
My article was declined, but I'm not sure why. Although there is little information on the film itself, I included what is known about the film to the best of my ability. I was told it was "not suitable for Wikipedia". The link would be https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Over_The_Garden_Wall_(1910_Film).
Although I understand that there is little information available, does that disqualify an article if that's all that is known? I tried to model the article on other similar films' articles but of course I'm very inexperienced (less than 1) so I know that it's a learning curve. I would appreciate any help.
BTW, there are many films Mabel Normand was in that lack articles. Perhaps for the sake of informing the interested reader I should remove the brackets to those titles so that the titles remain but there is no "dead link" to point to.
Any help you can give me would be appreciated! And please prioritize accordingly, I know this is a low-importance issue. Thanks! Tomwhite56 (talk) 16:44, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
@Tomwhite56: The problem is the lack of sourcing. See also WP:NFILM for notability criteria; does this film meet any of them? If not, then it can't have an article here. A film that old, to be notable without sources, needs to have some attribute that makes it notable, like a famous actor got started in that film, or the film demonstrates a unique accomplishment in cinema. Your draft lists some notable actors, but was this film a significant part of their career? ~Anachronist (talk) 17:04, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
[Edit conflict]. Two observations. One: you have only a single reference, and that is linked to page 1 of a 1,148 page digital archive of a trade journal. While you have stated the relevant issue and page, it is not easy to locate it in the archive. It would be helpful if you could link directly to the page in question. It would also help if you could find a couple of other reliable sources – one is generally considered insufficient.
Two: your draft does no more than describe the film in question. Mere existence of a piece of art does not in itself merit inclusion in Wikipedia, else we would be adding several hundred thousand new articles every year for every one of the new novels published annually; then add in all the films, paintings, musical pieces . . . . You need to cite and add summaries from Reliable sources (which, as I said above, you need more of) that explain the significance of this film – what makes it Notable as a film. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.212.130.182 (talk) 17:22, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
I understand. I'll go back and remove double brackets from the red entries in the list so that at least the films are listed there. Is there anything I need to do to remove the draft?
Incidentally, it seems to me that any contribution an actor makes to the industry is important to them and deserves recognition, whatever Wikipedia may say about it. Tomwhite56 (talk) 18:52, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
@Tomwhite56: You can abandon the draft if you want and it will be deleted in six months. I hunted for some sources, and put my findings on the talk page of your draft. I found the source from where you copied the plot description, but mostly it was short blurbs. If there are any criteria in WP:NFILM that this film can meet, that's what you need to work emphasizing. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:42, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
Well, thank you. I think you're right, there's not much out there, and I think I'll just complete the listing of her films on her page and let others who are more skilled and better acquainted with the rules decide if any of the films listed are worthy of further documentation. I appreciate your pitching in and helping me understand. Tomwhite56 (talk) 22:12, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
is water wet
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Wikidata oddness
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Kk.urban. The article source adds a short description "County in Kansas, United States". The infobox automatically adds another "County in Kansas". Only the first is used. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:38, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
I've looked through some county articles and the vast majority seem to use this:
{{short description|<County/Parish/Borough> in <STATE>, United States}}
I suppose this is one of those things that never had consensus to change one way or another, but if this is to be the standard, I think the infoboxes ought to be set up this way. Kk.urban (talk) 01:52, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
MY DRAFT
Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments5 people in discussion
Draft:Raja Muhammad Iqbal WHY DOES IT KEEP ON GETTING deleted WHAT ELSE CAN I DO
This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources. Kashman111 (talk) 17:36, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
Hi @Kashman111, welcome to the Teahouse. Your drafts are entirely unsourced - you have cited no sources at all to show where you got the information you are presenting. Not only do you need sources, you need to demonstrate that the subjects are notable by citing reliable, independent, secondary sources with significant coverage of your subject. Please read WP:42, and then, perhaps, YFA. 57.140.16.56 (talk) 17:50, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
I consider it highly unlikely that a person whose military rank was equivalent to lance corporal, and who apparently has not been elected to a political office, would be notable, lacking any other claims of notability present in the draft. In the end, it all depends on whether the references demonstrate that this person has received significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Cullen328 (talk) 02:11, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
Article Declined
Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments4 people in discussion
Hi Reviewer! Hope all is well. Thank you for your promptness in reviewing my draft: Adel Mardini. I thought I would have to wait 4 months or so haha.
Just to clarify, the reason the article was declined is because the resources are NOT independent of the subject, correct? Therefore the subject Mr. Adel Mardini cannot be considered notable enough to be on Wiki. Jooyoorin (talk) 07:12, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
@Jooyoorin: Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse! I'm not the editor who reviewed your draft, however through reading the sources I can see why the article was declined. Most of the sources are very promotional in tone and are likely related to the subject. Some of them are based off interviews (also not independent) or are just a passing mention of the subject. JML1148(talk | contribs)07:19, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
Jooyoorin, you say "haha" and we say "you must comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines if you want your draft to be accepted" and we are dead serious about that requirement. References to reliable, fully independent sources that devote significant coverage to the topic (Adel Mardini in this case) are like solid 24 carat gold on Wikipedia. References that do not fully meet that stringent standard are more like sand or gravel or straw or fallen leaves. Without several solid gold references, your draft will be declined, whether it is in two months or four months or six months. So, either improve the draft or expect it to be declined when a volunteer AfC reviewer gets around to it. Cullen328 (talk) 07:31, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
Request to create a Wikipedia article.
Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments3 people in discussion
Hello! How can I request to Wikipedia moderators to create a Wikipedia article about a person or company if they are notable enough? Does Wikipedia moderators create wikipedia pages upon request?
The second question is: Could I request the Wikipedia moderators whether they check and analyze whether the person or company is notable for Wikipedia? Elizzzzz (talk) 21:34, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
Hello, Elizzzzz, and welcome to the Teahouse! You can add the article to WP:Requested articles if the topic meets the notability criteria, but this is not a guarantee that the article will be written (most don't) - we're all volunteers here. You could, however, write the article yourself, if you wanted to. The key to determining notability is whether the topic has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources completely independent of the subject. If such sources exist, the topic is likely notable, and vice versa. I'm happy to give the topic a quick look, if you're able to post it here. Tollens (talk) 21:45, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
Thanks @Tollens, the article I want to create is about the origin of "Boygar family"
Boygar is an ancient Georgian name with roots in the Georgian mountains of Kazbegi. The name is specifically associated with the villages of Sno and Chargali. The importance of the name is intertwined with the rich history, culture, and literature of Georgia.
Origins
The name Boygar traces its origins to the Georgian mountains of Kazbegi, in the villages of
Sno and Chargali. These villages are known for their picturesque landscapes and rich cultural heritage.
The name has been passed down through generations and holds a special place in Georgian
Is it noteworthy based on the sources? Also please let me know that how can I analyze or the key to determine whether the subject/topic is notable? How can I know that the coverage is in reliable sources as well as the sources are independent?
References 1 and 3 appear to be clones of Wikipedia articles (which cannot be cited)
Reference 2 appears to be nonsense text
References 5 and 8 appear to be works of fiction
References 6 and 7 do not include the word "Boygar" anywhere
I cannot speak to the utility of reference 4 as machine translation can't be used on the PDF, but based on the other sources you've provided, no, the family would unfortunately not be notable as defined by Wikipedia's policies (even though they may be noteworthy). Tollens (talk) 22:34, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
I agree that the second portion of the reference is, but the first segment (the only part labelled with a title that is seemingly relevant) contains words from several languages that don't make sense together, and randomizes each time the page is reloaded. Tollens (talk) 09:17, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
Page for an living person - question about sources
Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments4 people in discussion
I am planning to create a page and have the following question: The person the article will be about provided a number of documents to me like e.g. certificates. Do those count as adequate sources and - if yes - how do I cite those correctly? One - for example - is a "President's Lifetime Achievement Award" signed by President Joe Biden. David Schulz (talk) 10:57, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
All sources that support an article must be published, i.e. available to the public. See WP:RS. If those sources don't exist then no Wikipedia article is possible. Shantavira|feed me11:01, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
So is there a way i can only change the title like i want to put it as JSS its currently Jss and TNM101 is being ******about it NotRequiem7 (talk) 15:07, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
Does anyone know which font is used in the editing window (source editor)
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I'm trying to chase down a silly displaying error that appears to be unique to Chrome on Chromebook. (I don't think the detail matters, but it concerns a rare Cyrillic character with combining diacritic, which displays correctly in the editing window but incorrectly in the preview (and live) display.) I can easily fix it with span style="font-family: but to do so, I need to know which font is used in the editing window (source editor). 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:17, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments5 people in discussion
Why is the Dunblane massacre not on the list of rampage killers,on 13th march 1996 in Dunblane Primary School near Stirling,Scotland. Thomas Hamilton shot dead 16 pupils and one teacher and injured 15 others before killing himself. 84.247.43.125 (talk) 09:21, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments4 people in discussion
Hi, I would like to request some suggestions on failed verification tags. In this article, Wibool Piyawattanametha, I have encountered two failed verifications statements. May I know the reason? Also, could you please clarify what type of sources are supposed to be used instead? What should the cited source include? Please provide some examples as well.
Moreover, I have edited the article in Neutral Point of View, so can I remove the "Written like a resume" template? If not, please provide some suggestions regarding it as well. I would appreciate your responses. Thank you. Aayushma Sharma (talk) 06:28, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
@Aayushma Sharma: Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse! The reason why 'failed verification' tags have been placed in Wibool Piyawattanametha is because the citations next to the tag do not support the sentence before it. The article's tone is more neutral now, so you can remove the 'Written like a resume' template. JML1148(talk | contribs)07:13, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
Hi, thank you for your prompt reply. For the 3rd citation, the source has clearly stated that he is a "Notable alumnus". Is this information not sufficient to support the given statement? As for the 4th citation, it refers to UCLA Electrical and Computer Engineering website, where Wibool Piyawattanametha's name appear in the Alumni in Academia directory. Since, it was a very long time ago, the university does not provide further news/ information regarding its graduates. Unfortunately, there are no other reliable sources to corroborate this information beyond the one I have cited. Could you kindly provide some recommendations or suggestions regarding it? Aayushma Sharma (talk) 09:55, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
@Aayushma Sharma: Some editors struggle when they write an article about what they know and then try to find sources to support it - see WP:BACKWARD. Instead, you should first gather multiple independent published reliable sources, and then summarize what they say. If you know Wibool Piyawattanametha, you should declare your conflict of interest on your user talk page. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 14:59, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
@Aayushma Sharma: Yes, the third citation supports that Piyawattanametha was an alumnus of KMITL; it does not so far as I can see support that he studied electronic engineering, or graduated magna cum laude. Similarly, the UCLA source does not support that (or when) he was awarded an MS and PhD.
You ask Unfortunately, there are no other reliable sources to corroborate this information beyond the one I have cited. Could you kindly provide some recommendations or suggestions regarding it? If there truly are no reliable sources to support a claim, then we should not make it in the Wikipedia article: the whole aim of Wikipedia is to summarise what reliable sources say. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 16:00, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
Links. Blacklists.
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Hi! I am currently working on uploading a new article to English Wikipedia. On the stage of publishing my draft I got a warning message that my article contains a new external link to a site registered on Wikipedia's blacklist or Wikimedia's global blacklist. I was wondering if you could help me find out which links in my article seem to be inappropriate so I could delete/replace them and publish my article successfully. Thanks for your help. Irkashka (talk) 15:30, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
@Irkashka The global blacklist is here but it may be hard to work out which of your sources has the problem. An alternative approach is to use your sandbox to save portions of your article until you reach the part that triggers the message. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:39, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
@Irkashka: Did it happen recently while you were logged in? If it was 2 September then [1] says it was https://forbes-ru.turbopages.org/turbo/forbes.ru/s/forbes-woman/387903-cherez-neskolko-let-v-rossii-budet-ravenstvo-vo-vsem-osnovatel-foruma-woman-who https://kommersant-ru.turbopages.org/turbo/kommersant.ru/s/doc/5785348. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:52, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
Citation issue
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hello, Annwfwn, and welcome to the Teahouse. You have |via=jstor=606617, which clearly isn't right. I'm guessing that it ought to be |jstor=606617, but I don't know whether it should also have |via= (something else). ColinFine (talk) 19:29, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hello Everyone, I want to add some information in article of PM of India Narendra Modi, on GDP, inflation and unemployment status in country in his tenure from 2014 till now. Can anyone suggest me the best place in their article to put this information on Economy and the proper title for this paragraph ?? I have researched a lot on India Economy under Modi Tenure from National and International reputable sources like BBC, New York Times , ALJajeera, Economic times, etc. WikiAnchor10 (talk) 12:52, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
@WikiAnchor10: Welcome to the Teahouse! The best place to discuss improvement to the article is the article's talk page: Talk:Narendra Modi. It would be helpful if you could provide links to your sources and your thoughts on what sentences you would want to add. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 14:42, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I am in the process of creating an article based on the Death/Murder of Rhonda Castro. The issue is that I dont know if she fell or if her boyfriend pushed her which is murder. Some sources say he pushed her while others say she fell. What do I call the article?.`~HelpingWorld~` (👽🛸)04:41, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
"Death" is the more neutral title. Although there was a homicide conviction, it was (according to your source) for "negligent homicide", which sounds like it has some nuance, and is probably not equivalent to "murder". Also, the person convicted is still alive and has already been released from incarceration. Per WP:BLP, we have a responsibility not to use terms against him that the prosecution was unable to prove. Folly Mox (talk) 05:07, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
username availability
Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Hello, I want to make an account with a specific username (rashinban), which appears to be available since searches indicate the username is not associated with an existing account, however when I try to make a new account with the username it says it is not available. I am wondering if this is a fixable problem or if it is too difficult/bothersome to be worth the effort. I understand if the latter is the case since such a system as Wikipedia uses is very much beyond my understanding and if there's no simple fix I don't want to waste anyone's time.
Thanks~ 2620:0:5301:2101:4DB0:A694:949C:9C14 (talk) 19:16, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. "rashinban" exists as a global user, and has made 92 edits on Japanese Wikipedia: that's why you cannot create it. There is also a (global) account "rashinban-enwiki", which was created on English Wikipedia in 2015, but has made no edits, so it is possible that you would be allowed to usurp that account. But not the first one, I think. ColinFine (talk) 19:35, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago8 comments3 people in discussion
I've noticed a fair bit of lists have little to no citations, and I'm specifically referring to lists that give info here. Are these lists eligible to be tagged? Thanks, Nobody expects the UnexpectedSmoreInquisition (talk)! 13:30, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
@Michael D. Turnbull@GoingBatty Thank you for the references. However, I am left puzzled on a few things. First off, should I still tag the list(s) (List of fictional presidents) for needing citations? It doesn't break any rules, per se, but after a quick search, the sources are definitely available and the article(s) can be improved. I am also left frustrated at how open to interpretation these rules are. Also, for lists, is notability classified separately for each list item, because if so, many of these may be invalid for that purpose. Best regards, Nobody expects the UnexpectedSmoreInquisition (talk)! 14:14, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
I also despise the clause of WP:CHALLENGE, especially with this article. So, does this mean I could challenge virtually the whole list(s)? (One saintly editor decided to actually source a random president.) Thanks, Nobody expects the UnexpectedSmoreInquisition (talk)! 14:45, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments1 person in discussion
If there's a fair use file on enwiki, which I believe in and of itself is an improperly licensed derivative of another copyrighted work, is that a copyvio? QuickQuokka[talk • contribs]16:50, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
Clyde Jimpson of the Arkansas String Beans, this is not definitive but I am very suspicious of the claim that Wi-jún-jon fought at the Battle of the Little Bighorn. He was already very well known by the 1830s. At the time of that battle, he would have been about 82 years old. The battle was extremely intense close quarters combat, with over 500 deaths, and has been studied extensively by military historians. If such a well known Native American leader has fought in that battle at age 82, it should be easy to find verification in reliable sources. But my Google search fails to find any reliable sources for this extraordinary claim. Cullen328 (talk) 17:25, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
That student editor has not been active since March, 2023. To be frank, their work looks slipshod to me. Wi-jún-jon was Assiniboine and that editor repeatedly call him Lakota. Those tribes were sometimes allies, but they were distinct. Cullen328 (talk) 20:23, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping @Cullen328. As it has been stated already, this student was a participant of the program earlier in the year. I'd say to move forward as you would with an any article and edit/revert as seen necessary. I think the likelihood of the student editor engaging in this discussion are a bit slim, but I will alert the instructor on this incident. Thanks for alerting me. Brianda (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:33, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
Display Title issue
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion
The current display title of and article stated below requires a change
Hi Iljhgtn, here is how I would go about addressing that. I would tend to agree with you, but I don't know anything about this subject area, so it's important to consider that it might be a common term that you and I just aren't familiar with. One very safe thing to do would be to leave a note on the talk page for the article and suggest the change, or if it's the same users who keep writing the word, you could ask them on their talk page if it's a word that they see used often in reliable sources. You are also free to just boldly go ahead and change "goalscorer" to "goal scorer", but make sure that if someone changes it back, you listen to their reasoning about why. - Astrophobe (talk) 14:24, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
well i am not familiar with british english, but i am familiar with engvar. i will not touch these then, i didnt know that it was just british english. a lot of british english looks like typos to me.. so i just need to double check. i like the suggestion about just leaving a note on the talk page about it though if i see more words such as this that look out of place to me. Iljhgtn (talk) 18:34, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hello, one of my edit on Talk:Icelandic language was recently changed by an editor who didn't write an edit summary and I'm very confused on why they did that. I looked through their contributions history and I was left even more confused. Did I do something wrong and I should revert their edit or should I let it go? Even if I were in the wrong I'd still want someone to check their account to make sure they aren't doing anything malicious, as they're editing a lot of talk pages with no edit summary. Thank you for hearing me out on this. WanderingMorpheme19:55, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
@WanderingMorpheme: In your edit, it looks like you removed the ratings of the page under two wikiprojects and rolled it up to the shell, while saying that you had just "reformatted". It looks like the editor who undid that edit was just re-adding the rating for the two other wikiprojects, probably to preserve the connection between the B rating and each of those wikiproject templates individually. But also I don't see evidence that you asked them before turning to the teahouse; if you don't understand someone's edit, the best first step is to just ask them. - Astrophobe (talk) 20:00, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi all, I created a draft submission earlier this year with the help of some valuable feedback from the Wiki community - it's this one here: Draft:Perivoli Foundation. It has been in review since early June (4 months) and I was just wondering if there is anything more I can do to help move it along for editor review? I spotted that it could take 4 months or more/less due to the backlog, but just wanted to check if I can or should do anything more? Thank you. Leecullen14 (talk) 20:04, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
Bearing in mind that reviewing, like all editing work on Wikipedia, is a purely voluntary activity, I suspect that everyone is hoping that someone else will review and decline the draft.
Why? Because (I suggest) although the subject is obviously a worthy enterprise, the draft does nothing to explain what makes it Notable (in the Wikipedia sense). Just saying what it does (and plans to do) is not sufficient: you need to summarise (in neutral terms) and cite independent, published Reliable sources that actually say why the subject is important in its field, compared to other existing, broadly similar organisations.
I suspect (without having looked) that some of your existing sources contain such information, and others probably also exist, but as yet the Draft does not (in my opinion, though I'm not a reviewer) demonstrate notability. You are of course entirely free (as are others) to continue improving the Draft while it awaits review. Hope this helps. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.212.130.182 (talk) 21:03, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
Would you please help me evaluate this source?
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi,
Is Artfacts.net considered a reliable source? They claim to "meticulously check" all info, and from the research I did they do seem to be rigorous and accurate. I'm wondering if this source can be used for citing major exhibitions on a wikipedia article on a BLP artist.
The article formerly had a laundry list of exhibitions with refs for each. It was moved to talk b/c it read like a resume and caused ref bomb. It seems that the most prominent exhibitions should be included in paragraph form.
Wondering if I can use artfacts to cite 4-5 top shows with one source. What do you think?
Information Comes Directly from Subject - How to Publish?
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Hello,
How will I be able to publish an article about an artist to meet all of Wikipedia guidelines? The information in the article (See draft) comes directly from Alberto himself. He would very much like to have a Wikipedia article about himself and we will be happy to work with Wikipedia to have that accomplished. Thank you so much for your help in advance!
Hello, Journorc. An acceptable Wikipedia biography article about a living person must be based primarily on summarizing what reliable, published sources that are entirely independent of the person say about the person. This is a matter of policy, and is mandatory and non-negotiable. Without providing references to such sources, it is simply not possible to write an acceptable Wikipedia biography. Accordingly, what this artist writes about himself is almost useless on Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 05:24, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
To simplify, what we need would be at least two articles in reliable and reasonably notable magazines. Or equivilant -- TV show, book, newspaper, website, etc. The articles would have to be about Alberto Baccari, not just mentioning him. Or an article that maybe isn't, but contains a couple good paragraphs about Alberto Baccari, atho that's not as good. If the article is in say Paris Match that's very helpful, if it's in a small-town local newspaper that's not very helpful. A (very) quick look on my part doesn't bring any up. See WP:N for details. Herostratus (talk) 21:45, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
I want a to create a page but I don't know how exactly I can do that.
Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments2 people in discussion
AstroSaturn Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. We usually recommend that new users first gain experience and knowledge by editing existing articles in areas that interest them, instead of diving right in to creating a new article(the preferred term, not the broader "page"). This way you learn how Wikipedia operates and what is expected of article content before trying to create a new article- the most difficult task to perform here.
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion
There's a broken link on Everything is Going to Be OK article, the link near the bottom to the game on itch, it's not linking to the appropriate URL, and attempting to follow it ends in a dead link. I was attempting to fix it, but as far as I can tell it looks fine in the source? The appropriate URL is being pointed at in there, and the formatting seems fine. Was just wondering what was going wrong with it! Bariaus (talk) 23:03, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
Hello, Bariaus, and welcome to the Teahouse! I've fixed the link - looks like it just needed each segment as a separate parameter to the template. Tollens (talk) 23:09, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hello,
I was editing "Mexico–United States border crisis" article when my edit was automatically tagged with "possibleWP:BLPCRIMEissue". How are such automatic tags generated, and what do I need to do? Pinkslimo (talk) 04:05, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
Academic degrees after names of university/college presidents, administrators, etc.?
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hello helpful editors. The infobox for Morgan State University, for example, has post-nominal letters for academic degrees following the names of the presidents, administrators, etc.; however, in university/college infoboxes I remember that there are not supposed to be post-nominal letters for academic degrees following the names of presidents, administrators, etc., but can’t remember the MOS or other dictum for this. I see MOS:CREDENTIAL under WP:MOSBIO, but have found nothing specific to university/college infoboxes. Help? Thanks, Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 04:14, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
@Quaerens-veritatem Guidance at MOS:POSTNOM. I interpret that to say it is fine to use postnominals in the text or infobox of the person's article but not when they are mentioned in another article (as would be the case for the University article you linked). Mike Turnbull (talk) 08:52, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
@СтасС Over 1,000 people have that page on their watchlist, so there is no need to ask here for interested editors to look at your comment there. I see that someone has already replied to it. Mike Turnbull (talk) 08:58, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
Upload it to where? it's already uploaded to Wikipedia because it's in the article. However, it's uploaded at low resolution for use only in that article, under the Fair Use rationale, because it's copyright. Since it's copyright, it cannot legally be uploaded to Wikipedia at a higher resolution, or to Wikimedia Commons at all. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.212.210.36 (talk) 09:30, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
Related to irrelevant links
Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments3 people in discussion
Hello, I've been browsing Wikipedia, and it's not the first time I've used it. I've noticed that on some pages, there are irrelevant links added by someone. I wanted to ask if I can replace those links with more relevant websites. Rafia Liaqat (talk) 07:04, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
Unexplained Removal of Content on Cyrus M. Kangarli Khan Nakhchivanski's Wikipedia Page
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion
I have encountered an issue on Wikipedia where my contributions regarding Cyrus M. Kangarli Khan Nakhchivanski, the head of the Nakhchivanski family, are consistently being removed without any explanation. The information I provided detailed his background, education, family lineage, and notable contributions to education, culture, and community development. Cyrus M. Nakchivanski (talk) 10:47, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
@Cyrus M. NakchivanskiYour addition was to add what I assume is your own name to the page and assert you are the head of that family. However, you gave no source so that readers could verify that what you say is true. That is against Wikipedia's policy and it is not surprising that an editor reverted the addition. I note that you are currently trying to use your UserPage to write an autobiography. That is not the purpose of these pages. See WP:UPNOT. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:58, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
You made one small addition to Nakhchivanski - claiming to be the current head of the family - which was reverted, as there was no reference to confirm. Secondly, you have a lot of information about yourself on your User page. UPs are not articles, and are not 'seen' by search engines. And as MT explained, UPs are not for autobiography. Either delete all that or expect it to be deleted by an Administrator. David notMD (talk) 11:44, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
Indigenous people of Canada
Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments5 people in discussion
A very informative article however it references First Nations people in various places in the article as indigenous and in other places as aboriginal which seems confusing as apparently some native people consider the aboriginal term as insulting. 2604:3D09:7B86:DC00:1DA3:148F:ECB7:8F35 (talk) 04:24, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
Not exactly a bad thing though. Aboriginal is still used (but definitely not as common as indigenous), especially in the legal field. Might just want to review each use of it and see if it could be appropriated. Kline • talk to me! • contribs12:02, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
page does not exist
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
What is the proper way to handle links to pages that do not exist? I see a lot of them (I'm sure we all do) but haven't done any editing with them. It seems reasonable to have a few placeholders for maybe an article that is in process. But, occasionally I see a sea of red, like this article: MATA Festival. Would it be appropriate to just remove these links?
Hey Edward Bednar, per WP:REDLINKS, one should create a red link whenever a non-existent article with more information would help a reader understand the content of the article in which the red link will appear. However, in general, a red link should remain in an article if there is a reasonable expectation that the article in question will eventually be created. Sometimes, I will use red links in articles so that when I create them, I don't have to go back and add Wikilinks. I would suggest, if you are comfortable, being bold and drafting an article if you believe they are notable. I hope this helps. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 13:09, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia Page
Latest comment: 1 year ago7 comments3 people in discussion
@PhoenixStar123 Hello. You don't get articles approved by WP:NSCHOOL, you must prove that schools meet the WP:NSCHOOL notability criteria. You did not, despite two reviews and declines. I have therefore rejected the article, and you can no longer submit it for review.
If you feel you have fully understood and read the WP:NSCHOOL criteria, and can prove that this organisation meets it, then let me know. But as it currently stands, you did not, therefore there can be no article. Qcne(talk)13:08, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
Good Morning, Can you please clarify the criteria for WP:NSCHOOLS?
And I'm sorry for the curt responses from me- I had four bad drafts that had been needlessly resubmitted for review at the same time you did, and so you were caught up in my grumpiness. Qcne(talk)13:20, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
In the past, high school articles were allowed to be created (and thousands of these articles still exist) even though by current standards those do not meet WP:GNG. David notMD (talk) 13:21, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
Question about editing an image
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion
The title is broad, but I want to edit this image. I have taken a screenshot of the map in CS2, and I want to upload it (yes, I have downscaled it down to 240x135). My question is do I upload it separately and add it to the article or edit the image? The source of the original image is The Gamer. I just don't want to mess up and do something wrong. Thanks RadoGaming7 (talk) 11:41, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments4 people in discussion
The more Bibliography/Further reading/External links sections I look at, even in Wikipedia:Featured articles, the more variation I see in how authors are listed and how they're separated from book/article titles. In some articles, presumably because of two or more editors, different styles appear. Am I correct in thinking WP style is supposed to be Surname, Given name preceding ttitle despite there being many articles where that's not the case?
In some articles where the author's name precedes the titles a comma is next to the last letter of the name, in others a full stop. Which is supposed to be WP style?
Is it WP style to capitalise the first letters of each word in a title apart from and/of/from/similar words? Mcljlm (talk) 00:05, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
Hello, Mcljlm. Personally, I use Template: Cite book to standardize the presentation of the bibliographic information about a book, including beginning with the author surname, and then their given name. But that is just how I do things, and presenting bibliographic information that way is optional. Cullen328 (talk) 01:52, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
Hi, Mcljlm: Regarding capitalising titles, the full guidance can be found at MOS:TITLECAPS; the short version is that for English language titles all words should be capitalised except for articles (a, an, the), coordinating conjunctions (and, but, or, nor) and short prepositions (of, to, from etc.); the first word of a title should always be capitalised even if it fits into one of these categories. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:55, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
Thank Caeciliusinhorto-public, that's what I thought and now follow, though it's different from the style a librarian would use {I trained and worked as a librarian (and then as an archivist, sometimes cataloguing in English)}. Mcljlm (talk) 16:00, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
Hello, Wikipedians! I'm hoping to connect with an editor.
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Hello, my name is Noah and I work for PRA Group. An article about our company is available here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRA_Group. We have recently learned about Wikipedia's community guidelines and COI policy and would like to commit ourselves to contributing to this online community by providing information to the world! We are a global company and there is discussion about our brand online everyday, and this Wikipedia article serves as a common landing spot for users searching for information about the company. Is there an editor who might be interested in helping us add accurate, fact-based information to this article. I can provide many sources that would be useful to visitors doing their research. PRAGroupNoah (talk) 17:36, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
Any editor (paid by your company or not), would face the same WP:COI prohibition from directly editing the article if PRA group is providing information. Per Sungodtemple, your transparent pathway is to put edit requests on the article Talk page. Rather than one big request, better to break it into discrete pieces, each with references and an edit request. David notMD (talk) 17:56, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
mods, tban this man
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Accuracy-searcher, people can be a bit particular about what goes into those infoboxes at the top of the page. A common approach is that, in a crowded infobox like that which could easily get cluttered with information, only people who are themselves independently notable get mentioned in the infobox. I'm guessing that's why it was removed. But you can also always ask on the article's Talk page. - Astrophobe (talk) 14:25, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
That infobox uses Template:Infobox person please see the template's section about children "Typically the number of children (e.g., 3); only list names of independently notable or particularly relevant children". Francesca Scorsese does not have her own article - just a redirect to Martin Scorsese - so she is not "notable" in Wikipedia's meaning of the word - Arjayay (talk) 14:33, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
Francesca Scorsese is undoubtedly notable, and it's surprising she doesn't have a Wikipedia page. As an actress and writer with many TikTok followers, she garnered 1.1 million views on a video she posted just 14 hours ago. She's frequently featured in the news alongside her father, Martin Scorsese. Accuracy-searcher (talk) 14:57, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
@Accuracy-searcher: the simplest and most effective acid test of whether someone or something is notable is often whether there exists a Wikipedia article on them. If someone creates an article on Francesca Scorsese (and this article passes review), then there should be no problem with mentioning her in another article.
Worth bearing in mind, though, that being an actress or writer, or having many TikTok followers, is not necessarily what makes someone notable by Wikipedia standards. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:52, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
I was simplifying my response for Francesca Scorsese, Martin Scorsese's youngest daughter, who is following in her dad's footsteps. Happy Friday, everyone! In the world of Wikipedia, it's almost like saying, 'You're not famous until you're on Wikipedia.' So, let's help make her famous! LOL. Thanks for your time, and enjoy the weekend. Accuracy-searcher (talk) 18:34, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
If you're interested, there are some new news articles about Francesca Scorsese, including one from Rolling Stone, a go-to source for those in the entertainment field,
Hi THER2023. You are allowed to edit Talk:Thailand. It looks like your recent posts there were removed, as the editors there may have thought you were spamming, or commenting on the topic rather than suggesting changes to the article. It looks like you want to add content about Thailand's education system to the article. Can you read Thailand#Education and make sure the info you want to add is not already present. If it isn't, you might want to suggest a change at the talk page, saying something like "Can someone please add "specific new language" to the education section, right after "old language"?" Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:09, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
Sukavich Rangsitpol laid out his plans for educational reform in Thailand. The goal of education reform is to realize the potential of Thai people to develop themselves for the better quality of life and to develop the nation for peaceful co-existence in the world community.
Since December 1995, activities have been conducted in four main areas:
· School reform. Efforts have been stepped up to standardize the quality of education in all levels and types of schools and educational institutions. Educational coverage has been expanded.
· Teacher reform. Training and recruitment of teachers have been reformed urgently and comprehensively both in public and private schools. Educational administrators and personnel have been developed continuously.
Curriculum reform. Curriculum and teaching-learning processes have been reformed on an urgent basis in order to raise educational quality of all types and levels.
· Administrative reform. Through devolution, educational institutions have been empowered to make administrative decisions and to offer appropriate educational services which are as consistent as possible with the local lifestyle and conditions. Provincial organizations have been strengthened to facilitate devolution while private participation of the family and community have been promoted and supported.
The government provides free 12 years of education for all children. Eighth Thailand's National Social and Economic Development Plan was also written to support the implementation of an education reform program. This program was later added to the 1997 Constitution of Thailand and gave access to all citizens.
The article said that popularlist policies was the reason that lift Thailand out of poverty which is not true.
Before 1995 education reform,the poor had no chance to go to school.There were not enough school.
Many countries such as Singapore Finland and Norway had become rich because of Education.
While South American Country that use popularize policies had been bankrupt.
That is why I think the article should be correct.It misleading Thai people.No wonder the corrupted prime minister who had been fugitive for 17 years ,has come back.
My English is not that good.Can you suggest someone that I could provide the information.
@Elkalive: No. First, this isn't the page for such requests, you'd do it at WP:RFPP. Second, if you made a request there, it would be declined. Use the talk page Talk:Anal sex to propose an edit. Your proposal should take the form "change X to Y" or "add X after Y", or "remove X" or something similar, and cite reliable sources to back up your proposal. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:26, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
I want there to be a statement discouraging the use of saliva as lubricant, because it is ineffective and may lead to anal trauma. Elkalive (talk) 04:33, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles do not encourage or discourage behavior. If you have an independent reliable source that makes that statement, please offer it on the talk page as an edit request as instructed. 331dot (talk) 10:07, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
If that is a personal observation or known to you from discussions with others, that would be considered "original research" and not allowed in the article. David notMD (talk) 12:48, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
On a different note, this article provides evidence that oral gonorrhoea can be transfered to the anus if saliva is used as a lubricant: Chow EP, Fairley CK. The role of saliva in gonorrhoea and chlamydia transmission to extragenital sites among men who have sex with men: new insights into transmission. J Int AIDS Soc. 2019 Aug;22 Suppl 6(Suppl Suppl 6):e25354. doi: 10.1002/jia2.25354. PMID: 31468730; PMCID: PMC6715946. David notMD (talk) 12:56, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
Okay, but you cannot cite your own anus on Wikipedia; our articles have to summarize reliable and independently published sources. Regards, Rjjiii (talk) 07:39, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
Elkalive, the only proper place to discuss improving the article Anal sex is at Talk: Anal sex, where you are expected to provide links to reliable sources that discuss the risks of relying on saliva as a lubricant. I totally believe you, but what you and I believe is irrelevant here. The only thing that matters when developing Wikipedia content is summarizing what referenced reliable sources say. Cullen328 (talk) 07:55, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
Before you leap into editing what you consider biased content, review the talk page of the article (including archieved older Talk entries) to discover whether your concerns have been debated in the past. David notMD (talk) 22:34, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
Search
Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments4 people in discussion
They'll be in the Wikipedia namespace (the namespace is basically what appears before the ":" in the title, like in "Wikipedia:Teahouse"). Just add "Wikipedia:" before whatever term you want to look up. AryKun (talk) 15:39, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments3 people in discussion
Hello. Go to the above article and go to the lede paragraph. Go to the last sentence I entered that says..The 1st airport island covers approx. 510 hectares...Click on reference#8. It does not link up to the Kansai International Airport Statistics site. I checked the URL numerous times to make sure I didnt make any typos. Please fix. Thank you.Theairportman33531 (talk) 00:09, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
@Theairportman33531, to explain what the issue seemed to be, you typed https://kansai-airports.co.jp instead of http://kansai-airports.co.jp , and since the site does not use HTTPS (only regular HTTP), it did not load. happy editing! 💜 melecietalk - 00:24, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
It also needed the www subdomain - some websites only have URLs that work when you include it and this seems to be one of them. Tollens (talk) 00:36, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
Photo uploading
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Hello, Welcome back bro! Screenshots from a 1968 film will be in copyright, so cannot legally be uploaded to Wikipedia Commons for use in Wikipedia (and elsewhere).
It's permitted to upload one copyrighted image only, to illustrate a single article only, directly to Wikipedia, under the Fair use rationale. However that can only be done in an existing article; it cannot be done in a draft. Wait until the draft is accepted as an article, and then be prepared to explain how the screenshot is in accordance with this usage. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.212.210.36 (talk) 02:09, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
Yes, it was deleted after an Articles for Deletion discussion linked above. It's mainly because it did not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline, WP:GNG, and our notability guideline for biographies, WP:NBIO. JML1148(talk | contribs)06:43, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
I looked at the deletion discussion. I'm pretty sure the person is clearly notable -- she's talked about all over the internet, has zillons of viewers, and so on. Some people don't like articles like this, essentially because of snobbery and oldthink (fame doesn't work anymore as it did in their day -- gatekeeping is a lot harder now, and I lot of people don't understand that and/or think that's terrible). Bottom line is, a lot of people don't like Sssniperwolf so they don't want the Sssniperwolf article. If you are really dedicated to deleting a marginal article, you eventually can. There's not anything you can do about it, really. We never said we were perfect. Herostratus (talk) 22:02, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
if you're going to talk bad about the people participating in the discussion, at least name them. ltbdl (talk) 00:24, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
@Herostratus: You seem to be confusing popularity with notability. They are not equivalent. If you want to change the inclusion criteria that the Wikipedia community has agreed upon, this page isn't the venue for that. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:59, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
@Herostratus @Ltbdl's arguement on the AfD entry page seems to be pretty valid. Why would we have an article on some who only got covered by 3 sources where one of them is total nonsense, another one of them is a tabloid/gossip news source that uses Tweets as sources or just spreads blatant misinfo, and the last source randomly mentions her in 10 words minimum? Davest3r08(talk)12:59, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments3 people in discussion
As the title suggests, my GA review count has reset. I believe I had already reviewed around 9 articles, but when I initiated my most recent review, it appeared on the Good Article nominations page with only 1 review counted. Interestingly, the count for the GAs that I nominated myself has been preserved. I recently changed my username; could this be the reason? Many thanks. The Blue Rider17:47, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
Recruiting specialised editors for making a vital article a GA
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hello!
I am not what you'd call a newbie, I have adequate wiki-experience, but this question's answer eludes me and I know not where else to write the question, so here I am.
I mean to bring together (laser) physics-specialised editors so as for us to lead the level-3 vital article Laser to the GA status.
I managed to find two editors with extensive laser & optics edits, and left messages on their talk pages.
However, I'd like to address a more massive audience and was thinking of whether there is a place where I could leave a general notice, someplace where editors interested in lasers hang out. Any ideas?
Thank you for your time, L'OrfeoSon io22:59, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
Hi @L'OrfeoGreco! WikiProjects are the main way we group editors, so you could try leaving a message at WT:PHYSICS. But among the few thousand editors active enough that they'd be interested in collaborating in a GAN, there's probably only a small handful who might have a relevant specialization. Other options for finding them could be looking at GAs/FAs for similar pages and seeing who the nominators there were (you'll probably also want to check out the pages themselves), and browsing subcategories of Category:Wikipedians by profession. Hope that helps! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk23:05, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
@Sdkb, Thank you for your most swift, accurate and concise answer fellow Wikipedian! Thanks to this encounter, the Teahouse is for me a place to remember fondly in the future.
Help determining whether a musician meets Wikipedia:Notability for Creative Professionals
Latest comment: 1 year ago9 comments5 people in discussion
I'm writing an article (Draft:Scott Bruzenak) which I believe to be balanced and well sourced. An editor claimed that the subject does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (music). I've read the criteria and believe the subject meets them without question (Platinum Certification, Billboard Hot 100 National Music Chart). Can an editor help me understand whether I've applied the criteria improperly? RandomFX (talk) 21:43, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
Hello, RandomFX. Notability guidelines are rules of thumb that indicate that a topic is probably notable. Notability is shown by providing references to reliable published sources that devote significant coverage to the topic. What are the three best sources that devote significant coverage to Scott Bruzenak? Cullen328 (talk) 22:10, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
Thanks @Edward-Woodrow. Thanks for clearing that up. In my opinion, The New York Times, LA Times, and Guardian newspaper articles are the most reliable sources devoting significant coverage to the subject. However, as @Idoghor Melody states, the primary subject of those articles is Blackheart (album), which the subject co-created with artist Dawn Richard. RandomFX (talk) 16:32, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
Hi @Edward-Woodrow, here is my reply to them here where I told them that “ The sources added in the article did not prove the subject is notable. The first and second source did not seem to meet WP:SIGCOV as the subject was mentioned just once in both sources. Infact, non of the sources is majorly about the subject of the article. An article should be supported by multiple reliable sources, so that informations can be verified. ” As at the time I declined the article, the sources were nothing to write home about, I don't know about now, because I told them recently that it's best another reviewer decide about that. I guess they're tired of waiting and they want it reviewed immediately. Comr Melody Idoghor(talk)04:53, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
Thanks @Idoghor Melody. I understand your reasons for declining the article at the time. My goal is not to get the Draft re-reviewed as fast as possible, but to help me understand whether the subject 1) belongs on Wikipedia and 2) how to improve the Draft since I am fairly new to writing Wikipedia articles. If you or any other editor has suggestions for further improvements of Draft: Scott Bruzenak, please let me know and I will implement them. Thank you. RandomFX (talk) 16:36, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
@RandomFX: At the time the draft was declined, it didn't demonstrate meeting notability. Besides having significant coverage in reliable sources, there are additional criteria spelled out in WP:MUSICBIO that may indicate notability. Being on the Billboard top 100 should do it. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:06, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I see that sourced content critical of Islam is being removed from Islam related articles. Shouldn't someone, especially an Admin check and revert those edits? I can't spare time for it.-49.205.148.170 (talk) 17:46, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
(e/c) This is the help page for Wikipedia, an encyclopedia. We cannot help you with Google, a search engine, but I don't think it's possible to make your own knowledge panel. Shantavira|feed me17:54, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure if that would really help anyone – the entire purpose of the lead is to provide a summary of the article. Short descriptions have an entirely different purpose: they are to help readers distinguish between articles with similar titles in search results, not to summarize the article. Lead sections are typically only about 300 words, so it shouldn't take most people more than 60 seconds to read one. Tollens (talk) 20:42, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
Reliable Sources
Latest comment: 1 year ago7 comments4 people in discussion
My Sources are all reliable but the reviewer said they are not reliable.
I might have gone a bit extreme. However, even if I ignore the fact that the citation style is poor, I am unable to find the supposed article that coined the term. ✶Mitch199811✶19:11, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
"citation style is poor"? That's quite an understatement. Draft:PRON-ORTHOGRAPHIC CONFLICT IN ENGLISH doesn't cite any sources. It lists over a dozen (of which none will be accessible to most readers), but there's no way of telling which of them are claimed to support which statements in the draft. Maproom (talk) 19:59, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
Evidently, the draft is not a hoax or prank. It's produced from a well research source supported by convincing and authoritative sources. The challenge here appears to be knowing precisely what WP reviewers require as their reliable source. For the citation style, please help out with the prescribed citation style. However, check the re-submitted draft for the the reworked Sources Promnewyork (talk) 20:00, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
The fact that I confused it for a hoax is not a good sign. Of the ones that I was able to check, they seem tangentially related. And for the "anchor" source, I couldn't even find proof the author existed. Can you even find a source saying that this exists? If not, it probably is a neologism. Also, I would attempt to get a source from WP:RS/P on your article. ✶Mitch199811✶21:08, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
How to update the title of an article
Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments3 people in discussion
"East Gallatin Recreation Area" was just a working name because some negotiations were not complete and weed infested area did not look like a park.
The name was officially changed about four years ago to "Glen Lake Rotary Park" (see Google maps / Google Earth)
Can someone just update the title of the article for me? I've not had any success.
Ah, yep - forgot to provide an update here. I'm just cleaning up the article a bit now, looks like it needed it. Tollens (talk) 21:36, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
Entry declined
Latest comment: 1 year ago8 comments5 people in discussion
I have created a genuine entry regarding someone in the public domain, but the entry was declined. How can I edit this to ensure I don't get declined a 2nd time. WNJCA (talk) 11:38, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia and IMDb are not reliable sources and will need to be replaced and content like "JoJo's DNA is rich in fame, with every twist and turn of his family tree being star studded with success." is laughably inappropriate for an encyclopaedia. Theroadislong (talk) 11:45, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
Fair comment. As you can tell. I have never done this before. I also received a message about linking to other accounts. How can this be done in a legit way if the topic I am writing about is linked by family? WNJCA (talk) 13:22, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
Hello, disclosure is only required if you are being paid to edit. I think the person who sent the message sent this message to you because they believed that the subject of the article was paying you to write it. Still, since you are writing about your family, you have a conflict of interest. While not required, it's good practice to disclose this connection in your userpage, or on your draft you are working on. Catalk to me!13:45, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
I am not writing about my family. I am writing about JoJo Simmons who featured on the TV show Runs House and Growing Up Hip Hop. I linked his family connections as they are real and super famous. I was surprised to see that JoJo didn't have a wikipage considering he is famous. I would like the page to go live and others can edit it too. WNJCA (talk) 13:50, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
Some feedback
Formatting
Tone words like "legendary" should not be included unless it is attributed to an reliable source. (via phrases like "according to x, ")
Sources - Wikipedia is not a reliable source
The article is also very sparsely sourced. The sources do not verify much of the content within the draft.
The issue with those two articles is they are both interviews with Leach- so not independent. Ideally we'd like to see fully secondary sources that offer some analysis and interpretation. Qcne(talk)21:26, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
@Qcne Thanks for the insight. I see that this would be primary then. I was under the impression that independence is met in interviews if a third party discusses and quotes a subject, rather than the subject addressing themselves with first person perspective for the entirety of the source. Filmforme (talk) 21:44, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
No, you're right, I had a closer look and there is some analysis and interpretation. But the articles seem mostly about the establishment Gossip Grill itself, as opposed to Leach? I suppose it depends what part of the draft you are sourcing. Qcne(talk)21:55, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
@Qcne Correct, sourcing them for WP:BLP on their recent occupation. Articles are mostly about that establishment, but was checking to see if they were significant for the subject to be added to main space. Filmforme (talk) 23:13, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago10 comments5 people in discussion
Hello! I'm a new editor and am hoping to use my background in academic research and writing to make Wikipedia better in any way that I can.
I am wondering what the common practice is for using other wikipedia articles as de facto sources for an article. For example, an article i was recently reading about the actor Lucas Grabeel lists many of his starring roles in the first two paragraphs, with no citations. The facts claimed in those paragraphs, however, are plainly evident in the linked articles. In my short time as an editor so far, I have seen similar practice in many other articles that I have read. I did not see anything in WP:RS that addresses this.
In short, is it acceptable to use a link to a subsequent article as a source, assuming the subsequent article verifies the stated fact itself (hopefully with a reliable source)? Or would it be best to copy the citations (that hopefully exist and are relevant) in the subsequent articles into the original one?
Apologies if this question has been asked before, but after searching the editing guidelines and Teahouse archives, I didn't see anything that addressed this. Thanks in advance for the time, I hope to work with you all on future projects. Skylerblue77 (talk) 21:01, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
@Skylerblue77 it might also help to have a read of WP:LEAD. The first paragraph or so of an article (the 'lead') is a summary and not always expected to be sourced, as the proper sources should come elsewhere in the article. Qcne(talk)21:35, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
Hello Skylerblue77. Look at the references for the other Wikipedia article. Is there an newspaper article or other reliable source stating the actor was in a film or TV show? If so, use that as your reference a/k/a citation. Best wishes on your Wikipedia work. Karenthewriter (talk) 21:53, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
With the caveat that you should definitely check the source yourself! I often find that the source does not actually verify the information, when I go to do this. -- asilvering (talk) 22:26, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
Also worth noting that "So-and-so starred in a movie" is typically an easily verifiable fact, so it doesn't need a citation. If for some reason this is questionable or not obvious, then you'd need one. Have a look at WP:BLP for when citations are needed vs useful. -- asilvering (talk) 22:28, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
Proof that I am a newbie: I was operating the assumption that every fact in a wikipedia article had to be cited. Taken from WP:BLP, wikipedia's standard for citation is "all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged". That should make it easier.
Thanks to everyone for their speedy replies. Turns out, as Qcne pointed out, paragraphs in the lead section are usually summaries and may not have to be sourced. Also, (as noted by asilvering) and according to WP:CS, material that is not a quotation or "any material challenged or likely to be challenged" also may not need to be sourced.
@Skylerblue77 to be clear, most editors prefer more citations than the bare minimum, so you should calibrate your "does this need a footnote?" algorithm with that in mind. If you think it would take someone effort to verify the material, even if it isn't contentious, you should probably give it a footnote. If it's something like "Lucas Grabeel was in High School Musical", something that isn't contentious or surprising and which anyone can verify more or less instantly, no need. -- asilvering (talk) 23:30, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
criticism of my draft article looks incorrect
Latest comment: 1 year ago15 comments3 people in discussion
My draft article about a woman scientist has been rejected with the note that there are too many references by the subject, not enough outside references. But in comparing with Wiki articles about male scientists and professors, I find that my draft has a LARGER percentage of outside sources than others. (I did a painstaking count with one male scientist, one male artist who cites my subject, and one male humanities professor.) So it looks like a different standard is being applied to my article. Is it because she's a woman? If I just talk back to the criticism I'm afraid my draft will just be declined again & possibly deleted. How can I present my evidence and answer the criticism? Bodhipup (talk) 20:49, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
- Your draft was only declined, not rejected. Declined means you can submit it again.
- We review draft off criteria, not existing articles. Wikipedia has many rubbish articles, but if you wanted to try and base a draft off an article choose a WP:GOOD one.
- Your draft will only be deleted if you don't edit it for five months. And we don't tend to reject after a single decline.
I actually think Monica passes #3 criteria of WP:NACADEMIC as a former Fellow of the Australian Research Council, and will likely pass the #1 criteria for her work on plant cognition which even I've heard of in the mainstream media. The only issue with criteria #1 is that most of your sources are primary (her research papers or staff pages/databases), or not independent (interviews with her in newspapers). These are fine to include, but I'd like to see this supplemented by one or two more sources that offer analysis/interpretation of her work without interviewing her.
My only other feedback is to cut down on the amount of external links, see WP:EXTERNAL.
If you'd like to see if you can find one or two more sources to support criteria #1, feel free to edit the article. Otherwise technically it should be able to be approved to mainspace now. Let me know either way. Qcne(talk)21:14, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, very helpful. Would like to do a little more research and editing. Shall I tag you here when the draft is ready? Bodhipup (talk) 22:14, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
Hi, Qcne, I completed my edits. I added one independent source (National Geographic) and 1 subject-authored source (B1 Botany One). And I shortened the External Links. Many thanks for your suggestions. Bodhipup (talk) 22:40, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
For future articles, @Bodhipup, if you run into this problem, it's worth raising it (politely!) with the reviewer who declined the article and being very explicit about what part of WP:NPROF the subject meets. Articles on academics are subject to some unusual notability requirements and the reviewer may not realize this when they decline. -- asilvering (talk) 22:44, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
You're right, Qcne, one of the Wiki articles I used for comparison turned out to be rubbish—wildly outdated, inflated with questionable sources, etc. When I run across something like that, and I don't have oversight privileges, what's the best way to treat it? Bodhipup (talk) 22:51, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
@Bodhipup You don't need oversight privileges to fix things! You can also put a maintenance tag on the article if you don't have the time or ability to fix it right away. I use WP:TWINKLE for this, since it saves a lot of time. -- asilvering (talk) 22:57, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
The latter two can be automated via WP:TWINKLE, which is a nifty local script that adds various automation features. If you are wanting to get involved in Wikipedia I'd highly recommend it. Qcne(talk)22:59, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
I will add that if you're thinking an article ought to be deleted entirely, it's worth asking for help here or on a relevant wikiproject if you don't know much about deletion discussions. AfD can be pretty bitey. If you think you'll need to delete articles more often than just once or twice, it's worth lurking at WP:AFD for a while to see how discussions tend to go. The AfDs are sorted in various ways that make this easier. WP:AFD/PROF is the list for articles on academics, for example. -- asilvering (talk) 23:03, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
Username change
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Thanks for your help. How do I add an image to my own user page like others have? The insert function seems disabled for images. It looks like I can upload images by going to wiki commons, but when I tried logging in there, my current credentials are denied. Markkennedy2 (talk) 17:54, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
Question regarding a page that is already 90 days old
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Hi. This is regarding the page that is already over 90 days old since it is created. It was created directly to the mainspace and hasn't been reviewed ever since. Despite being live for three months, the page is still not searchable on Google yet. Could you please provide some information on this matter? And is there a way the page can finally be available on any search engines? Thank you. Iamsuperingbo (talk) 10:06, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
@Iamsuperingbo: It sometimes takes a while for search engines to notice the new page, so it could take slightly more than 3 months. If it's been substantially longer, I might be able to figure out the issue if you provide the name of the article? Tollens (talk) 10:11, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
Hello, SartreDR, and welcome to the Teahouse! You can add anything to an article, as long as it is relevant to the subject, supported by reliable sources, and presented neutrally. In terms of the broader categories, you might try looking through the list of featured articles for an article about a similar topic – the structure of these articles can be used as a sort of template. Tollens (talk) 09:30, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
How to cite reliable sources based on a museum photo
Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Is there a way to use a photo taken of text information on a museum wall as a "reliable source" for citations?
I assume the curators of the museum are credible.
13:46, 7 October 2023 (UTC) Robvann Robvann (talk) 13:46, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
Hello Robvann, as mentioned above, you would cite the sign/exhibit at the museum. You could include a link to the photo (using the "url" parameter) or a quotation from the sign (using the "quote" or "trans-quote" parameter) in the citation; both are helpful when verifying article content. Regards, Rjjiii (talk) 07:06, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments2 people in discussion
So, I'm working on the article on Kiki's Delivery Service in hopes that someday I can get it to GA. However, while I was looking for sources to improve the article, I stumbled across the art book for the film in the Internet Archive. I would wanna cite the book to various parts of the article (Such as the Production section), but I'm not sure if its better if I just borrow it from a library or buy it. I know this might be a silly question, but I'm just concerned on which option is better for me. Blue Jay (talk) 10:42, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
@The great Jay I don't see much difference between buying and borrowing from the Internet Archive- both allow you to find pages to cite. I know that Internet Archive borrowing has a time limit, so you might run out of time to fully read it? It depends if you want to add this book to your bookshelf permanently, I suppose! Qcne(talk)12:11, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
Actually, on second thought, the reason why I asked the question was because I found the art book without any option to buy or borrow it; instead you can just read it for free without having to do either of those things. Blue Jay (talk) 13:22, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
The Internet Archive does host some illegally hosted content that is under copyright, because anyone can upload documents to it. This then comes down to a moral issue, if you're willing to cite from the likely pirated book without buying or borrowing it legitimately. Just don't link to the Internet Archive in your citation. Qcne(talk)13:51, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
Hello, Kueth nyanuor, and welcome to the Teahouse. Unfortunately, rejected drafts will not be reconsidered – there are very strict standards for what can have an article that require that there has already been significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. In this case, these sources don't appear to exist, so an article cannot be published. Tollens (talk) 23:27, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
Hello @Kueth nyanuor! We don't have anyone designated as senior editors. Everyone here is considered to be editors in equal standing.
Your draft is in a really bad state. The introduction does not even introduce who this person is nor are formatted. The draft is filled with promotional language. If you found sufficient sources, you may appeal to the editor that rejected your draft. Catalk to me!23:29, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
@Kueth nyanuor The reviewer Rejected the draft because in the experienced opinion of the reviewer, the person does not meet Wikipedia's standards for notability. No amount of revision will change that decision. Stop working on the draft. David notMD (talk) 16:13, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
IP blockage query
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion
(edit conflict) Hi Wikipedians. Hope you all are doing well. Can you tell me, How to solve the issue of expanded section in wikipedia articles? Look at this article, in mobile view all the sections are opened and it is hard to view even though I didn't enable Expand all the sections through my settings. Fade258 (talk) 10:30, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
Hello Fade258, and welcome to the Teahouse. Pages containing tables should have those tables visible by default when the page first opens. This is so that content cannot be missed by viewers. That said, there are LOTS AND LOTS of tables in that page and I agree that it is very hard to view. By way of demonstration, I have made some of them hideable, with a hide/show link at the top of them. See this diff. You'll notice I've added the command collapsible in the top line containing class="wikitable This allows a user to hide long tables and view the page more effectively. You could add the command to the other tables if you wish.
However, I also appreciate that, in mobile view, the section headings themselves don't have the standard 'hide' / 'show' chevron next to them as say the Earth article does. I'm not sure if that's simply because of the presence of the tables, or from some other cause.
Unfortunately, I have run out of time today to investigate further for you. Perhaps someone else can comment on this, or you could experiment with copying the source code into your sandbox and playing around with it. See Help:Table for more advice. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 16:57, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
@BlueWren0123: You can if you like, but you don't have to. If you want to make your user page redirect to your existing user talk page, you can create your user page with the only text on the page being #REDIRECT [[User talk:BlueWren0123]] – you could alternatively create a completely blank user page, or put something on the page. As long as the page is created the link will be blue. Tollens (talk) 20:49, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Newbie here, getting familiar with notability guidelines. I ran across this article and am sincerely wondering if it meets the academic criteria. If it does, then I can think of dozens or hundreds of women scholars who might also qualify. Obviously needs to be updated. But aside from that, your thoughts? Thanks in advance! Article: Randall Amster Bodhipup (talk) 18:37, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
@Bodhipup I can see nothing in the article that states he is a true 'professor' (rather than just a lecturer at a university). Therefore I have changed the lead paragraph to that effect. I don't think this person meets WP:NPROF, yet he might meet WP:NBIO - I've simply not looked through all the references to check. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:39, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
Links. Blacklists.
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Hi! I am currently working on uploading a new article to English Wikipedia. On the stage of publishing my draft I got a warning message that my article contains a new external link to a site registered on Wikipedia's blacklist or Wikimedia's global blacklist. I was wondering if you could help me find out which links in my article seem to be inappropriate so I could delete/replace them and publish my article successfully Irkashka (talk) 20:26, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
@Irkashka: You asked this question on 4 October and received a response – the question is available here. Nothing appears to have changed since then; is there something further you need help with? Tollens (talk) 20:43, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
Hi, Irkashka. Based on what Tollens pointed out, I think the problem is that you tried to use "Turbo page" links, which are a third-party service that makes pages more lightweight. Please use the original links by clicking "Полная версия". Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 21:59, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
Photo uploading
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion
If any of you know how to upload a photo citing fair use, could you please upload this one: jsqxXXYwNdZpcWEQzgNnEoKVwJ5.jpg (667×1000) (tmdb.org) to the infobox of this article: The Glass Harmonica (film) - Wikipedia
The photo is a poster for the film, thank you! Welcome back bro (talk) 19:56, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I moved to a new country and here I am using a shared internet. I am worried about IP Addresses getting mixed up or there might be another Wiki editor in my building. So what should I do to keep my account safe? I don't want to get a ban or restriction. Thanks. Charsaddian (talk) 21:23, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Charsaddian. The most important thing is always to keep your Wikipedia password safe and never let anyone access your laptop or computer when you're out of the room. If someone else edits Wikipedia anonymously from the IP address that you're using and manages to get themselves blocked, it is possible that could affect you in the short term. |If it were to happen, then please read the guidance at Wikipedia:IP block exemption and Wikipedia:Autoblock which should help explain how to deal with that situation. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:45, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments2 people in discussion
HELLO TEAHOUSE, TODAY MY QUESTION IS: CAN YOU PLEASE HELP I ACCIDENTLY CREATED A PAGE, I THOUGHT IT WOULD BE A DRAFT!!!!! @GoingBatty @Cullen328 (I was attempting to accept a list prompt via red text, I guess that created a page instead of a draft. SOS, Nobody expects the UnexpectedSmoreInquisition (talk)! 02:36, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hello, teahouse. Today my question is: am I as an autoconfirmed editor able to /how do you mass tag pages? Specifically, I am referring to many articles about towns in Burkina Faso, which I want to tag as stubs. Thanks, Nobody expects the UnexpectedSmoreInquisition (talk)! 23:02, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
Ah, I think I see the confusion. The redirect seems appropriate to me, as Ed Royce (politician) is near-certain to be the primary topic (meaning the topic readers are most likely searching for) even for "Edward Royce". I'll add a hatnote to the page of the politician to direct readers to the director in case that is where they intended to go. Tollens (talk) 04:00, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
I am not sure what that means, but thanks for helping with this.
Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments2 people in discussion
In this interview[1] {there's a transcript} are the interviewer and interviewee Authors 1 and 2 (or vice versa)? Is Democracy Now the Author? Is it Author 1 and the others Authors 2 and 3 (and in which order if they are)? Mcljlm (talk) 19:00, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
@Mcljlm: If you want to cite this and are looking for the best way to use a citation template, you can use {{cite interview}}, which has the interviewee as author, and the interviewer in a separate field. —Kusma (talk) 19:38, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
Is it possible Kusma to achieve the same result using Visual Editor? I'm attempting to edit an existing citation. I replaced a dead URL used to support a phrase in the text and also a blockquote with a live URL (as well as its archived version after finding the source was much earlier than it appeared). It would be much easier if I could use VE. Mcljlm (talk) 00:51, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
@Shivsahu9550 Requests by owners of a site on the blacklist will be declined. (See this link). Only people with no conflict of interest can make these requests and then only if they can "give compelling evidence as to why it should be delisted". Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:51, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Hello Teahouse! Another redirect question :)
Q1: Is there a location to find more information about how redirects on Wikipedia should work, and perhaps, how to fix if something goes wrong?
Q2: Any suggestions on how to get the expected movie wiki page to show up, without the redirect inbetween?
We are running into the following unexpected behaviour;
If in Google we search for a movie title, we see a result with a meta description that describes the movie we are looking for. The link in the search result doens't point to the page with this meta description though. Instead it lands on a different page, and redirects from this landing page to the expected movie page.
However, the landing page seems to also redirect to at least 1 other movie page. (so it redirects to multiple pages?)
To replicate;
Google search term: "Coup! movie wiki"
Meta description we are looking for: "Coup! is a 2023 American .. "
The reason for the search result linking to a different location than you end up at is likely due to a recent page move, where the article currently located at Coup! was moved from Coup (film) to its present location. Search results will update by themselves eventually, this is no big deal and there's nothing we can do to speed it up.
I'm not sure about the second part related to No Escape (2015 film); I do see the redirect The Coup (film) that points there, is that perhaps the message you saw? One redirect can't point to two different places, so I don't understand how that message could appear on that page.
@Tollens: This IP has come in to IRC and showed screenshots. Indeed you are correct, the different redirects were confusing the user, they miss the 'The' :) - RichT|C|E-Mail07:26, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
unnamed places
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments3 people in discussion
I tried to modify john hawkins profile by specifying that he was also a "human trafficker and the leader of a terrorist organisation which he truly was because his involvement in several terrorist attacks against African kingdoms and mass deportation of African children despite that somehow the Wikipedia website won't let me specify that he was a human trafficker which he was
Which makes me wonder does wikipedia people care about how non Caucasoid people view their actions specially those bad ones?
In this case just write white only website next to wikipedia just so other human beings from different races know that they can't participate into improving it thank you... WIZHARDER (talk) 17:45, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
(edit conflict)You mean John Hawkins (naval commander) - as there are a few John Hawkins articles. Notwithstanding that the edits you inserted weren't very well done and broke the grammar quite badly - but the lead is a summary of the entire article and should only highlight topics already brought up and well-sourced within it. The lead isn't for new information, or the paraphrasing of existing info in order to meet an agenda you personally hold dear - see WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, and also WP:BLP, dipping into WP:RELIABLE while you're at it. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:54, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments4 people in discussion
Another reader has suggested that the page Pan flute should be moved to "Panpipes", and I agree, since Google ngram-viewer indicates that the name "Panpipes" is much more commonly used in printed publications. But first the redirect page Panpipes must be deleted. Can you explain how to do this? Kanjuzi (talk) 10:47, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
Based on some notes in various article histories, some might object to this change. I recommend starting a formal WP:RM rather than simply getting technical assistance to make a WP:BOLDMOVE. DMacks (talk) 17:00, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
No, you actually filed an Uncontroversial technical requests, a bold move and did not start a discussion. Therefore, I rejected the tech-request. DMacks (talk) 12:06, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
answer
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I recomend also reading Notability which explains what kinds of subjects can have an article, and Reliable sources for which kinds of sources can be used to verify claims in your articles (and how to cite them) along with Your first article which was mention above. happy editing! 💜 melecietalk - 12:24, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Citation in talk discussions
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Hello,
How do you cite your source of information in a talk page? I have recently addded a talk topic in Harold Radford. Could you give any tips to improve? Thanks in advance. Pimlokto (talk) 08:59, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
I've removed most of the content of Harold Radford, as it wasn't about the subject, but was advertisements for cars (presumably ones sold by the subject, though this wasn't stated). Maproom (talk) 10:06, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
to bring up citations in talk pages, you add the citation as you would do in the article (or copy the citation from the article), as well as add the template {{reftalk}} to keep these references in the section. happy editing! 💜 melecietalk - 12:26, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Edit moved a table and I cannot see how to rectify it.
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I made an update to this page (while not logged in) Alika Milova - Wikipedia, but in doing the edit, the table has moved to below the references and I cannot see how to rectify this. Any guidance would be appreciated. This is the first time I have updated a table and I cannot see why it would have moved the table when all I did was add a row. I am editing on Windows 10, using MS Edge. Jeromesh (talk) 10:58, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments4 people in discussion
Put something on "OS4000" talk, then went back to the Article. Got a message about 3 hidden categories.
Went into edit mode then Preview without a change but could see nothing Hidden.
Changed my Preferences. Still could not see anything Hidden.
Er... confused BlueWren0123 (talk) 12:21, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse. Most Wikipedia articles are in several maintenance categories that do not need to be visible to the general public so by default they are hidden. If you wish to see them, in Preferences > Appeearance > Advanced options, tick the box marked "Show hidden categories". Shantavira|feed me12:31, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @BlueWren0123 See WP:HIDDENCAT. Any article can (and most will) have hidden categories. These are normally of more use to editors than to readers, which is why they are hidden. OS4000 has the hidden categories including "articles needing additional references", which is there because of the tag at the top pointing out it needs more citations. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:32, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
(edit conflict x2, fun!) hi @BlueWren0123! I'm assuming that you do have the Show hidden categories setting on preferences? hidden categories should be displayed when you have that setting on. if you're looking for it inside the edit box, the category is probably not there by itself. many hidden categories are added through templates which among other things categorize the page. for example, {{citation needed}} categorizes everything within Category:All articles with unsourced statements which does not display inside the edit box or through source code outside of the citation needed template. happy editing! 💜 melecietalk - 12:34, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
@Tesla car owner: If you would like to request protection of the page you can do so at WP:RFPP. However, such a request will likely be declined, as protection is only used when the disruption is long-term and very frequent, which does not appear to be the case with that page. Tollens (talk) 11:09, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
@Tesla car owner You are permitted to revert damaging edits yourself and also to warn users who leave 'bad faith' edits. We use a set of templated messages of increasing severity to warn registered users and IP users who start to make poor edits. Only after they have continued making disruptive edits after their final warning need you report an editor to WP:AIV. Do not warn and report at the same time; monitor their activity and only report if they continue. I find WP:TWINKLE lets me leave the appropriate messages for editors. See WP:VANDALISM for further guidance on this topic. Remember that you do not WP:OWN any article, but your help to ensure they remain well-written and well-sourced is appreciated. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 13:46, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Miss World Contest for 1966
Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments4 people in discussion
The winner for Miss NJ World was NOT Pam Donaldson. She was disqualified and I was the rightful winner and have all of the proof of that. Because the Director of the Pageant came late after the winner was picked, he didn't realize that Pam was wearing a bikini, which was not allowed and he disqualified her as the winner. Again, I made this correction with someone from the pageant a long time ago and they corrected on a list that I cannot find on my google search, but Pam Donaldson was not the legitimate winner for NJ. The pageant took place in Long Branch, NJ in 1966. I went to the Miss USA World contest in Ohio and even have pictures with Bob Hope as proof that I was the winner for New Jersey. 108.53.6.172 (talk) 07:42, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
IP Editor, the single source the article is based on mentions Pamela Donaldson. Do you have a published source (not a photograph) that mentions you were the delegate? It can be an offline source, such as a book or magazine. Qcne(talk)07:49, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
The article already listed you under Long Branch, NJ, so you added your name a second time. I have reverted that.[5] The source says you both went with Pamela Donaldson listed under New Jersey. The article follows the source. Maybe the organizers added "Long Branch, NJ" as a compromise to allow you both to participate. Or maybe Pamela Donaldson was selected in another way and you didn't remember the name of a disqualified original Long Branch winner. There are other states which both have a delegate listed under the state and a city in the state. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:48, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Declined Draft: Brian E. Kinsella
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi Everyone,
I am working on my first article on WP and am running into some snags Draft:Brian E. Kinsella#His career in Financial Services. I've tried to follow advice from other WP editors before (thank you guys), but it has been a little bit in different directions, resulting in a multitude of edits, and me going from a Predicted B-class rating, to now being tagged for deletion.
I've edited the text again this morning, and hope that this adhere to the encyclopedic tone. If you have the time, I'd appreciate any advice and comments - before I try to add in the right citations in the right places again - so disregard placement for now).
Thank you so much in advance! I really appreciate any help provided.
Delete "List of the Smoke Features" section and use of Smoke websites as references. Basically, blow it up and start over. David notMD (talk) 18:02, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
@TheCreator5874 Any decent software that was released in 2017 should by now have many reviews that meet these criteria. So, delete everything that's what we would expect to see on the website of the developers and just base a draft article on those independent reviews that have significant coverage and are not based on interviews with the company. Incidentally, WP:NONFREE images such as company logos are not allowed in draft articles and won't matter when it comes to their being accepted. Mike Turnbull (talk) 19:22, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
Hello, the project is open source and there is no company behind it, so there is no refering to that.
The article has been created with the wizard, and knowing that, we know that there is no relation to the project or any paid edit of any company clicked, that is excluded.
The feature list has been shortend and is not overtaken from the developer list, but by independend book reviews created and described by own words. Please suggest which feature is not worth to tell?
Furthermore, thus: the remaining items are unique and not in interviews of or from a company, that nevertheless exists. The items are all quoted form over 20 printed ressources.
Can you edit the article please if there is a feature that not belongs into it and resubmit it? The wikipedia problem is that everyone has a different view and that standard things or phrases or arguments do not fit. will be very enlighted to habe help to suggest features to strike for a resubmit,
You removed two of the 20 features in the list and resubmitted the draft, without improving any of the references. The real problem is lack of references, as the decline notice said. The draft will certainly be declined again. I would recommend you rescind the submission and work on finding reliable, independent, in-depth references. Most of the references are either primary sources written by Smoke developers, or are not about Smoke at all, but are about cryptographic protocols used by Smoke and such things. If you cannot find independent references that actually talk about Smoke, there is no possibility that an article about it can be published. CodeTalker (talk) 17:11, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
i read somewhere that there were 32 stewards on wikipedia, is there a list where i can see them or do i have to actually look? no reason i actually need to know, im just curious Natelabs (talk) 16:46, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments3 people in discussion
When looking at references, they usually refer to books, or posts by news websites. I was wondering, since I am making a draft, can I use a source from Steam, or from YouTube.
For example say the video-games steam page says what and why the game was made, can I use it as a source?
Same with YouTube, If a video has reliable information, can I include it in my draft, or not because its a video link?
Steam is a WP:PRIMARY source and can be used for non-controversial information, such as the existence of a game. But for a draft to pass the WP:NVIDEOGAME criteria we'd need to see multiple secondary sources that discuss the game, such as reviews, but note that interviews with the game dev and press releases won't count.
YouTube as a source depends on the video. Content uploaded from a verified official account, such as that of a news organization, may be treated as originating from the uploader and therefore inheriting their level of reliability. But again, make sure it isn't just a WP:PRIMARY source.
Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments3 people in discussion
Hello Wiki community, I am in the process of trying to create a new wikipedia page for the APT foundation based out of New Haven, CT. I had my first draft declined and went back with all new sources and rewritten submission. My first submission was declined within the hour but this version has been waiting for over a month. Just curious if anyone could shed some light on what I could be doing better through this process. The clinic does cutting edge research and was one of the first methadone clinics in the United States which to me makes it notable enough for a wiki page.
Do yall have advice on things to add, the sources, or just more knowledge on the submission/review process. Any comments are appreciated, thank you! Ksundy414 (talk) 15:42, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Hi @Ksundy414: drafts are not reviewed in any particular order, and there is no way of expediting this. Sometimes it takes hours, sometimes it takes months. We have well over 3,000 drafts awaiting review, please continue to be patient. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:18, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
I cannot comment on notability; I leave that to others.
But from a readability perspective it looks decent (and better than many articles). It would benefit from from "wikilinks" to Wikipedia articles for technical terms. (You'll see I just did the easy one for "New Haven".) For instance in the middle it mentions "open-access model" and at the end are are set of technical terms such as "twelve-step facilitation". Try to find WP articles on those, and link them. Feline Hymnic (talk) 16:56, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
How to find out if a reference is bad or forbidded
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi.
I re-published my article draft Draft:Exeger Operations AB and got a warning about a bad reference. I tried to understand which of the links it was, but failed (though I have my suspicions). Is there an automatic way of doing this? I would really appreciate if someone could have a look at my draft and explain if there is text or links that should be edited (or even if possible review the whole draft). Derekhal22 (talk) 21:24, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
I removed it prior to the blackl list spider checked it. Is there any other problems with the references in that draft? Derekhal22 (talk) 21:27, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Attempting to remove bias: now being accused of bias
Latest comment: 1 year ago8 comments3 people in discussion
Hello, im new and ive unfortunately stumbled into internet drama over at the Lex Fridman article/talk page.
Are there any admins or anyone willing to review that article/talk page and give me feedback on what you see from my involvement in the page?
I believe that im being gaslit by other users to think that im the one who's biased... i dont think thats true but i would greatly appreciate outside input.
Essentially im trying to remove the content in the Lex Fridman page that is referenced from an article from "Business Insider". The article was written by someone named Julia Black. It's clear to me that this article is an opinion piece and displays a negative bias towards Lex Fridman (please read it and share your thoughts with me!), so i think it's inappropriate to use it as a source for Lex Fridman's wiki page.
Now ive several postings to my personal talk page accusing me of various things... please help!
@Uhhhum: Opinion pieces are perfectly acceptable as sources, provided that any statement they are being used as a source for is attributed to them, rather than being stated as facts – the article correctly does this. To not include prominent, reliably sourced criticism is not in line with WP:NPOV but actually directly opposed to it; this is something many people misunderstand. The NPOV policy essentially asks that we not take sides, but rather explain the sides, even when we may disagree with them. This is done correctly in the article – the article does not criticize Fridman but rather explains the criticism of Fridman.
In terms of the postings at your talk page: the "Introduction to contentious topics" section is a mandatory notice that must be posted, and is not meant to imply you're doing anything wrong. The editors are correct, however, that the transcript you posted is in violation of copyright policies. Material can't be posted anywhere on Wikipedia if it's copy-pasted without the explicit permission of the copyright owner, and no such permission appears to have been granted in this case.
If you'd like further clarification on any of this please do ask – I understand that Wikipedia's policies can be difficult to get a handle on. Tollens (talk) 04:49, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
To maybe help a bit more with the issue around copyright: Talk pages are actually public, you can see them even without an account or ever having edited Wikipedia. You can verify this for yourself if you'd like by looking at the page while logged out. Tollens (talk) 04:52, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for this clarification on copyright/talk pages! I'll remember this and avoid doing it again in future. Uhhhum (talk) 04:57, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. Copyright point is duly noted, thank you for the clarification.
My issue now is that the Business Insider article being used as the cornerstone for the criticism against Fridman doesn't have any sources itself. There's no way to see where the author (Julia Black) got her information. Uhhhum (talk) 04:59, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
That's actually the case with pretty much every article ever. News outlets don't really cite sources in the same way as we do here, and when they do they typically do so in a way that doesn't jump out. Their sources will often be formatted like "Mr. Person said ...", rather than in a footnote style. Even when no source is provided, this isn't in itself an issue – because the criticism is directly attributed to the source in the prose of the article (like the sentence Business Insider quoted computational biologist Lior Pachter saying that "some scientists and academics fear Fridman is contributing to the 'cacophony of misinformation'".), it is clarified that this isn't necessarily a fact, but is rather an opinion that some people have. Opinions can't really be sourced, because they're just that: opinions. Tollens (talk) 05:13, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
@Uhhhum As you're asking for feedback: Please do not make accusations against other editors without evidence in the form of diffs, see e.g. WP:AOBF. I'm specifically referring to this part of your comment I believe that im being gaslit by other users to think that im the one who's biased. Also, your statement It's clear to me that this article is an opinion piece is not backed up by evidence and likely wrong. The article is marked Tech not Opinion. And the journalist Julia Black is not an opinion editor but a senior correspondent on Insider's features team, where she focuses on in-depth investigations about the people and companies shaping our culture today. (see [7]). AncientWalrus (talk) 22:24, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
This has been a learning experience for me and I will be careful in the future not to make similar mistakes. I appreciate your time in engaging with my various comments and thoughts, helping to educate me on policies/procedures.
I'm sorry for making accusations.
Please forgive my mistaken approach to this thread, discussion. I have a better understanding of the policies, and going forward, I'll engage with this website with what I've learned in mind. Uhhhum (talk) 23:08, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Is it alright to take a photo of the “Chapel for The Children?”
Latest comment: 1 year ago13 comments5 people in discussion
As part of this month’s contest to take a photo of a National Register of Historic Places, I plan to take a photo or photos of a church that doesn’t currently have any photos on the commons. I couldn’t find a picture of the Chapel for The Children on the internet, barring one from Google maps, and I believe it passes all the appropriate criteria. Just wanted to confirm, am I good to go? Thanks in advance. Slamforeman (talk) 17:58, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
Hello, Slamforeman. As a general rule, you can upload your own photos of any building to Wikimedia Commons. However, I cannot find "Chapel for The Children" on the NRHP website or anywhere else online. Are you sure that you have the name right? Cullen328 (talk) 18:17, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
I am afraid I don’t understand. This website says that Chapel for the Children “continues to serve as a place for spiritual and religious practices by Austin State Support Living Center’s residents, family members, employees, and the public.” So perhaps it is associated with the Living Center, and listed somewhere as being one of their residences. In either event, I don’t believe it matters, because, as per the source, it is still an NHRP. I may be mistaken, but I think it is still alright. Slamforeman (talk) 19:01, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
That is indeed an interesting-looking building. Generally, photos of architectural items in the US are fine. But a photo that has some sort of art as a main focus, rather than mostly containing the more utilitarian aspects, might start to infringe on the license of the artist. Looking at the two photos on the site you linked, the exterior shot would be ok if you took the photo yourself and uploaded with a free license, but the interior shot is concerning due to the stained-glass. DMacks (talk) 17:21, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
Those photos come from the nomination form that Cullen328 mentioned. I would think they would be usable, since they are from a US government document, although I am not an expert in copyright issues by any means.BTW I'm puzzled as to why this building isn't listed in the actual National Park Service page for NRHP in Travis County. Perhaps the NPS page is not up to date? CodeTalker (talk) 18:45, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
So quick update, it turns out that the building is inside the residence of Austin Supported Living Center, and since it is private property, I wasn’t allowed on to take the photo. I suppose this probably why the photo was not already uploaded. Thanks for all your help guys, but unless something changes, I won’t be able to take the photo. Slamforeman (talk) 21:17, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
@CodeTalker, I saw you asked if the THC images are usable, they say themselves on their website that you have to email them for permission, and that they grant one time use only. I am also not a copyright expert, but I assume this means they cannot be used on Wikipedia. Just felt I should say. Slamforeman (talk) 03:34, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
It's a filing of a US-gov document (who published the blank form) by a Texas-gov official (who filled the content on the form), not all content publication of the US-gov. Much state-government published content is not intrinsically free the way federal-government materials are. DMacks (talk) 04:12, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Username change
Latest comment: 1 year ago9 comments6 people in discussion
@SparklessPlug: If you go to WP:APP there is an FAQ for each version of the app, which will tell you how to report bugs. For Android it looks like there is an email address, and for iOS there is a place in the app to report problems. RudolfRed (talk) 01:44, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Edited version of Wikipedia
Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments3 people in discussion
@Admantine123 I ran User:InternetArchiveBot on it. It's not reporting any current links that need fixing, so I tried to make it archive all of the links in the article, and for some reason it wouldn't let me do that. Are there any specific links that you're particularly concerned about in the future? Relativity 22:07, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
IABot needs the urls to be inside a citation template to add the |archive-url=. It will archive bare urls but doesn't know how to build an entire citation template around it to add the archive links. One source I spot checked had been archived 42 times this week. The sources are well archived. Folly Mox (talk) 01:10, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Hi there. A user (Vacosea) has started an RfC on the talk page of Coco Lee. I have commented on it, but then Vacosea edited the page, added new subheadings and moved my comments. Now it looks like I have started a poll, which I did not. Also, an earlier post of mine now appears below a latter one after their edits. I believe there’s serious misrepresentation.
As far as I know, per WP:OTHERSCOMMENTS and WP:INTERPOLATE: “Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning” and “you should not break up another editor's text by interleaving or interpolating your own replies to individual points”; per WP:TALKNO: “behavior that is unacceptable… Misrepresentation of other people... do not alter others' comments, including signatures”.
I can’t believe someone is doing this after they initiated an RfC, with so many Wikipedian eyes watching…
By the way, there’s another post about me at ANI (the top one, started by Vacosea). And if this is not the right place for the comments altered issue, please feel free to move it to anywhere you find appropriate. Thanks again. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 06:56, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Drawing attention to an issue
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I posted a question on the talk page of Naming conventions (plurals) about the interpretation of this guideline, only to discover that the same question had been asked two years earlier without eliciting any response. Apparently, no one is monitoring this page. None of the places for drawing attention to an issue that I know of apply in this case: this is not about help using or editing Wikipedia and also not about a content dispute or a policy issue. I'd like to know, what is a good way of drawing attention to such an issue? --Lambiam05:51, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Hi everyone,
Thank you for the invitation to the Teahouse. Something recently come up that I'd love some help with, if this is within this group's scope.
I've worked with a couple of amazing volunteer editors to make COI edits on a couple of wikipedia pages through this account, but I recently left the gallery where I was working that created the conflict. Is there a way to retire a COI disclosure?
I'm trying to find a way to avoid interfering with the edit history on the two pages where I worked while keeping the COI editing as part of my/my account's history on Wikipedia.
Is this possible, or is it better to simply start a new, non-COI account?
I would leave the declaration, since you did have a COI when you edited those two articles, and might be considered to have an ongoing one specifically for them. You could change the declaration to past tense and add that you no longer work for HW: this would be more transparent than switching to a new account, which might wrongly arouse suspicions. You might also ask to change the existing Account name, since the current one references HW.
Others may have past experience of similar situations, and may offer different (and better) advice. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.220.114.13 (talk) 00:32, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Thank you @90.220.114.13, this is very helpful! I'll look into changing the declaration to past tense. Noted that creating a new account might arouse suspicions, so as suggested, I'll look into requesting an update to my username to remove the reference to HW. All sounds very reasonable.
Why is Miki Filigranski allowed to create a toxic environment?
Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments6 people in discussion
There is a senior "editor" or "admin" with username Miki Filigranski that is creating a toxic environment by acting like a dictator and bully in certain Croatian historical articles. He acts as if he is "the boss". Many Croatian people have complained about his editing which is often not aligned with the "weight of evidence". One topis of specific interest is the topic of "Nikola IV Zrinski". Miki Filigranski deletes article improvements willy-nilly and has a few times deleted complaints that people have written about him. He has even had people blocked and edits deleted.
Does Miki Filigranski have some sort of anti-Croatian agenda?
Why do other editors support Miki Filigranski?
- it seems like this like corrupt cops protecting corrupt cops?
If content generation is supposed to be "democratic" and "crowd-sourced" then why is Miki Filigranski allowed to act like a lord ruling his fief? 199.119.232.211 (talk) 19:48, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
No, this is related to my 9 October revert at Talk:Nikola IV Zrinski of IP 208.98.222.61 and both IP's seem to be from the same place. I do not own any of the articles. I did not create toxic environment. There were no improvements to the articles. I did not have block anyone or delete edits (admins done that on their own). I was barely active about it (see my comment at admin User talk:Joy#NikolaZrinski and ZidarZ). This IPs appear to be socks of recently blocked account User:ZidarZ and its sock User:NikolaZrinski who were making same baseless claims and personal attacks not only on me but also other editors and administrators for merely reverting or not agreeing with their edits on articles or walls-of-text-not-forum edits on article talk pages. They edits were mostly based on 19th century outdated sources, sources which are not reliable or were self-published by non experts, edited content seriously violationg copyrights. IP 199.119.232.211 knows about ZidarZ complaint which got removed by admin User:Joy, nobody knows about this besides a very small group of experienced editors and admins. It is getting a bit annoying being their target. Seems like they who are behind these accounts and IPs did not learn anything nor follow advices which were told to them in good faith for possible future unblock request at User talk:NikolaZrinski#September. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 12:00, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
How do I become a Wikipedia editor?
Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments4 people in discussion
Oh, no, I meant to read the page, not edit it. If you want to practice editing, click on the user icon in the top-right corner and select sandbox. Cheers, Nobody expects the UnexpectedSmoreInquisition (talk)! 23:31, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments3 people in discussion
I want to update a building photo for a school near me, I am new to Wikipedia and I want to do it right.
Can I take the photo myself? What does the photo need to represent, and what quality is acceptable?
Could I take a photo off one of the school's publications, even if its a different building from the same school?
How many photos per Wikipedia article?
How do I add a photo?
Also, is Linkedin employee numbers a reliable reference?
@Loupedecker, welcome! Images have A LOT of devil in the details, starting with copyright etc. Wikipedia:Image use policy and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images go into some of the details. Most pictures you see on WP are actually hosted on our sister-site Commons, which has rules of it's own. Strict ones.
Yes, taking the photo yourself is ok, because afaict Australia has freedom of panorama rules that allows it [8] (not all countries do). You can upload it at WP:FUW. It is very likely that the schools own publications are copyrighted and can't be used.
@Loupedecker: If the school recently published their own employee numbers of LinkedIn, that’s probably reliable. However, I hope you are first looking for independent published sources that provide significant coverage about the school. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 12:39, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Citations during cleanup
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hello,
I am trying to clean up the introductory portion of the article Vilnius. I have moved the introductory part to under demographics and have copied the citations as well, but it seems that if I deleted the citations in the introductory part, I will lose them permanently from the references section as well. Basically, how do I keep the references for a lower paragraph while deleting them from the introductory part?
Much Obliged. Pimlokto (talk) 21:44, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
@Pimlokto: You would just move the citation(s). All you have to do is move the source code of the reference (if you're using the source editor) to the the lower paragraph you want to move it to or just drag the little reference symbol in visual editor where you want it to be. If that doesn't make sense, here's a video I made on how you can move a citation in visual and source editor: This is a video showing how you can move a citation do a different location and still have it showing in the "References" section Relativity 22:22, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago8 comments5 people in discussion
Why is every episode of South Park notable enough for its own article? What makes South Park so special that its episodes deserve an article just because they exist? Most likely the only sources will be a few reviews, while there are actually influential and famous people in the third world with DOZENS of in-depth sources about them and their activities that are considered not notable. Just because the sources are considered to be less "independent" or "reliable", even if they have millions of readers and are the newspaper of record for their region. These episodes of South Park, or whatever American TV show, have very few INDEPENDENT sources about them, as a review of every episode by the same source can scarcely considered independent. The same is true for TV shows outside the western world - just because they are not written about by western news sources, they are deemed non-notable by the AFC reviewers, even when their viewership is many times greater than these American TV shows and many articles are written about them. What's with this western-centric standard? This is like the Donna Strickland problem, but even worse, because the rest of the world outside the "Western world" are far more poorly represented than female academics as a whole. 2601:644:907E:A450:5531:69EC:1375:BC83 (talk) 04:16, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse! Wikipedia:Notability (television)#Television episodes says that "A standalone episode article should be expected to be able to meet WP:GNG on its own", which is the same for articles about people. The sources for each article need to be independent from the article subject and from each other, but it's perfectly fine to use independent sources from the same source in multiple articles. It's challenging to respond to generalizations about the AFC reviewers. If you have specific drafts that you're concerned about, please provide some examples, and we can help explain the reasons why they were declined and provide information on how you can improve them. Looking at the FAQ at Talk:Donna Strickland, I can understand why the drafts that were submitted were not sufficient to be accepted, but it's OK if you look at the drafts and feel differently. GoingBatty (talk) 04:50, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
And the problem with Donna Strickland was not that the drafts weren't approved, the problem was that nobody created a sufficient article before she won the Nobel Prize. But the fact that nobody created an article is less worrisome than the fact that contributors who do write articles are having their hard work wasted by reviewers on arbitrary grounds that widely used sources are unreliable. 2601:644:907E:A450:A0AA:AF03:1870:3BD9 (talk) 06:42, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Put simply, there are articles on every South Park episode because there are sources that review and discuss each South Park episode. Those sources are independent of the subject and reliable, so they contribute to notability. Wikipedia does have a problem with systemic bias, but that’s because we’re a volunteer site; people will tend to edit what interests them personally. Most of our editors are from the West, and so our coverage tends to slant that way too. If you do know about notable people who don’t have an article with many sources about them, you can just write the article and help reduce the gap in coverage. As for TV shows, many shows outside the west don’t get any in depth reviews or coverage by RS for each episode, so we can’t write articles about them, even if we wanted to. That’s a problem with how the world works, and Wikipedia can’t solve it because we rely on already existing sources to determine notability; if these sources don’t exist, we cannot just make stuff up to write an article. AryKun (talk) 06:07, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
There is no rule that determines whether a source is reliable or not aside from what random Wikipedia editors decide. Each country has its own sources that will review media produced in that country or in the local language. And there is systemic bias not just because people edit what interests them but also because the reviewers reject things with sources they're not familiar with or about topics that they're not familiar with. Long-term Wikipedia editors are so accustomed to processes that they are not considering whether the processes are creating the correct results. Articles like "Modhalum Kaadhalum (TV series)" and "Iqbal Singh Lalpura" are being deleted and articles like "Cat Orgy" are kept by default. 2601:644:907E:A450:A0AA:AF03:1870:3BD9 (talk) 06:37, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Iqbal Singh Lalpura does seem to be notable, which is why he's already been kept once at AfD. Modhalum Kaadhalum's sourcing is absolutely atrocious; it's just a collection of references from the publisher, promo articles in TOI, loglines about actors joining the show, and interviews that tangentially mention the show. TOI in particular has a problem with paid articles for TV shows and movies, and so I'm inclined to not count these fluff pieces for notability. Like I said, this is a problem with how Indian media reviews shows; no Indian newspaper or pop culture site I've seen actually reviews and analyzes shows the way Western sites do. The example you mentioned, "Cat Orgy", currently doesn't have great refs, but they do exist, and are very easy to find: 1, 2, 3, 4. The fact that there are no Indian pop culture sites that actually review things is sad, but not a problem we can fix. AryKun (talk) 13:18, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Is archive.today or archive.org better for archiving on Wikipedia?
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I notice archive.today is never used on Wikipedia or at least nowhere near as much as archive.org. Is there a reason. Personally I think archive.today is better for archiving and doesn’t tend to hiccup.It seems though that Wikipedia prefers archive.org. Does it matter which one I use or is either one fine? Thatsoddd (talk) 13:48, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
I would read through WP:ARCHIVETODAY, but it seems to be reliable from what I've read. Archiving does not require a specific archiving site, it's just that archive.org has been consistently reliable in the past, and is more well-known. Nobody expects the UnexpectedSmoreInquisition (talk)! 13:53, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Mediawiki question
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello, Teahouse. Today my question is: is there a project/area in Mediawiki where I can request photos/anatomical diagrams to be taken/created? Best regards, Nobody expects the UnexpectedSmoreInquisition (talk)! 12:31, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments4 people in discussion
I drafted an article in my sandbox:User:Slamforeman/sandbox. I am aware that the next step is to send it off as a draft article for review, but was wondering if I could request feedback beforehand here. Apologies if this is the wrong place to ask this. Just hoping to make sure everything is in order. Slamforeman (talk) 20:35, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Hello and welcome. The best way to get feedback is to submit it for a review, instead of a pre review review. 331dot (talk) 20:40, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
it magically turned into a redirect right while i was trying to confirm the answer
you should probably try to make a draft first tbh
that aside, there's a "(+)" icon in the category box in the bottom of any given page, which won't show up while you're editing if the box is empty, so you'd need to stop editing to add at least one
You can install it from this link by clicking the check-box under "Editing". Once installed, the bottom of the page will have a bar listing all the categories (similar to how it normally looks). If you click on the (+) button, you can begin typing a category name and it will show various suggestions and similar categories. Sincerely, Novo Tape (She/Her)My Talk Page17:00, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
disunabridged undertale plot analysis episode 820
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion
plot sections in games tend to be summaries of the first 30 minutes or so of the game, with no meaningful spoilers, like with pofv (not that the plot there matters in the first place)
for games more focused on their plots, like trust issues: the game (featuring clinical depression), it can be a somewhat more summarized summary of the entire plot, but still hopefully not really a long explanation of everything that happens in the plot
@Cog-san The guidance at WP:SPOILER shows that Wikipedia allows spoilers. Whether or not an article should go into such detail in a specific case is a different question: the length of things like plots shouldn't be excessive. MOS:FILMPLOT says that even feature films only need plots of about 400-700 words. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:26, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
in that case, it could probably be shortened to less than ~1337 words
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, I submitted an uncontroversial technical request to move/change the title of Hemlock Semiconductor Corporation a week ago. It appeared in the list in the uncontroversial technical requests section. Now it no longer appears in the list but the title of the article has not been updated. I don't know how to find out the status of my request. Thanks for any help. Funkadelic2023 (talk) 14:54, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Hi @Funkadelic2023, welcome to the Teahouse. Your contribution history shows no such request, and I don't see one in the page history at WP:RMT (though I might have missed it) - are you sure you published your changes rather than just previewing them? 57.140.16.56 (talk) 17:40, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Thanks so much. That's entirely possible, although I thought I did it correctly. Will circle back and try again. Appreciate your guidance. Funkadelic2023 (talk) 17:50, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Help with draft
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello, Llmorgan02. Your references are bare URLs that ought to be properly formatted but that is a relatively minor issue. Far more important is that the sources are almost certainly generated by press releases or public relations efforts by the organization. What is required are references to reliable sources that are entirely independent of the organization, and that devote significant coverage to the organization. Please read Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Cullen328 (talk) 19:27, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Budapest Ferenc Liszt International Airport referencing issue
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hello. Go to above airport article, go to first paragraph, last sentence that says...The facility cover 1,515 hectares..Click on citation #7. I want the citation to go to the English data fact page about the facility. Have tried numerous times, made sure the URL was typed correctly. Thank you for your time.Theairportman33531 (talk) 16:36, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments3 people in discussion
Hi :-)
I am working on a Polish translation of an article about roguelikes. There are some Usenet posts cited using a template made just for that. We do not have that template on Polish Wikipedia, but it's okay, we have a general template with links and stuff for citing.
The problem is, I completely do not know how to "dig" a link to the exact Usenet post from the information available in the cite Usenet template.
Thus, could somebody, please, in simple words explain to me how to use and interpret the data in a way which would allow me to get a link to what's being cited/said? I would be extremely grateful.
The first cite newsgroup template in the roguelike article had no url. I thought it's the same with all the rest, Apparently this was an exception from the general rule?
Sorry, I got confused with a template and Wikipedia I have completely no experience with as a WIkipedian.
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion
My user name is Farbistaa.
I would like to Create an article about RMohaimen Immigration Services aka Route 2 Migrate. It's IRCC certified Canadian Immigration Consulting firm. Led by RCIC Riffat H. Mohaimen
Writing a new article is the most difficult task to perform on Wikipedia, and it is usually recommended that you first gain experience and knowledge by editing existing articles in areas that interest you, to get a feel for how Wikipedia operates and what is expected of article content. It's also a good idea to use the new user tutorial.
If you still want to attempt to write an article now, you may use the article wizard or Articles for Creation to create and submit a draft for review(new accounts cannot directly create articles). You will need to establish that this company meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company, and gather independent reliable sources with significant coverage of this company to summarize. The company website, other materials from the company like press releases or interviews, and annoucements of routine activities do not establish notability. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 09:02, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Hello, Farbistaa, and welcome to the Teahouse. Some general advice for you:
1. When a new editor joins Wikipedia and immediately starts writing an article about a company or a person, most of the time their purpose is promotion, which is forbidden everywhere in Wikipedia. I don't know whether that is your purpose, but if it is, you are almost certainly wasting your time trying to create the article.
2. 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.
3. Absolutely the first thing to do in creating an article is to look for the reliable independent sources which are required to establish that the subject meets Wikipedia's requirements for notability. As most companies (and most people) are not notable by Wikipedia's criteria, in most cases doing anything else at all before that is a complete waste of time and effort.
4. An infobox (which I see you have started in your draft) is not an essential part of an article, and should just summarise information already in the article. Starting with an infobox is like trying to paint a house before you have built it. ColinFine (talk) 21:10, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Format ... Very hard getting around how to public a bibliography
Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments5 people in discussion
Rickdarkwah: I guess that this is about Draft:Davide Scarabelli, and that you are trying to publish (not "public") a biography (not "bibliography"). The draft appears to cite eight sources, but all eight citations link to the same web page, which has no discussion of Scarabelli. Maproom (talk) 10:57, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Hello, Rickdarkwah. 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. It follows that writing a Wikipedia article begins with finding such independent sources, because if you cannot find any you will know that there is no point in proceeding with the article. Doing anything else is like building a house without surveying the site first. ColinFine (talk) 21:25, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Regarding Ramdeo Beniwal Article
Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments5 people in discussion
Recently I have created an article Ramdeo Beniwal, today a wiki user tagged a notice on this article saying that it does not meet wikipedia notability guidelines, but Ramdeo Beniwal was a two term Member of Rajasthan Legislative Assembly, and I think this is enough for Wikipedia Notability because there are more than 100 articles on single term members of state assemblies in India. Ramdeo Beniwal does not have more coverage in media because he is a Member of assembly about 40 years ago, when there are almost no news websites Coverage in Rajasthan. WikiAnchor10 (talk) 10:06, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello - a user not affiliated with our school created a Wiki page about 15 years ago. The school name has changed, we are no longer affiliated with the diocese, and we are now a nonpublic school accepting all genders. We are not able to edit this page and request that it is deleted so we can create a correct page with updated information. Please advise, thank you!
Help! I'm trying to add my new page to the Mainspace but get error
Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments3 people in discussion
I am trying to add my new page, Milton Samuels, to the Mainspace. It says I Succeeded, but when I search for that page it says This sandbox is in the Wikipedia talk namespace. Either move this page into your userspace, or remove the {{User sandbox}} template. I don't understand this and am afraid I will accidentally delete my article and not have it in my sandbox to try to move again. Can anyone help? Thanks! VibesMan747 (talk) 22:19, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hello.
I've attempted to find this information by searching through the help pages, but I can't find an answer to my question.
My question: how do we distinguish between American and British English?
I've more questions related but that's the essence.
Are there different pages for American/British English articles? If I'm editing an article written in British English, should I leave all grammar/spelling in British English format? And likewise for articles I edit written in American English?
I'm happy to be here with all you editors and I'm grateful for this teahouse forum to ask questions.
(reply with visualeditor preferred. not relevant to provide link to the page as it's a general question about all pages, but ill link the page im working on if needed/asked.)
Start with MOS:ENGVAR. In short, leave the article in the same variant as you find it. Occasionally there might happen to be a really good reason to change it, but this tends to be rare, and you need to be able to convince yourself—and others— that the change is really necessary, and why. Feline Hymnic (talk) 20:51, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
I improved the English of part of an article and it was reverted.
Latest comment: 1 year ago11 comments3 people in discussion
About one hour ago, I improved a sentence in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama by adding a few commas and connecting words, which made it clearer, and more of a pleasure to read, especially if you don't already Obama's life story, in short, much more readable, at the cost of a very few extra characters, IMHO.
But it it got reverted seven minutes later with no attempt at discussion on the Talk page, for allegedly not being an improvement. But after looking again at the edit, I am convinced that my edit was an improvement. Here's a link to the revision history page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&action=history
I think the reverter attaches to much value to the number of characters. Adding a comma does not mean it takes longer to read the sentence. It is how long it takes the reader to read the sentence that counts, not how many characters are in the sentence, as I see it. The reversion, IMHO, is a case of the extreme compression of text, that calls to mind the style of a newspaper headline, where the number of characters really is an issue, or, to use a less extreme example, the style of a newspaper column where the number of characters or "inches" of text is limited.
I would also very much appreciate any thoughts on what my options are, and what would be the wise thing for me to do here. Thank you in advance for your help. Polar Apposite (talk) 21:15, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Hello Polar Apposite! First, you should've taken this to the person who reverted your edit's user talk page and asked them to elaborate. Your edit did add more clauses to the already wordy sentence. In fact, if I was in your position, I probably would've broken up the sentence instead of adding more parts. There is no need to use the word "had" as the entire sentence is talking about his past positions. See WP:COPYEDIT for more information about concise editing. Happy editing! —asparagusus(interaction)sprouts!21:21, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Also, not all reverts need to be discussed in length; the editor explained themself in their edit summary and if you needed more explanation you could've asked them. I don't think it was polite of them to call your edit "middle school grammar", though. Pinging @ValarianB. —asparagusus(interaction)sprouts!21:23, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
I take "middle school grammar" as a compliment. It sounds to me like what they teach in the ideal middle school: plain, easy, grammatically correct English, which is exactly what the average Wikipedia reader needs to see.. Polar Apposite (talk) 23:01, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
I had a look at your link and started a discussion on the article's talk page like you suggested, and invited (good idea, that) the reverter to share his/their thoughts. Polar Apposite (talk) 22:57, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for taking an interest in my case. Right now, I am having a lot of fun editing. There is a learning curve though. But learning how to use the citation template was the most fun I've had in a while. Cheers! Polar Apposite (talk) 23:03, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Creating an article
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I have a website concerning the discipline I'd like to create an article about, is it possible for me to properly create an article under these circumstances? Indiefilmpros (talk) 23:19, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
if, however, it's the latter, you may write about it (see Notability, Reliable sources and Your first article for guidelines), however it is unlikely you'll be able to cite your own website for these, as unless it is in something widely regarded as reputable and backed by a rigorous editorial process as reliable sources should be (usually things like news, professional reviews, journal articles, etc) it cannot be used in Wikipedia. see Citing yourself for more on this. happy editing! 💜 melecietalk - 00:31, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Translating an existing article
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi! I practiced translating one existing article from Korean to English and pressed 'Publish'. The new English page was there for a few hours (and can be searched for through keyword). However, it disappeared when I searched again on Wikipedia. Although through Google, the English page still appears, when clicked, the original Korean page appears instead. I wonder if there is a way to fix this problem. Thank you very much! Tashialala (talk) 23:30, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Hi Tashialala, welcome to the Teahouse. You have not created any pages here at the English Wikipedia en.wikipedia.org. You created ko:MONITORAPP at the Korean Wikipedia ko.wikipedia.org. They want pages to be in Korean, not English, so somebody redirected your article to a page in Korean. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:08, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
I am the manager at GSPC my family has been operating/owners of GSPC since 2003 legally and no reference to it on wiki, so I was just trying to post facts that are not open for a false claim. I can only contribute from experience in the field of 30 years in cultivation, retail and the foreigners that now control most of the market including the ones that get expedited licensing if they are special visa holder, immigrant or asylum seeker. How can I give the facts that are not meant to be published because of the harm it would do to the democratic and republican parties?  Tim Dion (talk) 19:29, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
@Tim Dion As mentioned before, Wikipedia is not a business directory like the Yellow Pages. We're also not a way to promote to advertise a busienss. Only organisations that pass the strict WP:NORG criteria may have a Wikipedia article written about them. Your clinic has zero proof of reaching that criteria, and therefore there can be no article. Qcne(talk)19:38, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Tim Dion, just as Wikipedia editors are entitled to anonymity, they are also entitled to be open about their real world identities, including where they live. I have chosen to reveal my real world identity information on Wikipedia for 14 years. Since you manage that business, you must comply with the Paid contributions disclosure. This is mandatory and non-negotiable. As for facts, they must be verifiable by references to published, reliable sources. Cullen328 (talk) 19:44, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
I will remove myself from wiki, as I only wanted to put on Wikipedia that (GSPC) is an abbreviation for (Golden State Patient Care) a Cannabis Retailer in Colfax California. When I did search (GSPC) in (Wikipedia search engine) nothing was there to support it. Because you replied, I quote (The fact that GSPC is a cannabis retailer) is that notable enough as a reference? Tim Dion (talk) 21:15, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Clinic is a great term for a nonprofit organization that supplies medical treatment with or without administering controlled substance to its customers/patients. Tim Dion (talk) 21:22, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
I searched GSPC in the search box, and several news articles expanding over 20 years have been published and important information is not there, several red flags popped up, the first Wikipedia definition for GSPC is an organization connected to AL Qaeda. The other definitions are in such a cluster as to one would never find GSPC in with your investments. Tim Dion (talk) 22:05, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Yes, other organizations are allowed to have the abbreviation GSPC. Your clinic is not notable by Wikipedia standards so shouldn't be added to that disembaguation list.
All I wanted to do is to be recognized as a one of many (GSPC) abbreviations, I put the physical address to have proof that this legacy operator was legit/legal, The history of the Golden State Patient Care, having (GSPC) in Wikipedia listed as an abbreviation for Golden State Patient Care is what I was trying to accomplish Wikipedia's (GSPC) is the edit I signed up for and less unknow responses popped up so I feeling like Crook-apedia is well established here Tim Dion (talk) 22:25, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments4 people in discussion
Wikipedia technicians should develop and offer in the settings, an optional dark mode theme for the pages. It would be beneficial for those of us with sensitive visual needs in adjusting to the bright contrasted background. 108.170.139.45 (talk) 02:22, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Hello, @TheLatinNerd, and welcome to the Teahouse! To answer your question, you are allowed to have multiple accounts for several good-faith purposes, such as security while editing on public computers and privacy concerns, per WP:LEGITSOCK. It is preferred to have your alternate accounts publicly connected to the main account unless doing so would defeat the purpose of the alternate account (i.e. privacy concerns). You may also want to consider notifying the Arbitration Committee if you believe that your edits may attract scrutiny. Alternative accounts are not allowed for Wikipedia:Vandalism or creating an illusion of support where there is none, as outlined in Wikipedia:BADSOCK. Hope this helps! Grumpylawnchair (talk)02:49, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Articles With Spelling Errors? (may be unrelated)
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Is there a way to find an article with only spelling/grammar errors? I would work on citations as well, but I'm not as confident as I am with correcting spelling errors. ~~JustAnotherUndertaleFrantic~~ JustAnotherUndertaleFrantic (talk) 22:36, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Hello @Rootsmusic and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm not sure what exactly you mean by "finding red links in an article". If you mean "find the pages that the red links point to", you cannot, the red links represent pages that don't exist. That is why when you click on them you are taken to a prompt to create the page. Please see Wikipedia:Red link for more information. If this is not what you meant, please clarify. Cheers, Grumpylawnchair (talk)03:23, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
@Rootsmusic: If you're in a standard web brower, view the page with the "view source" feature of the browser, then use the browser search to find occurrences of "page does not exist". QED! Fabrickator (talk) 04:17, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Contacting Business representatives
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
In relation to my earlier talk "Updating a building photo", is it ok/recommended to contact a building or business representative for photos or information for the purpose of putting it up on Wikipedia?
Why are templates different between different languages?
Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments3 people in discussion
As my first experience as a Wikipedia editor, I have recently translated a couple Wikipedia articles from English to French, and recently I've been confused why the "Infobox Character / Infobox_Personnage_(fiction)" template is different between the two Wikipedias (and, for that matter, why any template would be different across languages anyways). Shouldn't Wikipedia be sharing consistent information, and wouldn't that mean that templates should be consistent, with the same fields and layouts across languages? Am I missing something here? GuyInFridge (talk) 01:28, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
hi @GuyInFridge and welcome to the Teahouse! different-language Wikipedias operate separately for the most part (except for having the same goal and being hosted in the same place). the templates are different as it is possible French Wikipedia copied them from here at another time and adapted them for their language, and the template just doesn't update simultaneously with the template here (because technically, I don't think there is a way to do that, and any further updates to it would have to be done manually which may be unnecessary for them), so basically it becomes a fork of the template here. happy editing! 💜 melecietalk - 01:57, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Interesting, good to know! If I wanted to update the French template, my understanding is I could do so on their Wikipedia, and then if they want to revert my changes or discuss them, then that discussion would be had on the discussion page of the template I just edited? Do I have that right? GuyInFridge (talk) 02:02, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Hello, GuyInFridge. That is the way it would happen in English Wikipedia (accordingh to WP:BRD). I would guess that that is how it would happen in French Wikipedia, but again, they could have different procedures. ColinFine (talk) 10:36, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
How close to employment can/should I edit?
Latest comment: 1 year ago9 comments5 people in discussion
I work for the Denver Public Library. As you might guess I'm hugely interested in libraries, literature, and history. It is 100% clear that I should NEVER edit the page for DPL or its history, however would it be okay for me to, for example, add references to the List of Carnegie libraries in Colorado or eventually to create a List of libraries in Colorado as long as I get someone else to add or edit the Denver branches? Or should I stay away from Colorado entirely?
Relatedly DPL is not fully independent of the City and County of Denver. Our library board and city librarian are appointed by the mayor. Does this mean I should avoid editing Timeline of Denver since Denver is sorta my employer and that page is somewhat the history of my employer as a public servant? Should I also avoid editing Colorado or even United States of America since we get grants from them at times? I have read over WP:COI and it seems to say that I can edit topic like that, but I should do it through making a draft or posting to the talk page first and disclosing my COI. Is that correct?
My inclination is to create a draft AfC List of libraries in New Mexico that announces I work for Denver Public Library, but that I am not being paid to write the article and that I'm doing it on a purely volunteer basis in my free time and requesting critiques of what I have written before I post it. Then moving on to Wyoming and only then adding Colorado so that is is clearer that I'm not just editing to promote DPL or even Colorado libraries in general. ColfaxLibrary (talk) 15:43, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
From what I understand, as long as you disclose COI and edit with full neutrality and without bias, you should be fine. If you believe your COI will be triggered, only avoid the articles related to your COI. And no, living in a country does not automatically apply your COI to everything in that country, I would only disclose the COI on the pages related to your field of work. Nobody expects the UnexpectedSmoreInquisition (talk)! 16:21, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
ColfaxLibrary. You can certainly revert obvious vandalism to Denver Public Library. You can also make formal edit requests at Talk: Denver Public Library. Personally, I think you can edit Timeline of Denver with few restrictions, since that is about the broad history of the city, rather than just the history of the city government. Lots of the entries lack references to reliable sources, which should be very easy for you to find. I see no problem with you editing about libraries in New Mexico or Wyoming. I do have a problem with your user name, though. It implies that anyone working for that branch library can use the account, which would be a policy violation. It implies that it is an "official" library account. I recommend that you change it to something like "Barbara at Colfax Library" or something similar. Cullen328 (talk) 17:56, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
No problem @Cullen328, I'm actually glad I made this mistake so I could see how the renaming process works and I can explain it to other users. Very simple and easy. The big advantage, as I see it is that it preserves a record of my mistakes instead of hiding them in an unused account. Plus general neatness of not leaving a cobweb account. It was also very fast today.
If you have any advice about managing events beyond reading the page on them it would be great. I'm aiming at running public Wikipedia editing event here at the Gonzalez Branch in January of 2024. MatthewFromColfaxLibrary (talk) 18:11, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
No wait, it works fine for me on all Skins except Minerva, where it doesn't do anything, but I believe that's expected. I'm on a Win 10 Enterprise desktop using Google Chrome 117. - UtherSRG(talk)11:34, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Publishing a page
Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments4 people in discussion
Dear Wikipedia .
I submitted a page for publication in may this year . How can I check the status? On 1st October I received an email saying the copyright of the image was not stated . I added the copyright owner but I am not sure it got logged correctly.
the image was subsequently deleted and the page was not published.
how can I find the status and how can I reinstall the image with the correct copyright? Kaffkas (talk) 10:35, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
If you mean your user page, then that is the wrong place to create an article, and you have never submitted it for review. I suggest you use the article wizard to create a draft Draft:Shivani Mathur, and copy the source text from your user page to there. Then when it is ready for review, you can submit it.
Hi @Kaffkas, welcome to the Teahouse. About the image - are you trying to upload an image you took of this person, or one taken by someone else? The photographer is typically the copyright holder and must be the one to release an image for use. You can't simply add their name, they must grant permission in writing to Wikimedia Commons. 57.140.16.56 (talk) 12:48, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Perennial candidates
Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments4 people in discussion
@GoingBatty first off all hello and thank you for your immediate reply, the problem is resolved now there is a no issue, again thank you for yours instant help, much appreciated. Cancersign9 (talk) 14:44, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
I really want to become genuine Wikipedian Contributor, How can i improve my articles and writing skills, how can i correct my mistakes error in articles, kindly tell me. regarding this, thank you in advance. Cancersign9 (talk) 14:51, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
I have trimed some unsourced inappropriate content from your article, it is very poorly written and clearly sets out to praise the topic. Theroadislong (talk) 15:00, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
i will try to improve the article with your highlighted points, and definitely trying hard to get geniune references which meets articles standerd policy. the question aries that this article of mine is worth to publish main space or should i improve this article in draftspace what is your geniune thought on this? Cancersign9 (talk) 15:11, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments4 people in discussion
Good morning! I submitted a page for publication a couple months ago (Draft:Sean Stegall), which was rejected for a conflict of interest and is potentially flagged for notoriety. I have disclosed my affiliation with the organization related to the article's subject, but am not sure if there are any other steps I can take to improve the article's likelihood of publication. Other than working for the same organization as the article subject, I do not have any personal relationship nor compensation for creating this article; I've strictly used my research and prior knowledge of the subject to craft it. I have compared my entry to a few other city manager/town manager pages and they seem to contain a similar amount and type of information as this one.
As far as notoriety, I'd also love some help in explaining what is lacking that can help support the creation of the article.
The test for articles about politicians would be WP:NPOLITICIAN. Sean fails #1 as a Town Manager is not on that list of criteria. #2 is more tricky, but I think he would just about fail it as there is not significant coverage as your secondary sources are local newspapers. I would be willing to see what other reviewers think, though.
You haven't yet submitted this for review, so maybe submit (click the big Submit draft for review!) button, and then it'll go into the pool to be reviewed, and you might get some more thoughts from other reviewers. Qcne(talk)15:51, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago14 comments8 people in discussion
Why would sanctions against editors not be allowed to punish users. Administrators should have the right to punish vandals and users who are about to get banned? Like for example, for a user who keeps changing names of pages to inappropriate names and then gets banned indefinitely, administrators should be allowed to vandalize that user's page as punishment. 97.71.234.50 (talk) 14:24, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
But vandals who get banned indefinitely do deserve to have their userpage vandalized, that should be their punishment. Or better yet, administrators can harass that vandal or even give them personal attacks. 97.71.234.50 (talk) 14:29, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
I didn't accept the admin tools to dole out punishment or harass anyone and I have better things to do than vandalize anything. 331dot (talk) 14:31, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
I know, but you don't understand. What I'm trying to say is that vandals who keep vandalizing Wikipedia or doing other things that they are banned from and then they get banned indefinitely do deserve to be harassed or even get personal attacked as punishment for doing things they've been banned from. 97.71.234.50 (talk) 14:35, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Never mind Wikipedia, there is the issue of basic human decency and morality. An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind. 331dot (talk) 14:37, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Alright that's enough. Other editors have already pointed it out but, harassment or personal attacks against others (even against vandals) is not allowed! 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 (☁＝☁＝✈) 14:40, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Not an admin. It seems to me that most vandals are desperate for attention. Whether it's posting porn, or posting on help pages, they are almost crying out 'me me me'. The worst thing you can do, in their eyes, is ignore them and move on. Knitsey (talk) 14:40, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Excuse me but, why on earth do you think that is an acceptable thing for an admin to do. Vandals get blocked by the admins. Period. No further action is needed. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 (☁＝☁＝✈) 14:33, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Hi IP editor, did you read the comment left by the reviewer under the decline notice? It explains why the article was declined (not rejected). Articles about professional sports people need to pass WP:SPORTBASIC, and there wasn't evidence of meeting that criteria from your sources. Qcne(talk)19:01, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Video titles
Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Danstarr69's reply to 1AmNobody24's question about YouTube videos included the phrase "correcting titles (as sometimes they're different to the title in the story itself ...)"[1] suggesting that a video's title is that on the video itself rather than the title above/below the video on the page where the video appears. The former may only be visible for a few seconds whereas the latter is more obvious and may be the title in search snippets and referred to in articles.
Maybe the solution is to include both titles. Is there a way of doing that using VisualEditor and Source Editor?
Mcljlm I thought this was regarding another post I replied to recently, as it's not just Youtube and News Stories that do it, Film and TV companies do it to.
One example is Dune (2021 film) which is actually called "Dune: Part One" on screen, yet they advertised it everywhere as just Dune. I randomly found out that "Dune: Part Two" is on the way soon recently, and I suspect they'll advertise it with the correct title this time.
The BBC and Channel 4 have countless productions which don't match what appears on screen, most of which seem to be in the documentary/reality TV genres. I can't think of a specific example, as I haven't updated any for a while, but there's many as I said.
A Youtube example I noticed last night, when looking for a short film to check if it's credits were correct (I can't remember why now), is the film Ecstasy (2021) which it's official Youtube distributer Omeleto has titled "A young man tries to buy ecstasy for his disabled father. The reason why is heartwarming. | Ecstasy" It's just a short plot outline, like with most Youtube titles on films distributed by similar channels. Danstarr69 (talk) 20:56, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
So it is a more general problem Danstarr69. Is there a way for a citation to include the more frequently used title as well as what may be the correct title? Mcljlm (talk) 22:40, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Like I said on that post, if I knew how to make references say what they're supposed to say automatically, I would, although I know that's not possible with BFI Collections, which as I said, would be replacing BFI - Film, TV, People pages, which were all deleted last week (apart from some BFI funded/produced productions which were redirected to different pages on the BFI), so now there's 3,500+ dead BFI external links on here, not to mention the countless dead BFI references.
I don't know why the BFI have deleted them all now, as BFI Collections stops working occasionally for minutes/hours for no reason, plus it's very very slow when you try to use the Advanced or Expert Searches to narrow down the results, so it clearly isn't the finished article yet.
Back to Wikipedia, I add each reference automatically in visual mode, add anything that's missing, correct anything that needs correcting, then switch to source mode to give the reference a name if I'm likely to use it more than once. Danstarr69 (talk) 23:38, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
@Josedimaria237 Welcome to the Teahouse. The coordinates you added are displaying OK. (visible in the top right side of the page, just above the Infobox).
However, they're obviously incorrect, as they appear way out in the ocean, in the Gulf of Guinea. Are you able to fix this? Nick Moyes (talk) 22:41, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
@Nick Moyes: sorry, I meant displaying inside the infobox.
@Josedimaria237: There was no Mapframes map in the infobox because you didn't put the {{coord}} template in the |coordinates= field in the infobox. I've moved the template there, and now there's a map. Deor (talk) 00:04, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
I don't get me blocked
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
@Thomasfan1916: It takes a large amount of Wikipedia experience to become an administrator, plus a demonstrated need for the admin tools. Almost everything can be done without being an admin. Focus on making contructive edits that improve the encyclopedia. In a few years, if you are still interested, you can consider applying at WP:RfARudolfRed (talk) 00:11, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Draft: Brian. E. Kinsella
Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Everyone,
I am working on my first article on WP and am ran into some snags, resulting in my first draft being declined for seeming promotional. Draft:Brian E. Kinsella.
I've edited the text yesterday, and am still hoping for some feedback, on whether this meets the encyclopedic tone standard. I’ve also corrected link references. If you have the time, I'd appreciate any advice and comments, before I try to resubmit).
Thank you so much in advance! I really appreciate any help.
Thank you SO much Mitch, I have been removing all the text I thought could come across promotional. But if there’s more I need to do, I’ll just keep working at it. I was removed from the category of: being paid, and promoting content, so that’s a really good start. - still learning! Mwikiforce (talk) 22:55, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
A brief look at your sources looks good. One other area of possible promotional tone, the career section seems too congratulatory for him helping out in Afghanistan. It might be fine assuming that is what reliable sources say but it is something to keep in mind. Finally, I apologize for confusing Kinsella and his roommate in my previous comment. ✶Mitch199811✶23:08, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
No worries Mitch! Thank you so much for taking the time. Yeah, I removed all that seemed promotional to me, but I can give that another look. I was relying on WSJ on Afghanistan, and it does seem like a pretty historical event to me, so it’s hard for me to tell if it’s congratulatory, or just the mere facts. I’ll definitely look at it again.
Wanting to make lists of rugby union results more digestible/clean them up
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello, I was wondering what the most acceptable way to redo some of the pages for lists of rugby union results - as the sheer volume of results, to me, is not easily digestible and difficult to read. Specifically, I had wanted to start with making the list of Wales results look something like the pages for England - with a 'hub' main page and several pages listing the results by decade. Eventually, the hope would be to have uniformity across the pages for the results of national rugby union teams.
Understandably, my draft for a list of Wales rugby union results between 1881 and 1889 was rejected due to currently being redundant. I just wanted to know what is the best way to go about trying to achieve creating a hub page for Wales results with links to smaller, more digestible, pages like my draft, without getting rid of the current list page that otherwise makes my draft pages redundant. I wouldn't want to edit the current page to remove what would make my draft page redundant until my draft page was approved, as then there would be no way to access the results in question - if that makes any sense.
@Evergreen tenal: Probably the best place for you to start would be to carefully read through Wikipedia:Image use policy since that page either covers pretty much everything related to image use on Wikipedia. If you've still got questions after looking at the page, feel free to post them here at the Teahouse. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:31, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Hello! I'm curious about how I can best locate sources for a project. For this assignment, we have to make changes to/improve upon an existing Wikipedia article. I have been assigned the Music Psychology Wikipedia article, but I am stumped about what changes I could possibly make to improve this article. I was intent on improving sourcing, or rectifying dead links held within the article. So, my questions are:
Could anyone give me any tips on how to find solid sourcing?
What is a good way to verify that the sources being used in the article are still reputable?
Hi RealSpill27. Your class was assigned two Wiki-Ed advisors (User:Helaine (Wiki Ed) and User:Ian (Wiki Ed)) and I'm sure that either Helaine or Ian would be more than happy to answer any questions you have. You can post questions on their user talk pages. I believe your class also has access to various Wiki Ed modules/tutorials specifically designed for students such as yourself that you also might find helpful. However, you can find some general information about "reliable sources" in Wikipedia:Reliable sources. As for ways to improve the "Music psychology" article, you might want to propose some things at Talk:Music psychology to see if you get any feedback. You could also start a discussion about the article Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology to see whether any members of that WikiProject have any suggestions. That particular article looks at first glance to be fairly well developed; so, it might be better to be a bit WP:CAUTIOUS instead of diving right in and making lots of major changes. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:19, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Hello, RealSpill27. I suggest a slight expansion of what is called the "controversial Mozart effect" to clarify that this "effect" is not valid according to the best sources, and to enable the reader to better understand what the theory was. Also, there is what appears to me to be an inappropriate red link in the subsection "Affective response". Main article links should only include articles that exist, and non-existent articles should not be included. To be frank, I doubt that Cognition and the Evolution of Music: Pitfalls and Prospects should ever exist. That is a source, but I do not think it likely that there should be a Wikipedia article about that source. Cullen328 (talk) 02:23, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Redirect
Latest comment: 1 year ago7 comments4 people in discussion
Hello, IP editor. Help:Redirect should give you the information that you need. IP editors and newly registered editors cannot create redirects. In order to do so, you will need to register an account and make at least ten edits over at least four full days. Please read WP:AUTOCONFIRM for more details. Cullen328 (talk) 02:29, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion
@WJ94 respected, I didn't know that Wikipedia's editor supervisors also make mistakes, my draft which I am still correcting, and references are yet to be given in it, and I did not even submit it, without reading it properly and seeing the title of the article. How correct is it to make nomination without direct deletion? Granted, this happened by mistake on your part, but it was a little disrespectful to me. Cancersign9 (talk) 11:14, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Hi Cancersign9, thanks for your message. To clarify, I am not a supervisor at Wikipedia - I am a normal editor, just like you. I perhaps have a little more experience around here, so one of the things I sometimes do is look through recently created articles and drafts to check they meet our policies and guidelines. Some pages get nominated for speedy deletion - this occurs when they meet some very strict criteria that the community has decided can be deleted without further discussion (for example, blatant vandalism or promotional material). In this case, I had multiple tabs open on my computer and accidentally clicked the button to nominate your draft for speedy deletion instead of the one I had intended to - I reverted this as soon as I realised. My apologies for this honest mistake - no disrespect was intended at all. Best of luck working on your draft - my advice would be to look for some reliable sources which you can base your work on. WJ94 (talk) 11:27, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for your opinion, and I agree with everything you said, it may happen. I would also like to apologize to you if I have caused you trouble. Respected editor, I am currently working on this article in other ways, I am thoughtfully working on how it can be made better, as soon as the draft is edited, I will add context to it at the end and submit it to AFC. I am also a medical doctor, from the way you speak you seem to be a nice person. And also as a doctor and a PhD graduate like you, I have increased my respect for you. Best wishes to you. Cancersign9 (talk) 12:09, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Page rejected
Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments4 people in discussion
Hi! My wiki username is MaBo01Cel. I just got my article rejected but I don't understand why. I wrote an article about a company and I think the references I have added are good. I compered my article to other similar company articles such as Sysmex Corporation, and I cannot understand why Sysmex Corporation article was accepted but not mine about CellaVision. Could you please help me? MaBo01Cel (talk) 09:30, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Courtesy link:Draft:CellaVision Your draft was declined, notrejected. The template at the top of the article claims that the you created the article in return for undisclosed payments, which is against Wikipedia's terms of use. Also, have a look at the feedback that the draft-reviewer left on your draft. ContributeToTheWiki (talk • contribs) 09:51, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Hi @MaBo01Cel: the draft was declined for the reasons given in the decline notice (those grey boxes inside the large pink one), namely that it does not demonstrate the subject's notability, as it only cites close primary sources. And given that this is therefore not based on what independent sources have said, but only on what the company wants to say about itself, the draft is inherently promotional (see WP:YESPROMO). HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:00, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Of the four refs, two are the company and one is of the aquisistion of another company, the latter type not seen as contributing to notability. Many existing articles are not to Wikipedia standards, so pointing at an example (Sysmex) is meaningless. David notMD (talk) 12:31, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
My mother wants to start editing Wikipedia
Latest comment: 1 year ago7 comments4 people in discussion
Hello, fellow Wikipedians.
Recently, my mother sent me a Tweet (or whatever it's called nowadays) about information on Wikipedia about the the recent conflict between Israel and Hamas, and she said she wanted to start editing about that kind of stuff.
Please don't. Yes, one can be very passionate especially when tragedy strikes home. But there are many reasons not to jump into this article and the related ones.
First, many of these articles are considered as contentious topics and are protected just a step below an admin lock. Only accounts with 500 edits and age of 30 days old can edit. Editors of these accounts are usually more aware of the policies and guidelines, not only theoretically and also practically.
This brings me to the second point, the experience editing on Wikipedia. While we generally assume good faith, there is only so much rope one may have when an inexperienced editor jumping into the deep end without learning to swim. Please build up your experience in non contentious topics first. Find other non contentious topics (or ones with relatively lesser contention) relating to Israel and Jews first, like neighborhoods, famous people, other notable events. Learn about the consensus building process , discard any 'my way or the highway' attitude if there's one.
Third, you may be emotionally charged, and more often than not there will be arguments by other editors that may make your blood boil, especially in this emotional state. And emotional charged people may end up writing an extremely biased work.
Direct your energies to other mundane articles first, get the hang of contributing to Wikipedia and/or other related projects first. Hopefully by then, the dust may be somewhat settled for a new level headed editor to work on. – robertsky (talk) 11:20, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments4 people in discussion
Hey fellow wiki mates!
I recently published my very own wiki article, i was quite nervous the entire time. At the time of publishing, i felt it seemed almost perfect to me but for some reason, i have this feeling that it could have been better, can you kind fellas help me with it please? Also do appreciate some tips along the way! Looking forward to contribute along with you!
Hello PikaBoo. I don't know anything about the machine you've written about, but the article reminds me of an advertisement, with a section on how zkEVM is better than its competition. The sources you used as references are not familiar to me, though they may be reliable and well-respected. Have you looked at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources? That's my go to help when I've come across an Internet source for what I'm writing about, and I'm not sure if the source is trustworthy.
Best wishes on your Wikipedia projects. And don't worry about whether your article is "almost perfect." As long as it is an accurate summary of a noteworthy subject others can come along and do some editing to improve the article. Karenthewriter (talk) 14:56, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Some obvious questions, not answered by the draft: What is a zkEVM? Hardware, software, or something else? Can I buy one? What does it do? OK, it's a "scaling solution", two almost meaningless buzzwords. Maproom (talk) 15:01, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
birthdate is wrong
Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments4 people in discussion
Hello, EstherWoj. I have removed the claimed date of birth from Esther Wojcicki because I spent 6-1/2 minutes watching the YouTube video used as a reference and the birth date was never mentioned. Using that video as a reference for your date of birth is against policy, although it enabled me to learn more about your classroom philosophy. If you want an accurate birth date mentioned, then post a formal edit request at Talk: Esther Wojcicki. No date of birth should be in the article unless accompanied by a reference to a reliable source that verifies the date. Cullen328 (talk) 03:55, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Hi All,
In the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronan_Point, I see an apparent problem: The page shows Ronan Point's location at two (2) different map coordinates, depending on which link on the page one uses. (This is obviously not optimal.)
Compare the location icons displayed on maps at these 2 URLs:
The full-screen map accessible from this page's Infobox:
(Note that both maps reference OpenStreetMap as their source.) I claim that only URL B has its icon in the CORRECT location, consistent with the coordinates stated on the Wikipedia page (51.512852°N, 0.021505°E). By contrast, the icon on the map at URL A is well off this mark — about 110 meters northeast of URL B’s icon.
Assuming you agree with the above, what is the best way to correct this page so that this page's maps display consistently? It's not at all obvious to me where the (problematic) coordinates used by URL A are coming from. Also, it looks as though the problem could be fixed easily by adding URL B’s coordinates to the Infobox definition:
| coordinates = {{Coord|51.512852|N|0.021505|E}}
However, the downside of this approach is that it duplicates the coordinates that are already on the page.
@Marnofaldi: I think I've fixed this, hopefully to your satisfaction. "The (problematic) coordinates used by URL A" were coming from Wikidata, which supplies the map used in the infobox when no coordinates are specified in the infobox itself. I've moved the {{coord}} template from the bottom of the article into the infobox (trimming the overprecise coordinates), so the infobox map and the maps on the Geograph page should now be showing the same location. Deor (talk) 23:57, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
@Deor: Your revision is exactly what I was looking for. Also, until now I hadn't realized that entering the coordinates in just the infobox would cause them to appear in two places on the page. Thanks. Marnofaldi (talk) 02:07, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
For historic completeness, Wikidata had originally imported it from english Wikipedia in 2017 at which time they were already incorrect. A user corrected the coordinates in the article but these corrections were not made to Wikidata. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 17:15, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago7 comments4 people in discussion
Hi, Teahouse.
I'm somewhat new to editing en.wiki, I'm more active on Simple.wiki (well, was, anyway) and ran into this article while doing research for a project for school. After doing a few google searches I can't seem to find anything else about it online.
Hi @Derpdart56! The "more citations need tag" that has been present (since 2007 😭) is certainly valid. A spice is almost certainly notable (unless it's a complete hoax), so the question is finding the sources out there. {{u|Sdkb}}talk15:40, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
I added a talk header to the article's talk page that has some links that may help with finding sources. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk15:43, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
Hmm, it seems to have a different scientific name, but maybe. Would be helpful to have input from subject-matter experts if anyone knows where to ping. {{u|Sdkb}}talk20:57, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
P.S. I found most of those sources by searching Google for "Uzazi Zanthoxylum tessmannii" (without quotation marks); it may be possible to find more sources by searching for other synonyms of the genus or other descriptive words.
Here are some more URLs to considering looking into, along with some comments about them:
It looks like there was been much edit warring over "Uzazi" vs "Uziza", and this got caught in the middle of it, using "Uzazi" in the title but "Uziza" in the name
Identifies "Fagara tessmannii", "Zanthoxylum tessmannii", "Uziza" (Nigeria), "Trade olon" (Liberia), "Ewoungea" (littoral region of Cameroon), and "Bongo" (littoral region of Cameroon) as synonyms: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/and.13509
I'm sure there's more, but I'd rather not spend too much more time on this.
@Geko72290: Hi there! I added {{no footnotes}} to the top of the article and fixed the layout a bit. I suggest the following:
Move the existing footnotes from the bottom of the article to the appropriate locations within the article (and use them more than once if appropriate).
Add footnotes for the Dictionary of National Biography (maybe with {{cite DNB}}).
For any remaining unsourced sentences, find additional sources or tag them with {{citation needed}} or remove them.
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Although I've participated in a Blitz before, I've never really understood the rules 100% clearly. (Like if you play a game without home rules for the first time, you understand the basic objective, but the rules are a bit disorienting.)Could someone *sort of* simplify the rules for me? Thanks, JustAnotherUndertaleFrantic -- Talk23:52, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion
On the manual of style it seems to say multiple times that a Bibliography heading should be avoided, MOS:BIB. On the Iron lung page It has this heading and then lists a bunch of books that mention polio. I'm not sure what this section should be renamed too or if it should exist at all. My best guess is that it should go into the see also section? Thank you for the help Knaughty1234 (talk) 00:09, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hey guys! I'm trying to add an extension to the chicago Wiki page, However, I am unable to as I cannot publish any changes, is there a way to do that or do I need some admin approval? Imoutofchoices (talk) 00:40, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Chicago is only semi-protected, so you should be able to edit so long as you are logged in. Double check you are on the tab with the editor. If you are logged in, are you getting any particular message when you try to submit or does the button have no effect? WelpThatWorked (talk) 00:45, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Very Dumb Question
Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments4 people in discussion
SupersaurYT, please be aware that raw edit count is not an accurate assessment of how useful or productive an editor is. Many of the most prolific accounts are bots instead of human beings. Other editors use semi-automated tools to make a large number of relatively minor edits in rapid succession. Thst's all useful if done right. On the other hand, I use no automated tools and ponder every edit that I make. I recently hit the 100,000 edit benchmark. It took me over 14 years of editing at least a little almost every single day. In my view, quality is more important than quantity. Cullen328 (talk) 08:58, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments3 people in discussion
Evidently this is a "bug" I keep falling for.
I start at "Wikipedia:Teahouse". Instead of just clicking "Ask a question", I click on "Question forum", then I realize I should have clicked on "Ask a question". and it displays "Loading ..." ... forever!
Was I just lucky to discover this tonight? Or is it a well-known bug that's been around forever?
Hi @Fabrickator. I'm running Chrome on a Windows 64 bit PC and tried a test post using the route you described. It worked OK for me with no problems - see 'Test post' two below this one (now removed). Do you get the same issue after doing a reboot of your device? Nick Moyes (talk) 08:47, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Hi, do you have any kind of adblocker / scriptblocker / content blocker plugins installed on your browser? The "Ask a question" button seems to conflict with some plugins. Catalk to me!09:43, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
I have noticed that I can reproduce this in Edge as well. I must be logged in, and the last thing I do before clicking on "Ask a question" is to click on "Question Forum". I'm pretty sure I'm not using an adblocker or similar, though just the fact that I have to be logged in would seem to suggest that it's something peculiar to my user profile. Fabrickator (talk) 09:49, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
I did have Ghostery ad blocker active in Chrome when I tested this issue, and it didn't seem to cause a problem. I suggest waiting 24 hrs to see if other technically-minded Hosts can offer advice here. Then, if not resolved, it could be worth asking at WP:VPT. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:00, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Citation with a title containing |
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi. If one wants to cite a source whose title contains the vertical bar character, |, is it possible to include this in the title, considering the same character is used to separate parameters for citations? (e.g. between access-date, title, url, citation type). ButterCashier (talk) 10:46, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
@ButterCashier Great question! I went away and checked, and it looks like you would need to use the {{pipe}} template to create the | character without it being treated as a genuine pipe or vertical bar which acts as a field separator.
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The demonstrations are over. But in the infobox of the article it's still in progress! (That article is about demonstrations)
Of course the "Woman, Life, Freedom movement" is still alive by not wearing hijab in public places.
We should have a separate article for the movement and put an end date to the protests article which is about demonstrations (just like the Persian Wikipedia articles). Aminabzz (talk) 10:57, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
I am trying to correct false information on Wikipedia and someone keeps undoing my corrections
Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments5 people in discussion
Dear friends,
On this wikipedia page Stéphane Dujarric the photo is not that of Stephane Dujarric (who the page is about). The photo provided is of someone else. I tried to change it so many times, and eventually brought proof that that photo of the person on the page is a photo of a different man, eventually the friends in Wikipedia were convinced and accepted the changes. Now someone changed it back to where it was! I am not sure who is insisting on publishing false information on Wikipedia. Can I get some help please! Shrn.yassin (talk) 18:12, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Shrn.yassin Hello and welcome. I've fixed your link to a proper internal link so that readers are taken to the version of Wikipedia that they use(desktop or mobile/app).
Please do not edit war and continually restore your edit, even if it is correct. This is considered to be disruptive. Please first discuss your concerns on the article talk page, Talk:Stéphane Dujarric so that other editors may understand your reasoning. 331dot (talk) 18:20, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Unfortunately, naming the photographer is not enough. You need to provide evidence that they have released the photograph they took under one of the licenses that is acceptable to Wikipedia Commons. You cannot do that on their behalf. If you are in contact with them, you can ask them to donate the material, using the method described at c:Commons:Volunteer_Response_TeamMike Turnbull (talk) 13:49, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
How do I get someone to review an article?
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments4 people in discussion
if a company or organization has a logo out there, how do we at it to a page without violating copyright? i was trying to figure out how to add the organizational logo of Secure Community Network for example. It is on their website, but i don't know how we add it without it being a cr problem????? Iljhgtn (talk) 23:24, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
this is super useful information. i want to save this conversation somehow so i can refer back to it when i need this again. thank you for helping me Iljhgtn (talk) 14:47, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments4 people in discussion
An odd coincidence:multi-word capitals
All of the 9 states whose capitals have multiple-word names comprise a contiguous group. 2 of the states touch at a single point, but I believe that qualifies as contiguous. The states are:
Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments3 people in discussion
Hello, I just completely rewrote an old draft article that was never published. The entire thing is different. Will Wikipedia know to reconsider it? or will it just sit dormant? 1236now (talk) 19:24, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
How To Improve My Article, I've Followed the Submission Guidelines.
Latest comment: 1 year ago7 comments3 people in discussion
My article was denied about a professional hockey player turned musician.
For the reasons below:
in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject) - all of the articles were based on the subject and not just in passing.
reliable - actual newspapers online, and NHL websites.
independent of the subject - they were not written by the subject or anyone associated with them. Thecodmother (talk) 18:28, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Hello, Thecodmother. Is your draft about a rock band or a former hockey player? It has to be one or the other, but frankly, neither seems notable to me. Remove external links from the body. Remove the detail about the record label and its founder. Format your bare URLs into informative references. See Referencing for beginners. Cullen328 (talk) 18:40, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
also not notable to you may be notable to others, is it not subjective? what makes one pro hockey player more notable than the other? one band more notable than the other as well? Thecodmother (talk) 18:43, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
I understand that, Thecodmother, but you frame your draft as being about a rock band. Then you swerve to focusing on one member of the band, and his past career, ignoring the other members of the band. Articles should be about one topic, not two topics. Also, the NHL source is not significant coverage. It is just a bunch of statistics with no prose.
As for what makes one rock band notable and another not notable, it is the depth of coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Notable bands have hit records, tour extensively, win awards, and are extensively covered by independent media outlets. Same for notable hockey players. They play for major teams, have long careers, and are written about extensively in reliable sources. Cullen328 (talk) 18:55, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Where to go to get help with a poorly written article?
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion
I've been adjusting/removing bits of articles that are poorly formatted or simply don't make sense whenever I see them, but with Raa Atoll I don't even know where to start! Is there a dedicated area where I can go to get help? MikuFan39 (talk) 03:42, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
@MikuFan39: adding on to GoingBatty's response, if you start a discussion there, you are also welcome to use template:please see, to drop a link on relevant wikiprojects like Wikipedia:WikiProject Maldives. The format would be something like, "{{subst:Please see| Talk:Raa Atoll#Formatting }}. It may also be a good idea to {{ping}} the editors who have added all the un-cited passages to that article on the talk page. Rjjiii (talk) 03:35, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
The best articles to start editing?
Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments5 people in discussion
Hello! Recently, I have really started to try my hands at editing! And of course, editing syntax and grammar is easy and has been very fun. However, I would like to eventually try harder edits, like adding more to short pages or cleaning up messy pages. I wanted to know what pages would both benefit from this, while being relatively easy to research for beginners. Thank you! Iatethecheese (talk) 16:08, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Hello Iatethecheese. I have to be interested in an article to have the ambition to edit it, so I look for articles on what I like. I often come across a stub article and want to share more of the story, so I start hunting up reference books or other reliable sources, and decide what should be added. Or an article reads well, but most of it is unreferenced, so another reference hunt begins to provide good sources for what others have written. (I have a small collection of reference books on favorite topics.) Since I’m researching what is important to me it’s not work to improve an article, it’s looking up things that I want to know more about, and I assume many others will be interested in what I’m able to find. That’s how I go about doing my small part in improving Wikipedia. Karenthewriter (talk) 19:31, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Hello Iatethecheese. First, I mostly agree with Karenthewriter. From my own experience, I tried to look up a person discussed in a local newspaper and found only a stub on Wikipedia.[9] It was rewarding to summarize the material I later found into a solid article.
If you're searching for short pages to expand, I have a few suggestions. I see "horror enthusiast" on your user page. So:
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello! I'm working on an article draft for the video game Dungeons & Degenerate Gamblers and I'm having trouble finding sources. The game is upcoming and currently only has a demo available so naturally not a lot of attention has been directed towards it by game journalists other than one (quite short) article by Rock Paper Shotgun. There are plenty of youtubers showing the game but that isn't exactly a 'reliable source'. Should I just wait for more articles covering it to be published before I continue work on the draft? Thanks :) Bbf242 (talk) 03:54, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments4 people in discussion
Joe Rogan article being continuously reverted even over small, blandly factual edits — appears to be malicious (reverting any edits by me) or an unconscious edit war by editor Bon courage.
Assuming they mean well, their persistent reversions of my edits to the Neil Young section and Rogan against trans men in women's sports section, make no sense.
Next steps? Arbitration? Editor appears to be preserving the article as-is without regard to edit quality (effectively admin-locking the article). Destrylevigriffith (talk) 18:49, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Destrylevigriffith, please be aware that Bon courage is not an administrator. You must gain consensus for any changes you want to make. Discuss specific language accurately summarizing specific reliable sources. Lengthy, unfocused talk page ranting accomplishes nothing. Cullen328 (talk) 19:13, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Why do you keep reverting the blandly factual edits that I made?
I already made my case when I made the edits to the Neil Young section and the Rogan against trans women in women's sports section. Anybody who cares about actually following Wikipedia policy will go look up those edits, see that my reasoning is perfectly within Wikipedia policy, that the language is exactly neutral, and tell Bon courage to leave them be.
And anybody who understands how Wikipedia works will realise that being right is not enough. Wikipedia works by consensus, and if another editor disagrees with your edit, it is up to you to try to persuade them, or (more generally) to try and achieve consensus. Asserting that you are right and they are wrong is not usually an effective strategy: see WP:BRD. ColinFine (talk) 22:25, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Yes, and although this is not the place to get into content, our article on Rogan is actually pretty soft on his views, considering the crap that's been pumped-out.[10] The place to discuss this is the article Talk page or at the WP:FT/N thread linked above. Bon courage (talk) 05:14, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
You Afraid
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments4 people in discussion
I have a book to hand. Put Author, Publisher, Title, Edition into Template. Could not get the ISBN Autofill to do anything. So put in the ISBN myself. Does the ISBN Autofill work? BlueWren0123 (talk) 06:31, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
It works the other way around: click on the citation button (quotation mark icon), click on the "Automatic" tab, type the ISBN into the box, and submit it. It should try to automatically fill in the other information. Solomon Ucko (talk) 14:55, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
BlueWren0123, did Solomon Ucko's method work for you? Autofill (in the source editor or visual editor) generates many parameters from an ISBN. It will not generate an ISBN from any other parameters.
I checked a recent citation of yours to try out: "0 11 691183 2". With spaces this did not work using the autofill in the source editor and created a bogus citation in the visual editor. With the spaces removed (0116911832), it worked correctly in both. Rjjiii (talk) 03:19, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
0 11 691183 2 failed, 0-11-691183-2 ok, 011691183 ok. Also with 2 authors: 0-13-288333-3 likewise. When I entered all by hand I extended the Template and used the Author(s) fields. Spaces or - are significant in ISBN, a major publisher has few identifying digits then a large available number range, a small publisher has many identifying digits then a small allocated number range. My opinion is that when ISBN are given this separation of portions of the ISBN should be shown. I have noticed that not all publishers include the initial 0 to indicate English language which is unhelpful. BlueWren0123 (talk) 06:30, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Is a source really independant?
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Suppose a publishing company decides to start a new title about a particular computer. The publishing company ltd (llc) is not directly financially linked to the computer company ltd (llc). But if the magazine claims that the computer is a rubbish design and should not be bought, then the computer may fail in the marketplace. Soon after the new title will also fail as there is no longer said computer to write about. In "Your first article" it states "In general, sources with no editorial control are not reliable.". But editorial control can really be editorial bias to keep the publication selling? BlueWren0123 (talk) 11:47, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Your question is unclear, but all that matters is that the publisher is independent of the computer manufacturer, and has reliable editorial control. If they write an objective review of the computer then we can report that, positive or negative. Any bias can be balanced by citing multiple sources. Shantavira|feed me12:43, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
I will give some thought about how I can make my question clearer. My concern is about the objectivity. I recall "Prouf reeder rekwired". Thank you. BlueWren0123 (talk) 12:54, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Help with editing article with bad sources
Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments3 people in discussion
Hi, I am interested in learning to edit/improve wikipedia. I have started with a newcomer task, the article Altimax. This has had the copyedit tag since 2014, with many people making small changes so I thought I would try to fix it and remove the tag.
I started making some changes like reverting the title back to 'Altimax Broadcasting Company', grammar changes and removing wording such as 'ensused in a scuffle' and the really long section title.
The second paragraph of the history section didn't make sense to me, so I went to source[2] and it is a blog post and doesn't even say what the wiki article claims it does. At this point I was going to publish my changes, removing the copyedit tag, adding some for unreliable sources tags & changing the wiki article to reflect the source.
I also thought it was strange their parent compan(ies) didn't have wikipedia articles. I tried following source [1] but it is a facebook page which I cannot view without logging in which surely can't be a good source? I'm not sure what to do now as this is the main source for this section, and presumably the introduction.
Sorry for the long question, I am just not sure what to do here. I haven't published my initial changes to the page yet. Thanks :)
Welcome aboard. Your query mentions several different issues within the article. As a general guideline address those as separate edits. For example you mention "grammar changes" and "Facebook...source". Assuming those are unrelated, keep your work on those as separate edits. Even if they are in the same sentence, it is still worth doing them as separate edits. Not only is that better practice, but it will also give you a sense of progress in bringing the relatively easy grammar changes to completion quickly. Hope that helps. Feline Hymnic (talk) 14:35, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Hiya, thanks for the advice.
I'm really confused, the page I was editing seems to no longer exist? This is the page I was editing previous version, but now 'Altimax' redirects to 'Globe Telecom'. Do you know what's happened Thank you Sleepycoos (talk) 15:37, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Hello, Sleepycoos. What has happened is that Rotideypoc41352 (quite possibly in response to your post here) has looked at the article, decided that Altimax does not meet the criteria for notability, and (rather than nominating it for deletion) has replaced the article by a redirect to Globe Telecom.
Hi, thanks that all makes sense. That's fine I was wondering whether it was notable enough (when I noticed the parent company didn't have a page) - it's just unfortunate it happened with my first edit! I'll grab another newcomer task and try again. Sleepycoos (talk) 16:18, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Bad link
Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments4 people in discussion
I'm not an editor but you better fix footnote number 2 on this entry as it connects to pornography rather than tractor/implement manufacturing history. It's the kind of local history entry that school kids would use for a report assignment. Russell & Company (Steam Tractor). I don't need a personal reply as I assume you will check and fix it. Thank you. 2601:5C2:8680:2A50:1D5D:7D8E:1B98:4A0A (talk) 09:36, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
I have provided a link to an archived copy of the webpage in place of the existing link. It appears that at some point the webpage was redirected to its current destination for reasons outside of any Wikipedia editor's control; thank you for bringing this up. Tollens (talk) 09:45, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
As a humorous aside, I can't help wondering whether 'Tractor Porn' MP, Neil Parish, might have used that article as his excuse for watching smutty websites in the House of Commons! (ref).! Nick Moyes (talk) 13:32, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago10 comments3 people in discussion
Hello,
As most of us know there is a war now in the Middle East. As I read pages with information regarding this war (Hamas-Israel) I understand that pages are very biased and lack information, (for example page).
How can we ensure that this page and similar pages stay neutral?
It is a concern because readers view Wikipedia pages as fact, some pages can contribute to misinformation that leads to hate crimes.
I hope someone can help here soon.
Thank you 77.137.71.188 (talk) 11:55, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Hello and welcome. Wikipedia does not claim to be without bias, as all sources have biases. Sources are presented to readers so they can evaluate and judge them for themselves. Wikipedia does not claim that what is presented is the truth, only that it can be verified, see WP:TRUTH. It's up to readers to determine what is the truth for themselves.
If there is any article that you feel does not accurately describe the reliable sources offered, please discuss your specific concerns on the article talk page. I emphasize, be specific- a general "this is biased" grievance is not something that can be acted on. 331dot (talk) 12:26, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Be aware that editing about the Israeli-Arab conflict is a highly contentious topic area, with its own special rules. I will notify you of those on your user talk page. 331dot (talk) 12:27, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
The pages have a very strong impact on the world around us.
As a community we need to be responsible for what is going on here.
If you feel that policies are being ignored for a particular article, again, the first step is to discuss that on the article talk page, providing specific examples of your concerns.
Note that everyone has a bias in a contentious topic area- including you. That you disagree with someone's perspective doesn't in and of itself mean that they are violating policies. 331dot (talk) 13:11, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
I honestly think it is not neutral. And experienced editors are ignoring logic and good sources and doing what they want. Deleting new users comments with no good reasons. 77.137.71.188 (talk) 13:55, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
It can and does happen that editors consciously or unconsciously edit according to their own bias. But ninety-nine times out of a hundred, when an experienced editor reverts a new user's edit, it is because that new user has not yet understood Wikipedia's policies - usually on sourcing, original research, or neutral point of view. ColinFine (talk) 14:16, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Once again, you need to discuss your concerns on the talk page, and provide specific examples of policy violations, ignoring of consensus, or otherwise what your grievance is. We can't help with "it's biased, change it". 331dot (talk) 14:18, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Hi 331dot, thank you for all you answers, I do appreciate them.
I agree that no one is 100% neutral, but I am talking about incidents that are too obvious.
Like not allowing to add relevant information when it is done according to guidelines, or using wording that is not representative of actual events.
Wikipedia has great editors but there is a small group that is intelligently using this platform for propaganda and misinformation purposes.
I am not using my user name here because I actually don't feel 100% safe using it in this question.
As I wrote in the beginning, if these articles would not have such a great influence I would not be so concerned.
Then I hope you move to take action as I've indicated. If policies are being violated, you should. Saying "a small group that is intelligently using this platform for propaganda and misinformation purposes" is a serious accusation that requires serious, hard evidence, which you should either raise at WP:ANI or withdraw the accusation and get back to assuming good faith. Disagreement with a perspective does not mean that there is an elaborate conspiracy afoot. No one should trust Wikipedia blindly. 331dot (talk) 16:55, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Courtesy link: Leroy Waterman and log – dudhhr talkcontribssheher 17:21, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
Courtesy ping: Michael D. Turnbull. Accidentally pinged the wrong username. 46.10.223.203 (talk) 16:02, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 09:06, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
Thanks--СтасС (talk) 01:42, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
Courtesy link: Indigenous peoples in Canada
17:47, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
10:45, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
Done.
I will not get blocked; but, I want to become an Administrator. - Thomasfan1916 (talk) 23:40, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Comment: Forgot to add title. Whoops 
QuickQuokka [talk • contribs] 10:45, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Added by following these steps.
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
