Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1171

Archive 1165

←

Archive 1169

Archive 1170

Archive 1171

Archive 1172

Archive 1173

→

Archive 1175

Tacking complicated topics in physics and mathematics

This is mainly a question for people in the Mathematics/Physics side of Wikipedia.

So the current Wikipedia policy is that advanced articles in mathematics and theoretical physics are usually completely incomprehensible to anyone who is not already familiar with that field. As it should be, since simplifying it would otherwise make it worthlessly inaccurate to those who need it most. (Of course the idea is to write as clearly and simply as possible as long as one does not loose accuracy). I write articles accordingly.

I just wonder whether it would not be nice to have a simple version of the article somewhere. This could be in a "overview" type section at the start of the article (something that some articles do occasionally do and these do turn out to be often very useful). However, most articles do not have this. It also makes little structural sense for shorter articles (despite it still being useful). An alternative I could see is to have a corresponding article in the Simple English Wikipedia which tries to then explain the topic as simply as possible. Would the Simple English Wikipedia article have to be linked to on the Wikipedia article somehow? Otherwise people will most likely not know it exists even if they need it. For example, theta vacuum is a pretty hard article to read if you don't know much physics. But in principle one could summarize it in a paragraph or two in a much simpler sense (something that would of course be useless to actual physicist, but would be nice for laypeople). Yet such a simple summary also does not fit into the article introduction since the necessary simplification would be often technically misleading, and as far as I know the introduction serves more of an accurate summary purpose.

I don't know. The problem is that it would often be ideal if many of the articles in these areas of science/math had a "technical" (accurate) version, and a corresponding simplified version, whether that be in the original article as a subsection or elsewhere (but still obviously accessible to the reader). So I was wondering what other people think about this issue. There is currently no real push for this type of structure on Physics/Math Wikipedia. Sorry for the ramble of thoughts. OpenScience709 (talk) 01:16, 18 November 2022 (UTC) OpenScience709 (talk) 01:16, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

OpenScience709, there are 'introduction to' articles, like Introduction to quantum mechanics for Quantum mechanics, or Introduction to viruses for Virus Sungodtemple (talk) 02:27, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

@OpenScience709 The WP:Village pump (idea lab) might be a place to propose and discuss your idea. You are quite correct about those impossibly technical articles. Quisqualis (talk) 06:56, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Ahh, thanks! Didn't know about the Village pump, but that does seems like a better environment for discussing this issue. Cheers! OpenScience709 (talk) 09:21, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

There is also Simple English Wikipedia. Shantavira|^{feed me} 11:49, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

• @OpenScience709 and Quisqualis: WP:TECHNICAL is a guideline dealing exactly with that subject. It says that the lead section should be understandable by a general audience. Now, granted, that’s not always possible, but we should try as much as we can.

I have a PhD in physics and I had to focus intensely and read many links before I started to vaguely understand what the lead of theta vacuum said. Here’s my attempt at writing an equally-obscure lead sentence on a topic I am familiar with: The energy cascade is a transfer of energy from lower to higher wavenumbers through the inertial subrange due to turbulent eddy instability. (That’s not far from what you might find in a graduate textbook.)

Compare the actual lead of our article energy cascade (permalink): it is much better. The above sentence packs no less than six different advanced concepts together (energy transfer, wavenumber, inertial subrange, turbulence, eddy, instability), when the actual lead breaks down the explanation across multiple paragraphs in a logical order. The above sentence uses the technical terms low/high wavenumber and turbulence; the actual lead uses imprecise but easy-to-understand equivalents large/small and motion.

I would think any reasonably-focused reader can understand the general gist of the lead of energy cascade, and anyone with some undergraduate background in a hard-science field can understand it fully. That is no mean feat for a topic that is introduced at the graduate level and the source of many misunderstandings among students. The rest of the article is definitely inaccessible to anyone without some understanding of turbulent dissipation etc. (but even then, it is more clearly written than many textbooks I have read, without sacrificing much completeness). Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 13:56, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

@Tigraan: Good point. I suppose its somewhat of a lead-section-philosophy issue. My view was more on the "summarize" side of it, that is that the lead is a nice summary of what the rest of the article is about. For example the theta vacuum page is an accurate concise summary of exactly what it is. That is that the first sentence is almost a dictionary definition of the topic (which can be often very useful for experts or people actively learning the topic). Whenever the lead does not include it, it can in fact be annoying to dig through the rest of the article to figure out an accurate definition. Like your technical definition of energy cascade is nice to have somewhere; it can tell a physicist a lot of information quickly and concisely with them then having a precise working definition of the topic. Otherwise they may have to spend quite a bit of time on the topic to figure it out for themselves.

But on the other hand the philosophy that the lead should be the nice simple introduction (exactly what this whole thread is about) available to a more general audience is also (if not more) important. But of course it can be a bit tricky to reconcile these two. Maybe one way that one could do this is for the first sentence or two to be the accurate summary, with the following sentences elaborating on it in simpler terms (downside is that a reader may be put off by the first sentence)? For example, for the theta vacuum page one could have another paragraph in the introduction elaborating on what the theta vacuum is in simpler terms. Alternatively the order could somehow switch.

The best solution I see is to somehow have the lead do both things: give a reasonably accurate concise definition-type sentence of the topic and also introduce/summarize the topic in much simpler terms. The question is what is the best way to implement this. OpenScience709 (talk) 16:01, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Updating a multilingual page

Newb here, please be kind.

I was wondering if anyone with experience in the dynamic might talk me through etiquette regarding multilingual pages ie the page itself does appear in English, but the talk page is in another language. I’m not sure if there are different language versions of this page and I can’t see a link to an active user on the talk page. Is there guidance regarding such pages and how they are usually managed? I can see some need for updates and, as it’s a tricky one some mentoring on the talk page would help me decide whether to attempt it or leave for somebody else attached to a specific project. EthicalAugur (talk) 14:33, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

@ethicalaugur: people are meant to communicate in english here. not sure what the person is saying. also, see help:talk pages. lettherebedarklight〔晚安 おやすみ〕ping me when replying 14:38, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi @EthicalAugur, welcome to the Teahouse. There is certainly a post on the talk page in another language, but this is still the English Wikipedia and that is an English Wikipedia talk page. Specific guidance is at WP:ENGLISHPLEASE. The post is over 10 years old at this point, but I suppose you could still run it through Google translate and see if any relevant points about the article were brought up. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:10, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the assistance. I will start with AI translation of the talk page into English. EthicalAugur (talk) 15:34, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

@EthicalAugur We occasionally get foreign-language entries here at the Teahouse. Assuming the translation isn't a foul rant (to be reverted) it is quite acceptable to run it through a machine translation and, in your own reply, add that translation to preface whatever response you give. That saves other readers having to do the same. No-one will complain if you do that on any other English Wikipedia talk page. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:35, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! EthicalAugur (talk) 18:41, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Citations in lists

What is the right way to add citations to lists? Most lists I've seen don't have references anywhere I can see, but I have also seen lists that have citation needed tags. Should I put a citation beside the entry in the list? I can't think of any other way to do it. Balnibarbarian (talk) 16:29, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

There's a few ways one can do it:

• If there is an introductory paragraph to the list, one can add the reference to the end of said paragraph
• If the list is a stand-alone list article, one can just add a general reference that covers the whole list
• If the list is compiled from several different sources, one can add a reference to each item to the source that that item comes from

Does one of those cover your situation? --Jayron32 16:39, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

I think so. How exactly does the third one work? What would that look like? Balnibarbarian (talk) 16:46, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Balnibarbarian. Take a look at List of members of the Black Panther Party, which I work on occasionally. Unreferenced entries creep in but the large majority of the entries are referenced. Cullen328 (talk) 19:23, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! I know how to do this now! Balnibarbarian (talk) 19:47, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Creating a company page

After one of my colleagues tried to create a draft page for our company (Codasip Draft:Codasip ), which was rejected, I got involved to cleanup what was done: I know Wikipedia is not marketing! I just want something factual.

However, the page was then rejected again because there were not enough external sources

- I added sources, then it was rejected because there were too many (and some came from the same news site)

- I cleaned-up the sources again, and now I don't get any response...

Could you help me figure-out how to create this page? Thanks! ME - Codasip (talk) 19:08, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

ME - Codasip, in User:331dot's words:

This just tells about the company and what it does, it does not summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company. I fear that you may be too close to your company to write about it as Wikipedia requires. As odd as it may sound, you actually have too many sources. Fewer high quality sources are preferable to a large number of low quality sources.

Also, note that drafts may take up to 3 months to review, since Wikipedia is a volunteer effort. Sungodtemple (talk) 19:28, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. This comment was given on the previous version. Do you think my new draft still has too many sources? ME - Codasip (talk) 19:31, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

ME - Codasip Yes, it still does. I think the fundamental problem here is demonstrated by your initial comment here- "tried to create a draft page for our company". Wikipedia has articles, not pages. This is not just semantics, there is a distinction there. Articles are not owned by the subject and are not for the benefit of the subject in any way(even if not engaging in blatant marketing). There may be benefits, but these are on the side and not our goal. The article is not a place to describe the product offerings of the company or its routine business transactions. "Significant coverage" goes beyond these things, and describe the importance or influence of the company as the source sees it- not as the company itself sees it. If you have no sources that do these things, you are- to be frank- just wasting your time. An article subject trying to force the issue of creating an article is not often successful. If the company truly meets the definition of a notable company, an independent editor will eventually take note of coverage of the company and choose on their own to write about it. 331dot (talk) 19:48, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, and sorry for using the wrong word.

The goal was not to own anything, just to have a space similar to the other companies (e.g. SiFive, Andes Technology, LowRISC...) that have also participated to the creation of the RISC-V organisation, which is revolutionising the semiconductor industry at the moment. In addition to this, you can see in the draft article that there are reputable books and articles about the company, so I guess it matches the definition of a notable company.

So to come back to my question: are there still too many sources in the article? Now I can delete more if you think they are not useful or relevant.

Thanks! ME - Codasip (talk) 13:55, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Contribute

I am a first time contributor. Apparently my contribution was rejected. The contribution pertain to the WIKI subject "Gay St. Manhattan, NY. Moreland Houck 332nd (talk) 20:25, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

@332nd: Welcome to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1171. Your edit introduced an error into the article while the information you wanted to add was in the edit summary. Please see Easy referencing for beginners to learn how to cite appropriately on Wikipedia. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:28, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Blog Links

Hi, I know that blog links are not usually allowed for referencing. I've just reverted an edit to article TypeScript. I reverted as all I saw was an added blog. The blog is Microsofts official devs blog which has been used elsewhere in the article as a reference already.

Is it OK, in this instance, to use the official Microsoft dev blog for announcing updates? I feel I might have been too hasty in removing it? Thanks, Knitsey (talk) 21:30, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

@Knitsey Welcome to the Teahouse. If it's an official MS blog, it should be OK for statements of uncontroversial facts. The guidance is at WP:BLOGS. Mike Turnbull (talk) 21:37, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Mike, thats very helpful and quick! The new editor has been very polite about it. I will apologise and self revert. Knitsey (talk) 21:41, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Why was my page labeled as an attack page?

It was almost entirely about me and only referenced my abuser in passing, and I didn't specify the abuse. I CAN specify the abuse, but I wanted to do as little writing on my own page as possible. NVNCVL (talk) 13:19, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi @NVNCVL, welcome to the Teahouse. Only an administrator can see the deleted article, but it sounds like you were trying to write an autobiography based on your own personal experiences, and making statements about a third party in the process. This is generally going to land you in hot water here on Wikipedia. You're free to attempt to write an article about yourself, but it is strongly discouraged, and like all other articles it must be based on independent, reliable, secondary sources with significant coverage of the subject (in this case, you), especially when living persons are involved. Please give a read to Help:Your first article. 97.113.27.216 (talk) 13:41, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

I reviewed your draft and declined it because there was zero evidence of you passing the notability guidelines, but more importantly you made very serious accusations about a named person, that is why I also tagged it for speedy deletion as an attack page. Theroadislong (talk) 13:59, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

NVNCVL, I can read the deleted page, and although we may have sympathy for you, there is nothing to show that you meet our notability guidelines. Accusations of abuse or other negative behaviour can only be made if backed up by proper independent sources, like a court report. Also, the second of your references didn't even mention you, let alone confirm what you claimed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:28, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Hey, can you refresh my memory? What was the second reference? Was it one of the videos of police brutality against me? NVNCVL (talk) 09:16, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

@NVNCVL, please read WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, because it seems that is what you're here to do, and Wikipedia is not the place for it. 97.113.27.216 (talk) 13:39, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

So you're here to be a source of misinformation and not correct any atrocities. Good for you. Golf clap.

Go on YouTube and search "Erin Taylor: Cool Girl Or Psycho?" I had NOTHING to do with the production. NVNCVL (talk) 23:00, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

WP:Biographies of living persons exists because we aren't willing to risk a lawsuit against ourselves or against YOU. We absolutely cannot include unsourced claims of criminal activity. And "correcting atrocities" is explicitly something we don't do. We are an encyclopaedia, not Amnesty International. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 23:09, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

editing

I am writing on behalf of the Save Ellis Island Foundation which is the Non-Profit partner of the National Park Service for the rehabilitation and reuse of the south side of Ellis Island. The edited information which I provide is directly from the Save Ellis Island website saveellisisland.org Fcalella (talk) 22:54, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Fcalella, welcome to the Teahouse. Please do not copy/paste from outside sources into Wikipedia - 99% of the time this is a very bad idea, and often it is a copyright violation. Information should be summarized from the source you're using, and then, ideally, the source should be properly cited. An organization's website can be useful as a source of small amounts of basic, uncontroversial information, but otherwise an article should rely on what's said in independent sources. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 23:08, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

@Fcalella We generally cannot accept material that has been taken from another website, even if you wrote the material in the first place. Wikipedia's content licences are mutually incompatible with Berne-standard all-rights-reserved copyright, and the quickest way to address the issue is by removing the material on discovery with extreme prejudice. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 23:11, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Fcalella, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid that, like many people, you have a misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is. Quite apart from the copyright issue, Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. ColinFine (talk) 23:45, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Is a revert that restores an article to the "status quo" version subject to 24hr BRD restrictions/considered edit warring?

I've seen a lot of editors revert others' edits during discussions, claiming that the "status quo" version of the article is preferred while a dispute about new content additions are ongoing. However, this seems to be contradictory to WP:EW, which just says "to revert is to undo the action of another editor." So, does a revert like this, if done more than once, count as edit warring? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 23:13, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

We cannot answer this without knowing more information. In what topic area is this taking place? Are there active sanctions against any of the parties involved? Is the party adding content disregarding the talk page? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 23:15, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

The topic is US politics, and has a 24hr BRD restriction. No editors involved have active sanctions, near as I can tell. One editor added content with an edit summary. I reverted it with an edit summary. And a third editor re-instated the content with an edit summary. No talk page discussion had happened yet. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 23:22, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Does this involve the Hunter Biden laptop controversy page? GoodDay (talk) 01:01, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Punctuation Incorrectly Used in Virtually Every Article on Wikipedia

Good morning,

I am an English teacher, and something I've noticed on Wikipedia is that certain punctuation marks are being used incorrectly in conjunction with quotation marks. Let me explain.

On Wikipedia, often you will see a period or comma placed outside of quotation marks, when really both of those punctuation marks should be inside the quotations.

For example:

"Blah blah blah". <--incorrect

"Blah blah blah." <--correct

Also:

"Blah blah blah", he said. <--incorrect

"Blah blah blah," he said. <--correct

The only punctuation mark you will ever see placed outside of quotation marks is a question mark, and it only applies some of the time. It applies only when the question begins before the quote.

For example:

Did John really tell you to "get lost?" <--incorrect

Did John really tell you to "get lost"? <--correct

Finally, although punctuation marks are always placed inside of quotation marks, the opposite is true of parentheticals.

For example:

John once said "Blah blah blah" (Blah 2.) <--incorrect

John once said "Blah blah blah" (Blah 2). <--correct

I know there is no central editorial board, but obviously Wikipedia has made the choice to place punctuation marks outside of quotation marks since almost every article has the mistake. I am hereby request, nay, implore you to right this wrong.

Some people think grammar and punctuation aren't a big deal, and that we should worry about mistakes like this. My contention is this: When people lose grip on the language of their society, their society begins to erode. Not over night, but slowly and steadily over time like a patch of rust under your car.

Sincerely, A Concerned English teacher from New Jersey 24.38.36.115 (talk) 13:17, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi IP editor, welcome to the Teahouse. Our guidance is at MOS:PUNCT. Since pretty much anyone can edit pretty much anything, our articles are never going to be consistent with that, but it's the standard. The only way to ensure articles do meet that standard is for editors - such as yourself - to fix deviations when you find them. 97.113.27.216 (talk) 13:34, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Please see MOS:INOROUT and note that our Manual of Style is determined by community consensus and common sense, not by linguistic prescription. a!rado🦈 (C✙T) 13:35, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi, you might want to read Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Punctuation it has a talkpage if you think our Manual of Style needs changing. If we have a common error in not following our Manual of Style then Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Tasks is a good place to go to suggest fixes that can be applied to very large numbers of pages. ϢereSpielChequers 13:36, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Two relevant parts of Wikipedia's Manual of Style are at MOS:LQ and MOS:BRACKET. - David Biddulph (talk) 13:38, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

It's a difference between American and British English. The linguistic and (I presume) grammatical conventions of the first few edits of the article are followed, or, if the subject is associated with an English-speaking location, the dialect of that area. See this MOS page. סשס Grimmchild. He/him, probably 13:44, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Actually, it is not. Per Wikipedia:Logical quotation on Wikipedia: There is a common misconception that logical quotation (LQ) is "British style" and that typesetters' quotation (TQ(...)) is "American style" (despite having originated in England, and being as common in Canada as in the US). (etc. - see the whole page). Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 14:02, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

I see! That's very interesting, thank you. :) סשס Grimmchild. He/him, probably 14:04, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

If that's true (and as an essay I'd like to see some citations), then MOS:INOROUT should be amended. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:13, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Mr. English teacher I actually didn't know that. El Pettymars0193 (talk) 14:19, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

See Tigraan's comment. I was wrong. סשס Grimmchild. He/him, probably 14:47, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

IP editor: I appreciate you taking the time to put forward your concerns. Thank you. Here is my take on it:

Wikipedia does many things that many people would disagree with. But it tries to do them all uniformly, one way or another. For example, as a biologist, I detest our annoying rule that the common names of species should not be capitalised within articles. I hate that, and I firmly believe it has the potential to introduce many errors and misunderstandings, especially when a rare species has 'common' in its title. For example, a sentence stating that "research has shown that the common gull is rare in many parts of the world." makes no sense at all. But our community voted to accept that - at least, until such time as a better, more persuasive argument is put forward and a new consensus sought and agreed upon to change it. That way, we end up with a 'Manual of Style' we can all understand and adhere to.

Now, personally, I feel MOS:INOROUT explains how to approach the issue of punctuation within quotations very well indeed. If we are quoting someone's full and complete sentence, then including their punctuation from their quote is highly appropriate, and it should certainly go inside the quotation marks. But, if we are taking just a section of a sentence that someone said and quoting it, whilst leaving off the end of that sentence, then we should definitely not insert false and potentially misleading punctuation inside their quoted words that they did not, in fact, ever make. To quote Winston Churchill who, when asked if we should surrender, said "We shall." would be quite wrong and place false interpretation on his words. Actually, when asked if we should surrender, Churchill said (and as part of a somewhat longer and famous speech), "We shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be."

The danger of misleading, whether by accident or by intent, by selectively quoting just part of a statement is clearly reduced by only including their punctuation if they used it, and I feel that applies to both spoken and written statements. I'd be interested knowing your take on that. Nick Moyes (talk) 17:40, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

• Ummmm, just to try (likely in vain) to save other people some time: I'll bet $100 this isn't an actual English teacher. You aren't actually required to engage with someone who thinks pretends to think that using different rules of grammar than they do will cause the end of society. DNFTT. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:04, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

  @Floquenbeam - I'd not looked at their contributions until you posted this. Your point was well-made. But I'll just say that, if other new users benefit from seeing these points discussed, then it could help them understand how we work and avoid being influenced by seeing misleading suggestions. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:00, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

  Honestly, as a former English teacher... this doesn't smell off to me. -- asilvering (talk) 04:07, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Learning to edit

I signed up a few years ago and did a bunch of videos that were really helpful. But, in the nature of things, I've forgotten what I learned. Now I'm back and want to contribute. I remember there were principles that were really important, and I can't find those videos. Links would be helpful. Thanks. TrouserRoller (talk) 00:03, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Good day, when I was learning to edit (and still do sometimes), I used the Wikipedia: namespace. The one I learned the most from was wp:mos, it is a bit long but its useful to keep in mind. If you do not know a specific guideline, I would use common sense. Mitch199811 (talk) 02:52, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

TrouserRoller, if you mean learning (via video) how to edit, then perhaps Wikipedia:VideoWiki/Tutorial and the pages to which it links; if you mean learning how to produce and edit videos for Wikipedia, then perhaps Wikipedia:Videos and the pages to which it links. -- Hoary (talk) 04:37, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Is there a shortened footnote with a linked title?

I'm searching for a citation like {{sfn}} that shows not the author(s), but the title. Does it exist? Gyalu22 (talk) 15:19, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

@Gyalu22: Have you read Template:Sfn#No author name in citation template? Does it answer your question? Deor (talk) 23:49, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, {{harvid}} is what I'm searching for, thanks! Gyalu22 (talk) 07:44, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Reliable sources for page about a scientist - what if the newspaper articles are really inaccurate?

Hello! I'm not sure where to put this so I put it here. If there's a more useful place, by all means point it out or move this.

There's a bit of a difficulty about the Royal Rife page - the section about his life and work, not the section about the various alternative health devices that claim to be based on his work.

The story goes back to the 1920s and 1930s, and there's a shortage of reliable sources. Some of the sources available are:

• Large archives of original documents at https://rife.de/ , https://rife.org/ and https://www.rifevideos.com/ - very extensive and providing lots of information about the nature of the research and who did what to whom when, but they're possibly disqualified as primary sources.
• Write-ups based on these documents on the same websites. Secondary sources, but possibly disqualified as self-published, and rife.de and rifevideos.com are possibly also disqualified as having conflicts of interest because their authors fund the websites by selling modern "Rife machines" and/or accessories for them.
• One lousy journal article (the man seems to have hated publishing anything properly!) - a primary source, but already on the page, for want of anything else. There are also a few other bits and pieces including a letter in Science from the then head of the Mayo Clinic, published in the 26 August 1932 issue https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.76.1965.192 .
• Contemporary newspaper articles, from sources including the San Diego Evening Tribune, the San Diego Union, the New York Times and Popular Science magazine.

By normal Wikipedia rules it seems that the newspaper articles should be preferred over the documents or the websites, as they're secondary sources and apparently reputable. However, in some places, they seem to be just plain garbled. As journalists sometimes do when faced with science that's above their pay grade, they seem to have got a lot of things mixed up. For instance, the Popular Science article https://books.google.com/books?id=9CcDAAAAMBAJ&q=Germs . Comparing it to the archive documents shows that the supposedly newly discovered and mysterious "green ray" described at the end of the article is actually a very confused description of Rife's usual method of using an inert gas discharge tube (this one filled with krypton possibly, by the colour) as an antenna to transmit ordinary radio waves.

What do you usually do if the secondary sources are really inaccurate? Do they still have to be used in preference to primary sources? Wombat140 (talk) 09:44, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Wombat140. The current version of the article makes it clear that Rife was a fringe theorist and so Wikipedia:Fringe theories is the guideline that should shape the article. Anything published by Rife and his followers should be treated with extreme caution and used in a very limited way. As for Popular Science, I used to read it for fun as an adolescent in the 1960s, but it never has been a high quality source for citing in an encyclopedia, especially regarding fringe theories. How many times have they predicted that flying cars and personal submarines would soon be commonplace? Far better to have a brief, properly referenced article about a figure like Rife, than a longer article that is poorly referenced. Quality is much more important than quantity in cases like this. Cullen328 (talk) 10:52, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. That doesn't really seem to get me anywhere, though. What kind of "quality" sources would you recommend? As I say, Wikipedia: Independent sources suggests that newspaper reports normally rank higher than some of the sources available, but in this case, many of the newspaper reports appear to be demonstrably not as reliable as some things that would be lower down the food chain. (The San Diego Union and San Diego Evening Tribune ones seem not to have as many provable factual errors, but they seem to have adopted him as a local hero somewhat and don't look very NPOV).

As I say, it seems to be difficult just to get references for basic details of who did what to whom and when. The outline of what happened seems to be that Rife and his team committed the basic scientific offence of rushing into production - with an alleged cure for cancer, of all explosive things - based only on animal studies and one informal 16-patient pilot study that was so badly documented that it couldn't be published, and the AMA understandably came down on it like a ton of bricks. But I can't even find references for that, other than the various archive websites! It's ridiculous - Rife and his research seem to be notable enough, discussed at length all over the Internet and providing the excuse for a large and profitable branch of alternative medicine, but people editing the page had difficulty finding reliable sources for so much as when he was born or where he studied.

The archive websites include internal correspondence, lab notes, etc. from Rife's lab and interviews with various people who knew him and/or worked with him, by the way, not just things that were released to the press. Wombat140 (talk) 06:20, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Wombat140, as Wikipedia editors, we simply do not care about and are obligated to ignore what unreliable sources "all over the internet" say about the topic. Like separating wheat from chaff, you must separate the reliable sources from those that aren't. Summarize the reliable ones and if the article seems less complete to you as a result, that is an illusion. Cullen328 (talk) 06:46, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Cullen328, I'm referring to how notable it is, not to using the discussions "all over the Internet" as sources. However, on checking the "Notability" page again, I see that Wikipedia doesn't seem to use the word "notable" the same way it usually seems to be used in English - rather than "well-known", it seems to mean "well-documented". And Rife is well-known, but not well-documented. Still left with this puzzle of whether to prioritise inaccurate secondary sources over apparently more accurate primary ones! Wikipedia seems to work on a basis of documenting what other people are saying - but does that extend to even if the other people are saying things that demonstrably aren't true? (Example that doesn't rely on those archives: the Popular Science article currently used as a reference shows a micrograph of a hookworm hatching, taken by Rife, labelled "12,000x". Looking up the size of a hookworm egg shows that they meant 1,200x).

By the way, would you call this a primary or a secondary source? It's somebody else (head of the Mayo Clinic) reporting on Rife's microscope work, but it's only one person. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.76.1965.192 Wombat140 (talk) 08:16, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Wombat140, you say that Rife is well-known, but not well-documented but that seems like a strange formulation to me. Well-known to who? I am a 70 year old American, fairly well-read, have a university degree and pretty wide ranging interests. I have 43,000 Wikipedia pages on my watchlist, have been an active editor for over 13 years, and I had never heard of this person before you posted here about him. I have been reading about Royal Robbins since the 1970s but not this guy. I see that the New York Times has only discussed him once, and that was in an article published 91 years ago, and the article was primarily about his microscope, not about him. Similarly, the 1932 Science article that you linked to above seems to be much more about his microscope than about Rife as a person. You are much more familiar with the source material than I am, but I cannot help noticing that the current version of the article says, Little reliable published information exists describing Rife's life and work. If that is accurate, then perhaps the best solution is to have an article about his controversial microscope rather than an article about Royal Rife as a person. Worth noting is that Wikipedia has very stringent requirements for referencing any biomedical claims, which can be found at WP:MEDRS. Cullen328 (talk) 08:54, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Also, the notion that the best sources for things that happened 90 years ago are newspaper articles published back then is incorrect. Recent books published by university presses or academic publishers are far better. Recent peer-reviewed articles published in respected academic journals are far better. There have been outstanding scholarly books published in recent years about the history of microscopes. Here is an example. What do 21st century experts say about Rife's instruments? Cullen328 (talk) 09:14, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Does Ireland have post towns?

I've just been looking for a list of post towns in Ireland yet I can't find one.

All I've been able to find is this Postal addresses in the Republic of Ireland where I have no idea what it's talking about.

The article Post town claims that Ireland has post towns in the opening sentence, however I suspect that is incorrect.

The UK goes Neighbourhood/Village > Post Town/City > County

Whereas Ireland seems to go Neighbourhood/Village/Town/City > County Danstarr69 (talk) 10:17, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Danstarr69. You'd do better posting this question at the Reference desk: the Teahouse is for questions about editing Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 11:08, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Writer

How can I find an experienced writer to create a page for me? 2601:14A:8201:47E0:8C30:3265:3867:F2A1 (talk) 20:40, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. We prefer the term "article" instead of page- this is a subtle but important distinction. If you are referring to off-wiki efforts, we can't help you there other than to say anyone who edits about you/for you would need to declare a conflict of interest and, if you compensate them in any manner, declare as a paid editor. On-wiki, you can make a request at Requested Articles, but the backlog there is severe to the point of uselessness. 331dot (talk) 20:43, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm guessing that "a page for me" means "an article about me or about something I do". If so, please note that

1. An article about you or about an activity of yours is possible only if the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability: roughly, that several people wholly unconnected with you, and not prompted or fed information on your behalf, have chosen to publish with significant coverage of you or your activity.
2. If you or your subject meets those criteria then an article is possible. You, or somebody on your behalf, are permitted to write it, but discouraged from doing so, because your conflict of interest is likely to make it hard to write in the required neutral manner.
3. An article about you or your endeavours will not belong to you, will not be controlled by you, and may end up containing very different material from what you would like it to contain; it should be almost entirely based on what those independent sources say, not on what you or your associates say or want to say. Please see an article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing.
4. There are plenty of people offering to write Wikipedia articles for payment (you probably won't find any of them via this page). None of them are in any way endorsed by Wikipedia: paid editing is tolerated, as long as they follow the proper procedures. Some of them no doubt are responsible, and will tell you that they cannot guarantee that an article they write will be accepted, or that it will stay in a form acceptable to you; many of them are scam-merchants.

ColinFine (talk) 22:30, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

If you now decide to attempt article creation yourself, common advice is to register an account, and then put in time improving existing articles. This serves to educate you on Wikipedia practices. Then, see WP:YFA for a guide on how to create and submit a draft. David notMD (talk) 13:38, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

authority file

May I ask a question about {{Authority control}}? In the source editing, "{{Authority control}}" is all that I find, but I don't yet understand how Wikipedia then finds the right information. Is it not necessary to provide more information like norm data (LC numbers and the like)? I also seek to understand how to provide the quick summary that shows up when you hover over a linked article name, like Al Jolson being "a Lithuanian-American Jewish singer, comedian, actor, and vaudevillian." Maybe you can help. --Melchior2006 (talk) 13:15, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi Melchior2006, welcome to the Teahouse. I tweaked your post to make "{{Authority control}}" display. See Template:Authority control for documentation. It automatically pulls data from the Wikidata item for the article. Click "Wikidata item" under "Tools" in the left pane of the desktop site to see it. The text "Al Jolson was a Lithuanian-American Jewish singer, comedian, actor, and vaudevillian." is automatically picked from the start of Al Jolson by mw:Page Previews. The feature may skip some things like text in parentheses. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:47, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

do FEC Filings count as running for (re)election?

Hi, I have an issue regarding This page.

It says that Senator-elect Fetterman has had his intent for running for reelection unknown.

HOWEVER, according to FEC Filings, he has already filed to run for reelection in the 2028 pennsylvania senate race (see: https://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/forms/S6PA00274/1661811)

Does filing an FEC notice count as a message of intent of running for election? Littlepagers (talk) 16:55, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You might want to ask on the talk page of the article itself, but I would say no, as anyone can file something with the FEC saying they are running(countless people do so to run for President). It's standard procedure to make that filing so it's out of the way, they usually decide later. 331dot (talk) 17:06, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Help to Address NOV, COI and Notability Notifications

Hi Teahouse! I am writing for feedback on the draft article at Draft:Penelope McPhee. I got the following notifications that the neutrality is disputed, there may be a close connection to the subject and it may not meet notability guidelines. However, no specific reasons or sections of the article were given. Can you please provide actionable feedback or updates to improve the article to publish?

Updates have been made to try to address any neutrality disputes. I have not received money to write the article and do not have a personal relationship to the subject. In addition, it seems like the subject's work and awards as an author and television producer, and contributions to art, should meet the notability guidelines.

Thank you.

OmarLetson (talk) 19:03, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

What's wrong with my redirect?

I'm at a bit of a loss here. On Meridian CU, #REDIRECT is being interpreted as a list and is not creating a redirect. The wikitext here is no different from any other redirect I've looked at. Can anyone figure this out?

--Frogging101 (talk) 19:23, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

You used a non-breaking space instead of a normal one. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 19:26, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Oh. I copied from WP:REDIRECT and the non-breaking space was preserved. I edited that page to remove the non-breaking spaces to prevent future mistakes. Frogging101 (talk) 19:40, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Bare URLS

Hi Wikipedia,

I would like to help chip away at this list by converting bare URLS. Here is an example of what I converted. Did I do this correctly? Is this enough to remove the "Bare URL" notice from the top of the article? Or should this remain on the aritcle for any reason? I want to make sure I'm doing this correctly before diving in. Thank you in advance for sparing a few moments of your time. B8dreamlife (talk) 19:51, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

@B8dreamlife yes, you did it right. But only remove the bare URL notice if all of the bare refs in the article are removed. Rlink2 (talk) 19:52, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Appreciate your reply, thanks. B8dreamlife (talk) 19:45, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Participate in more AfD's

I'd like to participate in AfD's and help out there if possible (as part of a pre-req too for NPP rights). Can anyone tell me where I would find a list of AfD's that I could participate in those discussions? TY — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 22:24, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

All of today's AfDs can be seen at WP:AFD/T, from where you can also click your way to other days' logs. There are also a great many deletion sorting lists at WP:DS. WikiProjects often maintain article alert systems as well. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 22:53, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

@Moops: Or you can go to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, in which the "Current discussions" subsection contains links to each day's log of open AfD's and the "Old discussions (open)" subsection contains links to more-than-seven-day-old discussions that haven't been closed yet (often because the consensus is unclear and no admin has yet been willing to make a determination). Deor (talk) 23:01, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Citing a novel in its own page

Hello, im currently writing up a wiki page for a graphic novel, Susanna Moodie: Roughing it in the Bush (not to be confused with Roughing it in the Bush by Susanna Moodie), and want to use an authors note at the end in the page. the co-author of the book, Patrick Crowe, states his reasons for continuing the work after Carol Shields (the other authors) Death, as well as how the graphic novel came into being. Would it be appropriate to cite this in the article, or should i move on.

There is also a website made specifically for the book, and im unsure as to wether i can cite this either, ive added a link to it here HistVa (talk) 23:36, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, @HistVa. Welcome to the Teahouse, and thank you for your rather challenging question. I can't see from your contributions where you have been working on this wiki page. I assume you've done this offline?

My understanding from your question (and from some quick browser searches) is that you want to write an Wikipedia article about a novel inspired by the life of Susanna Moodie. If so, do you think the novel meets our 'notability criteria for books' which you can find at WP:NBOOKS? If it doesn't, then there is no point continuing. If it does, then it might be appropriate to cite an author's reason. But it very much depends on the context, and I simply can't determine that from what you've written here. We often find that new editors come here in order to promote their favourite subject (or book they've written) and it's important to remember that this is an encyclopedia of notable things, simply collating what people unconnected with the subject have authoritatively written about that subject. Anything else tends to be puffery. If there is a website created for the book, that link could go in External Links section. It will have been written/produced by the authors and thus overtly promotional, and not appropriate for citing directly. Just a link should suffice. Does that make any sense? Nick Moyes (talk) 00:09, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello. I realise my first post was a little brief so ill explain in a bit more detail.

I want to write a wiki article on a graphic novel by Carol Shields and Patrick Crowe. the graphic novel is titled "Susanna Moodie: Roughing it in the Bush", and is based on the life story of Susanna Moodie, focusing mainly on the part of her life covered by her own traditional novel, which is also called "Roughing it in the Bush" (It is a quite confusing naming scheme). They are two seperate works by seperate authors, and it is a fully published and printed graphic novel. I feel it meets notability criteria, as Carol Shields is a pulitzer prize winning author. the remaining authors reason for publishing the book is quite important, as it was actually released some time after Carol Shields death and was in part written in memorium of her. The only place i can find this described is within the book itself, in an Authors Note at the end HistVa (talk) 00:25, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

HistVa, one of the authors winning a Pulitzer prize (Carol Shields) isn't one of the notability criteria. Remember you will need to meet WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG. Basically, two or three reliable sources. More details at WP:GNG about what sources meet that standard.Sungodtemple (talk) 00:37, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

thanks, will look around some more HistVa (talk) 01:30, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Deletion of Article

There's an article called Global Recognition that has poor writing, the sources are bad news articles and blog posts, and it's an orphan article. I read through the guidelines for content deletion but I'm not sure if these criteria are sufficient. Pseudnaxalbari (talk) 14:42, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

@pseudnaxalbari: not sure what you're talking about. searching for "Global Recognition" gives these results. lettherebedarklight〔晚安 おやすみ〕ping me when replying 14:54, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

@Lettherebedarklight I believe @Pseudnaxalbari is referring to Global regionalization instead. Jolly1253 (talk) 15:08, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

yes I am talking about Global regionalization. Sorry! Pseudnaxalbari (talk) 15:18, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

@pseudnaxalbari: yes. global regionalization is definitely a candidate for deletion. lettherebedarklight〔晚安 おやすみ〕ping me when replying 15:14, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Should we flag it as such, then? In the template message? Pseudnaxalbari (talk) 17:21, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

@pseudnaxalbari: there are quite a few steps to nominating a page for deletion, see WP:AFDHOWTO. or do you want me to do it? lettherebedarklight〔晚安 おやすみ〕ping me when replying 05:22, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

No I'll try to do it myself Pseudnaxalbari (talk) 07:06, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

What's the criteria for someone being from a city?

I'm looking at the page for a city and some of the notable people listed were not born there and they didn't grow up there. Is it anyone who was notable and lived in the city for a certain amount of time? Thank you for your help, Tovanish (talk) 05:32, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Tovanish Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Yes, those sections of articles about cities are for anyone associated with the city, be it being born there or some other type of connection. If you feel a person shouldn't be listed in such a section, please discuss it on the article talk page. 331dot (talk) 08:24, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree this gets silly for professional athletes. Shaquille O'Neal played one season with the Boston Celtics, and Sudbury, Massachusetts (a Boston suburb) claims him as a notable resident for the year he lived there. David notMD (talk) 11:51, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

How to cite a PDF

Please, what template do I use in citing a PDF? Thanks. — Python Drink (talk) 19:26, 19 November 2022 (UTC) Python Drink (talk) 19:26, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

It's not the format that matters, it's what it's a PDF of. If it's a PDF of an article in a journal, user {{Cite journal}}; if it's a PDF of a book, use {{Cite book}}; etc. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 19:28, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

And note that, unless the PDF is the only place that this is published, you are not "citing the PDF": you are citing the article, book, chapter or whatever, with the important information like title, date, author, publisher. As a non-essential convenience, you are also providing a link to where the text can be found online. ColinFine (talk) 12:41, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Inappropriate placement

educated low road high stream to mid over e equals MC squared unmetered web portal firewall not found occupied resident. Future direction would be?.. 174.214.50.120 (talk) 12:24, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

If you have a question about using Wikipedia, feel free to ask it. -- Hoary (talk) 12:45, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi there,

I made my first article some weeks ago and I started a page on a local person who died not long ago but my sandbox has a "re-direct" message. Can I delete this? what is it? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:B%27art_homme/sandbox&redirect=no

Thank you

Barthomme

b'art homme 15:29, 20 November 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by B'art homme (talk • contribs)

I just removed it. When you moved your sandbox to article space last time, it left a redirect that you didn't remove when starting this draft. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 15:35, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Redirect page already exists

Hello, so I'm currently working on an article for Roblox Studio (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Slo44/Roblox_Studio). There is already an existent redirect which goes to Roblox#Roblox_Studio.

I am planning on submitting my article to AfC later today, but what would happen if it gets accepted? Would this override the redirect page?

Also any feedback on my article would be appreciated, thanks! slo double 4 (talk) 17:54, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Assuming it was accepted as opposed to declined as redundant with the article on Roblox itself, it would overwrite the redirect. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 17:55, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. slo double 4 (talk) 18:13, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

How do you want the chronologies?

Is there a template I should be using for lists of works and essays? Should this be in reverse chronological order? In bullets? I have seen many different formats. Is there a prescribed way we should follow? If so, I'll fix everything I come across to that format. I would argue for reverse chronological, as that is much easier to read and update. Thank you LoveElectronicLiterature (talk) 20:01, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

@LoveElectronicLiterature, see WP:CHRONO. They should be in chronological order in an encyclopedia. StarryGrandma (talk) 22:45, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

@LoveElectronicLiterature Whilst @StarryGrandma has correctly pointed you to guidance on how we order events (from earliest to latest) in an article, it might also be worth me pointing you to the last sub-section of this advice about Single article bibliographies from the WikiProject on Bibliographies. Bulleted lists are recommended. Tables could be used but, to be frank, they are a lot harder to edit and to update. You could choose either alphabetical or chronological order. Your choice may depend what your are trying to achieve by including that list of works. I don't recommend reverse chronological order - stick to earliest significant work first, then later significant works after that. Adding new works to the end is a simple task, and doing it that way best shows the subject's development of their publishing/writing achievements. Putting their latest work first is not a good idea, in my opinion. Don't include everything; a select list of carefully chosen bibliographic works is far better than a CV-type list of every little thing that they've ever done. Does that help? Nick Moyes (talk) 23:48, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. As I edit articles, I will reorder for the chronological order, first works first. I will also try to use bullets--I agree that tables are hard to edit. Are there specific templates for punctuation? I have seen many forms. Is this correct:

• Title, YEAR, any other information

@Nick Moyes LoveElectronicLiterature (talk) 21:28, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

That format is quite common, yes. You could use citation templates, for example {{Cite book}}, {{Citation}}, or {{Vcite book}}. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 21:31, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Password

Hi, I was using wikipedia a long time ago but forgot my password. could you please help me for this. I requested email to change password, but didn't receive any. 2001:1970:47DE:B700:0:0:0:DC57 (talk) 22:44, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Nobody on Wikipedia's end has access to your account password. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 22:44, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

How can I reset my password? 2001:1970:47DE:B700:0:0:0:DC57 (talk) 22:48, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

My username is: Rigolettoopera 2001:1970:47DE:B700:0:0:0:DC57 (talk) 22:47, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Rigolettoopera has not stored a password mail address in the account (this is optional). If you don't remember the password then you have to create a new account. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:02, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

You mean email address? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 23:03, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:05, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

what is a humming bird

humming bird 119.18.29.116 (talk) 01:20, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the teahouse! With questions like these, please use google, the wikipedia page for them or (for more compicated questions that you can't find the answer to) you can ask the reference desk. Thanks, echidnaLives - talk - edits 01:25, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Reference help

I've tried creating a page - Draft:2022 Memphis 901 FC season

i got a response back from a reviewer saying that "This draft has no references. Notability cannot be established without references." but I have references? I'm confused as to what I am missing. Tivo15 (talk) 03:12, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Draft:2022 Memphis 901 FC season is the link to the draft. Karenthewriter (talk) 03:55, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

I think this might have been automatic, based on the "unreferenced" tag. I've removed it. -- asilvering (talk) 03:59, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

@Asilvering @Tivo15 None of the current references are independent, all are published by the subject itself or close associates, thus they are of no use at all to prove the notability of the subject. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:14, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

The references might be poor, but they're not entirely absent, which is what the "unreferenced" tag means and what the reviewer comment said. -- asilvering (talk) 04:43, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

WHY WAS MY FACTUAL CORRECTION REJECTED?

I made a correction based on fact to the bio of Sergei Bortkiewicz which was rejected because the mediator considered it "unconstructive".The extract i corrected was From 1904 until 1914, Bortkiewicz continued to live in Berlin but spent his summers visiting his family in Ukraine. Since Ukraine did not exist until 1917, this is historically totally incorrect. Why therefore was my edit rejected ? 79.143.132.145 (talk) 04:51, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

ukraine, geographically. lettherebedarklight〔晚安 おやすみ〕ping me when replying 05:06, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. Thank you for wanting to help improve Wikipedia. Your edit was unconstructive because it inserted an editorial comment into the article Sergei Bortkiewicz. Whether your point is valid or not (and how to refer to geographical locations whose affinities and names have changed is a perennial issue), leaving a comment that says "this is an error because ..." does not help a reader. The best thing to do is either to boldly change the text to what you think it should read, or to open a discussion on the article's talk page (in this case Talk:Sergei Bortkiewicz). Please see WP:BRD for how this works. ColinFine (talk) 13:16, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

how about "in what is now Ukraine"? DS (talk) 06:09, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

That sounds much better. David10244 (talk) 06:25, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I request to remove Draft:Sari Katha Article on Mainspace

It is a Tribe Draft Article. This is main purpose of We, the Santals are one of the largest homogeneous tribal communities of India, counting more than 10 million people. Apart from India, Santals live in the neighbouring countries, in Bangladesh, Nepal and Bhutan. Despite this geographical distance, Santals share the same language, cultural tradition and values. Santals’ social and religious system is very complex and complete in itself. Each village has five representatives who are selected by the village community through consensus to run the village. They are ‘Manjhi baba’ the headman, ‘Jog Manhi’ the assistant-headman, Naike, the priest, Paranik the youth guide, and Godet, the convener. All kinds of disputes, including any family and personal problems, are discussed in the village meetings and are settled through common consent. Golmala (talk) 09:54, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

You need to submit your draft for review. Theroadislong (talk) 11:53, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

It appears you mean move your draft to mainspace, not remove your draft to mainspace. As Theroadislong advised, the proper path is to submit your draft to the reviewing process. David notMD (talk) 12:00, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Golmala What the draft is about is confusing. Is it about a Youtube channel? If yes, then all the content about the Santal people does not belong in the article. David notMD (talk) 12:07, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

@Golmala There is already an article about the Santal people in the encyclopaedia. Whatever topic you intend your draft to cover, you will need to show it is notable enough to merit a separate article. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:02, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

@Golmala Encyclopedia articles should not use the word "we". Also, curly quotes. David10244 (talk) 06:29, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

User-created artwork on Hindu theology articles

Recently some fellow by the name of Chronikhiles has been making edits to several Hindu religion pages, adding artwork of various mythic figures; see Tarakamaya War,Rukmavati,Diti and several others. These images appear to be AI generated original artwork created by the user themself. I do not believe this is allowed, but I want to make sure before I start trying to revert the affected pages. Additionally, if such a thing is not admissible, I humbly request that someone with moderation powers talk to this user so that they stop making such edits. 174.45.253.17 (talk) 09:57, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

They are AI generated, yes, and released differently, according to the policies of the AI generator websites that were used to generate them. These pictures were generated by the Deep AI website and the Neural love website, and have been released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license according to this license the and policies of the first website, and under the CC0 license - public domain - as authorised by the second website. I do not believe that I am in violation of WP:IUP, but if I am, I am willing to comply with the removal of these images. Chronikhiles (talk) 11:07, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

I believe you that the relevant images are admissible under copyright. However, your images appear to violate Wikipedia:No original research on the basis of "Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments." As most of your artwork depicts mythological figures which have no likeness in historical artwork, they do not fall under the image policy and are thus subject to removal. StatersCollegeTagers (talk) 11:32, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

As editors, we have a natural pride in our work, whether it's writing, photography, or image-making. But the needs of our readers, and the importance of producing an accurate, well-balanced article must come first. Illustrations should follow the same rules as the text: they are there to inform the reader about the subject. It is appropriate to put pictures of historical artifacts, locations, important figures, pre-existing representations of deities, etc. in articles. This isn't really a copyright issue, it's a matter of which illustration serves the reader best. I'm afraid I feel strongly that these replacements weaken the article. Elemimele (talk) 12:38, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Yup. Images like at Tara (Hindu goddess) can be used, but editor's own depictions are not WP-good. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:03, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm assuming that image is an "actual" statue and not something specifically designed for the giftshop. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:50, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Apparently there are more of these on en-WP. @Theroadislong, other interested, any thoughts on how to proceed? Chronikhiles, fwiw, I don't think there's anything wrong with you putting these on Commons, assuming they are your own work like you stated there and not someone elses. Commons have uses outside WP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:00, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Noted. If this is indeed the consensus, I will remove the images from Wikipedia articles, retaining them in Commons. I find that some of the images I had included have already been removed, so if other editors also wish to take them down yourselves, you're welcome to do so. Chronikhiles (talk) 14:46, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I think would be good if you removed them yourself. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:52, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

The AI generated images have been removed. Chronikhiles (talk) 15:41, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

And the ones like Bhoothath Alvar? The same reasoning applies. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:02, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

The pictures I've included in the Alvars articles do not fall under this same reasoning, so I must ask you to hear me out. For one, these are historical figures, not mythological. These are images clicked from a modern copy of an actual religious text, whose content revolves around the works of these poet-saints; They are not my depictions, and are published in print according to the author's rendering of these figures. The illustrations are faithful, as they inform the reader regarding the attributes these poet-saints are associated with, as well some of their religious legends. I believe they are as valid as the image of Tara that you mentioned. Chronikhiles (talk) 17:55, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

If they are not your depictions, why does [1] state "own work"? You can not upload other people's work on Commons as your own. If they are not released under a proper license, or in the public domain, they can't be there. And if they are, "own work" must be corrected. (Ping to @Marchjuly if you feel like commenting.) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:02, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there's much more that I can add here. If the images are 100% the uploader's c:COM:Own work and they want to upload them to Commons under one of the free licenses that Commons accepts per c:COM:L, then they can. Further verification of copyright ownership may be needed per c:COM:VRT#Licensing images: when do I contact VRT?, but that's about it. On the other hand, if the images aren't 100% the uploader's "own work", then they're going to need the c:COM:CONSENT of whoever created them per c:COM:VRT#If you are NOT the copyright holder. Any concerns over the copyright status of the images should take place on Commons per c:COM:D and c:COM:PCP since there's not much that can be done to resolve them here at the Teahouse. Now, let's assume that all of the images in question are uploaded to Commons and all the required consents are verified, there's still no guarantee that the images will ever be used in any Wikipedia articles. Commons is really only concerned with the copyright status of the files it hosts, whereas Wikipedia is also concerned with how images are being used. So, like text content, a WP:CONSENSUS may need to be established through article talk page discussion if one or more editors feels that the addition of the images to a Wikipedia article is not an improvement and removes them after they've been added. Any concerns about the contextual relevance of the images and their use in a Wikipedia article should take place on that article's talk page or possibly at WP:FFD since there's not much that can be done to resolve them here at the Teahouse. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:01, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Advices for a new page and a question about the Redirect page

I'm working on a new page that is in the Draft Space (Draft:Ghella). I'm searching for advices to improve the work and submit the final article.

I also ask you some info regarding the system of the Redirect page. The new article is about a company, but it has the same name of a cyclist (Mario Ghella). How can it works in this case? I think that the system consider the new page connected to Mario Ghella, but they have just the name in common.

Thank you! Ddanielff (talk) 09:27, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

If your draft is accepted for publication, the reviewer should resolve any ambiguity, either by using a disambiguation page or by hatnotes. - David Biddulph (talk) 09:32, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Phil Foden

Can I literally just change one word at the moment in the piece - the wording is wrong, I'm convinced. Should be appearances 'off the bench' not 'on the bench' surely? I did have an interest in this article because of his involvement in the FIFA World Cup. I just want to check first before I touch anything because he is quite a high profile player? PeachyBum07 (talk) 09:53, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Sorry I actually think technically it's right after all, reading through it again Phil Foden - Wikipedia PeachyBum07 (talk) 10:10, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

This article is about (x). You may be looking for (y)

What is the name of this template? Something better, what's the name of all templates like this? Oixyplanet (talk) 07:43, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

@Oixyplanet: Hello. It is generally called as hatnote. There are quite a few variations, you can find detailed information at Wikipedia:Hatnote. —usernamekiran (talk) 08:13, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Specifically, maybe Template:About. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:44, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Is there a problem with the list of links currently?

I noticed that the list of links in and out of articles on the English wikipedia currently has many links that are not actualy in the article. As an example: the article Polar bear is reported to have about 800 (!) links. Try this API link: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?action=parse&page=Polar%20bear&prop=links%7Cimages%7Cdisplaytitle&format=json&origin=*. Many of these links seem to be other mammals that are not mentioned in the article, like for example African Wild Dog. The African Wild Dog article also mentions Polar Bear under "What links here". What is going on? Known bug? Something related to categories?

I noticed the same sort of issue for all articles about clothing. Like Raincoat supposedly links to Jeans, while it doesn't.

Teunduynstee (talk) 16:22, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

@Teunduynstee This is an artefact of the use of {{Clothing}} template, for example, in the Raincoat article and the Carnivora one on the Polar bear article. That's where all the links are contained that aren't in the main article's text. There is a search you can use to find "real" links but I forget the technicalities. I'm sure someone else will reply in a bit.... Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:28, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

I remember now. Go to the "what links here" page for the article and tick "hide transclusions". Then the links that are left are the article-to-article links only. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:46, 18 November 2022 (UTC) No, that's not the correct way to do it!

I see. So it is intentional. All articles using one of those templates link to all others. I don't quite see the value of that compared to using a Category, but maybe I just don't understand the use case. But is there a way to get only the direct links from the API? Teunduynstee (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:46, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

These are the sorts of questions that PrimeHunter normally answers in a flash. Hopefully, he'll do so now. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:44, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

@Teunduynstee: You may try searching for a specific wikilink code in the article body with a regular expression:

insource:/\[\[[Pp]olar bear/

→ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=insource%3A%2F%5C%5B%5C%5B%5BPp%5Dolar+bear%2F&title=Special:Search&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1

Be aware regex search may be time-consuming, so you may need to wait for a result, or even not get it at all due to HTTP timeout.

--CiaPan (talk) 17:38, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

@Teunduynstee Ah! Yes, now I remember it properly. You can prevent the timeout by combining the regex search with a conventional one. For example in this case the articles that link to Polar bear will have the word "bear" so insource:"bear" insource:/\[\[[Pp]olar bear/ should always be fast. In fact it gives 182 hits Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:13, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Your search link (not the displayed search text) includes </code> so there are too few hits. @Teunduynstee: User:PrimeHunter/Source links.js makes the link Source links under "Tools" on Polar bear. I think you also have to make a search to find source links with the API. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:22, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter Duh. Trust me to give the wrong right answer! 1,245 hits it is, then. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:06, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

My script uses linksto: to efficiently narrow the search space from the start. Without this, the search may time out and give no or too few results. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:32, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

That is awesome, this should be enough for me to solve my issue. Thanks all! Teunduynstee (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 07:23, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Can I use "America" when referring to the United States outside of quotes?

Title. Would "the Vanderbilt family was one of America's richest families" be appropriate? Ricciardo Best (talk) 13:06, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

@Ricciardo Best Yes, the word is commonly used like that. "William Jefferson Clinton (né Blythe III; born August 19, 1946) is an American politician"/"Robert Hartley was America's first consumer advocate" etc. There are people who consider this use wrong but it's still the way it's commonly used. Context matters and there may be times when other wording works too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:48, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

My Article Draft Declined

Hi, My recent Article Draft Declined On Praveen K bangari Indian Cinematographer, Stating that "The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners"

can u help me to re edit this article< how to improve it to get approved and get in standards of Wikipedia, Thank You Bangariblue (talk) 14:58, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I have tidied it up to be more compliant with manual of style. It is also worth reading notability criteria which is currently fails. Someone might come along and give a helping hand, but as we are all volunteers here and there are millions of articles and thousands of drafts, they might not turn up very soon.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   15:10, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

@Bangariblue Please read the guidance at WP:BLP which is the policy on such biographies. Every fact must be referenced by an inline citation to a reliable source (so not including IMDB) that is WP:INDEPENDENT of Bangari and covers him in some depth. It is unlikely that anyone other than you will put in the effort to find such sources and without them the article will never be accepted. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:12, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

"Twinkle"

Good sirs:

I am seeing that some people are using a tag called "Twinkle" when they undo other people's changes. How do I get this tag? Ghost of Kiev (talk) 15:50, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Ghost of Kiev - WP:TWINKLE is a javascript gadget that you can install. See the link for details. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:53, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you good sir. You appear to be logged out. Ghost of Kiev (talk) 15:54, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

@Ghost of Kiev, yes, I am certainly logged out. Please get out of the habit of addressing folks as "sir" by default - I recognize that you're trying to be police polite, but I am not a sir. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:55, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Sorry comrade. Ghost of Kiev (talk) 15:55, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Ghost of Kiev for future reference, if you see an IP here that has a Whois relating to the Navy it is this person. They edit as an IP which is their choice. To my knowledge they don't have an account. (on Discord they are known as Tarlonniel(?) tho they may just prefer to be referred to as an IP here) ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:10, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Folks are welcome to call me that if they like (technically I suppose I am User:Tarlonniel - I created that account years ago, no email attached, never used it and forgot the password), but I'm fine with whatever other designations folks come up with. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:22, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Never knew you actually created an account. That would explain the name. I'll probably refer to you as both Tarlonniel and as just "IP" ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:24, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for this knowledge. Ghost of Kiev (talk) 17:46, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Should we spell out acronyms?

Hi, I see this in Dene Grigar's article: NEH But it reads as NEH only, and people may not understand that? What is the proper citation form for acronyms? Is there a style sheet I am missing? Thank you LoveElectronicLiterature (talk) 18:18, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

The relevant part of the Manual of Style is MOS:ACRONYMS, & specifically MOS:ACRO1STUSE. - David Biddulph (talk) 18:25, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

What we see in Dene Grigar is "NEH", coloured as a link, so that if a reader doesn't know what it means, they can click on it and find out. That seems fine to me. Maproom (talk) 18:47, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

why some wrote est in the box-office collections ,is all box-office collections in india are fakes ? especially and specifically in indian movies just like bollywood, telugu, and kannanda

 Sumancranebuddy21q00 (talk) 18:26, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm guessing this refers to List of highest-grossing films in India, and is about some of the figures being listed as estimates. But the "estimation" was added three years ago in this edit, Somancranebuddy21q00. In any case an estimated figure does not mean it is fake. ColinFine (talk) 19:28, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I just want to know that is box-office collections in india are all fake ?

Hi Sumancranebuddy21q00, welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid your question is very unclear. Who wrote that the box office numbers are fake, and where? Can you provide a link? 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:31, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Sumancranebuddy21q00, "estimated" is not a synonym for "fake". They are very different concepts. Cullen328 (talk) 19:43, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

How to delete an article

Hello friends,

I copy edited Slow Money, but when reading the article I got the feeling that the company is not all that important. I'm not sure that they should have a Wikipedia page. What is the way to get an article deleted? Ghost of Kiev (talk) 17:04, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

@Ghost of Kiev, you can find instructions to delete an article at Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion. It looks like a lot, but really all you have to do is add the deletion template to the article and then click the red link to create a deletion page. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:47, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for this knowledge. Ghost of Kiev (talk) 17:52, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Ghost of Kiev, I would recommend WP:TWINKLE. Sungodtemple (talk) 22:20, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello Sungodtemple. Thank you for responding. I installed Twinkle earlier today and it works very well! Ghost of Kiev (talk) 22:21, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

IS this identity request a spoof?

HI, I just got this email. I can easily provide identification, but this just seems off to me. Was this really sent by wikipedia? And yes, I do have an article in wikipedia, but that is because I love my field and I have been active in it for over 35 years. I do not and will not edit my own article. I am leading a group to help clarify and extend the articles in my field. Thanks for your verification on this.

Here is the email I got. As your user page claims the identity of someone who has an article, please verify your identity by sending proof to Info-en@wikipedia.org This is to prevent impersonation, so please take care of this in a timely manner. Slywriter (talk) 15:23, 18 November 2022 (UTC) LoveElectronicLiterature (talk) 20:35, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

@Slywriter: Pinging Sly since they are mentioned. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:37, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

This is a legitimate message, but Slywriter, this is only usually an issue if they attempt to edit about themselves and/or have their name as their username. 331dot (talk) 20:40, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

331dot, review the wikiproject they have created which includes in the list their article and is how I noticed. So, while they can say they will never edit their article, the wikiproject is directly related to their former profession and includes themselves in the scope. Also don't think we should be leaving user pages as a backdoor to claiming an identity of a notable person without verification, though if policy disagree there then so be it. Slywriter (talk) 21:06, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

I am still in my field. I have wanted to update wikipedia for years, as my field is sorely underrepresented in wikipedia. We have about 15 folks in our field who are busy collating references, etc. Finally, I retired from my full time, 60 hour a week paying job, and now I have time to devote to this project (as well as writing my next book). I have been working with senior wikipedians, who have been extremely helpful and kind, to develop a project page where many people can help edit articles in my field.

What proof would you require for who I am and how would I provide that to the Powers That Be without providing any private information on a public channel?

Thank you LoveElectronicLiterature (talk) 13:44, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

@LoveElectronicLiterature, such information, if required, should go to WP:VRT (via email), not over any public channel. But it's not required from you at present by any of our policies. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:03, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

THank you. I did respond via email and I did put a conflict of interest statement on my user page, noting that I am not paid or compensated in any way, but I have been in the field for over 30 years. LoveElectronicLiterature (talk) 15:05, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

LoveElectronicLiterature, sorry to have alarmed you. The message was posted to your user talk page, not an email (though I assume Wikipedia sent email notification about the posting). There may be a difference of opinion on whether verification is actually needed but I'd still take the position it is better to establish now, rather than have it questioned down the line when someone takes issue with an edit and sees a gotcha moment. Slywriter (talk) 22:04, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

You might want to use less authoritative-sounding phrasing when there could be a difference of opinion involved. I found this Talk message extremely creepy, and it wasn't even directed at me! I've received obvious phishing emails that raised fewer alarm bells. -- asilvering (talk) 04:03, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Um, is this directed at me or at Slywriter? I can use a less authoritative sounding message as well... I do want to be a respected member of wikipedia and follow all guidelines. Thank you for any advice you can give me to help our project succeed. LoveElectronicLiterature (talk) 13:46, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

@Asilvering LoveElectronicLiterature (talk) 16:07, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

@LoveElectronicLiterature: Hello. I believe Asilvering's comment was direct at Slywriter :-) —usernamekiran (talk) 21:15, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, kiran is right, I was replying to Slywriter. -- asilvering (talk) 04:19, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Help with receiving edit approval

Hello, I has a question in receiving permission to edit the Toronto Blue Jays page. There is a notice that only semi-protected accounts may edit this page, and based on the information I have found thus far I have semi-protected status. I wanted to know the correct protocol on how to go about asking for the correct permissions or if there is another preferred avenue for editing pages like that. Below is the notice from the page:

"Note: This page is semi-protected so that only autoconfirmed users can edit it. If you need help getting started with editing, please visit the Teahouse. 01:48, 10 April 2018 Courcelles talk contribs protected Toronto Blue Jays [Edit=Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access] (indefinite) (Persistent vandalism) (hist) (thank) View full log"

Thank you, Datsa54 (talk) 04:32, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

@Datsa54 Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse! Looking at your contributions, you are already an autoconfirmed user, so you should be able to edit the article directly. You can read WP:SEMI to find out more about semi-protected articles. Jolly1253 (talk) 04:37, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Changing a title

This is quite embarrasing to say, but i made a typo in a draft article typo, and cannot for the life of me work out how to change it. Could someone please let me know how? thanks HistVa (talk) 03:38, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

i just made another typo in the question on a typo, i meant

"I made a typo in the TITLE of a draft article" HistVa (talk) 03:38, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

HistVa, view your mistitled draft. Look for the option "Move". This means "Retitle". Move the item from Draft:Something to Draft:Somethingelse. If you don't see the "Move" option or are unable to move your draft, then say here what the title is and what it should be, and somebody here will move it for you. -- Hoary (talk) 04:31, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello

Looked for quite a bit but I couldnt find it. I'll link the article, the title should be "Susanna Moodie: Roughing it in the Bush"

Draft:Susanna Moodie: Roughing in in the Bush HistVa (talk) 04:46, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

 Done Messed up a bit, but I think it should be fine. Jolly1253 (talk) 04:56, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello,

 AuthoritarianismRules56 (talk) 01:02, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello @AuthoritarianismRules56, Welcome to Wikipedia! echidnaLives - talk - edits 01:26, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

AuthoritarianismRules56, an alarmingly high percentage of your edits have been reverted. Authoritarianism doesn't rule here; but even if an edit seems (or is) well-intentioned, if it seems to damage an article, it will be reverted. -- Hoary (talk) 02:37, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

@Hoary I don't think the user page of @AuthoritarianismRules56 follows the guidelines in WP:UP. Is this worth worrying about? David10244 (talk) 08:19, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

OK, David10244, now fixed. -- Hoary (talk) 08:59, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

@Hoary Thanks. David10244 (talk) 09:12, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Citations

Can i use the same citations of another language? Thehistorianisaac (talk) 09:13, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

@thehistorianisaac: you can use sources not in english as long as they are reliable. → lettherebedarklight → 晚安 → おやすみ → 10:04, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

thanks Thehistorianisaac (talk) 12:14, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Thehistorianisaac, and welcome to the Teahouse. Your question is not very clear: what do you mean by "The same sources"? As darklight says, you may use reliable non-English sources; but (as WP:NONENG says) you should use English sources if they are available. I can see no reason to use both an English and a non-English version of the same source (if that's what you mean by "the same"). ColinFine (talk) 10:21, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

thanks Thehistorianisaac (talk) 12:14, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

My Company Wikipedia Page got Deleted

I have created a my company Wikipedia page and it got deleted under Speedy Deletion with the code CSD G10. I have created a detailed content with may referebces and Wikipedia is saying that it is a promotional content. Now if we are creating a brand page, it is going to be promotional. We need to talk about details and history of brand.

My competitor has Wikipedia page and they are even mentioning lesser content than us. I don't understand how their page is live from years and mine got deleted. Will be thankful if someone can guide me on how to create a company page that does not look promotional and survive on Wikipedia. 202.14.120.58 (talk) 04:39, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

G10 means that your page was an attack page. Wikipedia is not a promotional website and you do not own the Wikipedia page on your company. If it is promotional, it will be deleted in due time. Ray 04:49, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, IP editor. This is your only edit from this IP address. Are you editing logged out from your account? If so, what is your username? What is the precise name of the article that got deleted? When you write my company Wikipedia page, that indicates that you have a fundamentally incorrect understanding of what Wikipedia is all about. We do not have "company pages". Instead, we have neutrally written encyclopedia articles about notable companies as Wikipedia defines that term. Your use of the term my is also problematic. If your company is notable and an article about it is accepted, then you and your company would have no control over the article, as long as the content complies with Wikipedia's Policies and guidelines. Cullen328 (talk) 05:46, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

The only way that type of article could get a G10 (rather than a G11 which it otherwise would have had) is if it was used to attack said competitor. Did it include any sort of content that could be interpreted as defamatory?Zorya's Leshak▲ (-10.0) 06:23, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Also, please provide that article title for the competitor, so that it can be reviewed. If it does not meet current standards for Wikipedia (older articles often do not), then it either needs to be improved or nominated for deleton. David notMD (talk) 12:25, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

User:202.14.120.58 (Courtesy Ping) Roost^T_C(please ping me when replying) 13:00, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

@Roost IP users cannot be pinged. However, I have left a talkback message at the talk page of the IP editor. Jolly1253 (talk) 13:22, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

For everyone's reference, this user is blocked; they've been advised on the -en-help IRC channel that they need to start by requesting an unblock before anything else. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:37, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Request for Update to Pebble Beach Resorts Page

Hello. Is there someone who can update the Pebble Beach Resorts page? They have added new features (noted on their website) including Fairway One accommodations, Casa Palmero renovation, Sloat (a new accommodations building) and The Hay, a redesigned golf course. I am connected to the resort and, therefore, am unable to take this on. The website is pebblebeach.com. Thank you. Mgendronaugustyn (talk) 14:35, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

The place for a request is on the article's talk page, but you'll need to include references to reliable sources independent of the subject. - David Biddulph (talk) 14:39, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Mgendronaugustyn (talk) 14:40, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia Worldwide Weblog Access

Hello, All: I have metaverse concept sites (#twelve22vr) on LinkedIn and Facebook. I am impressed by the PV (impression) counts on LinkedIn; however, I cannot access Facebook personal profile data. I heavily use links to drive traffic to Wikipedia, worldwide. Is there a way to access and analyze web logs to gather referrer information?

Thank you in advance, Courtney @CourtneySCalhoun (talk) 17:06, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

@CourtneySCalhoun There is lots of information on pageviews within Wikipedia: see WP:PVS. However, I doubt whether anyone cares about referrer information since Wikipedia is not trying to monetise anything. It relies on donations but currently is not short of money. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:13, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the information, Mr. Turnbull.

Depending upon the outcome of my experiment, additional donations are forthcoming. :-) CourtneySCalhoun (talk) 14:56, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Is it possible to add more than one color in a row of a list?

Hi! I was trying to add these two colors (#E59866 and #aed6f1) to the list related to the latest episode of this show, since on its official youtube account two performances are listed as both 4k and exclusive stages. I tried to add both, but only the first one appears, what can I do? Bloomingbyungchan (talk) 14:14, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

P.S: I don't know why my previous edit got partially hidden from the page history, along with other edits Bloomingbyungchan (talk) 15:37, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

@Bloomingbyungchan, don't worry about it - someone else posted something which had to be removed, and when that happens, all revisions in-between have to be removed as well. You did nothing wrong. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:52, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

How do I recommend a new page?

Hello, I am a NH resident who has been using wikipedia for a LONG time. I love how the convenience of a physical encyclopedia is at the tips of my fingers and I can gather information about ANY subject in a matter of seconds. With the "death" of my home state's great icon (The old Man in the Mountain) almost 2 decades ago, I was extremely surprised there is NO MENTION on a second great geological pheneomenon that represents a man's face only a few miles away. This granite formation is called "Indian Head" and is widely known throughout the area, yet NO mention on wikipedia. Here is a website that offers basic info: https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/indian-head. I would like to see a page created for this wonderful natural phenomenon, but have no idea on how to do so. Xanman2112 (talk) 05:21, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Xanman2112. If you read the Wikipedia article about Atlas Obscura, you will see that it consists of user-generated content. Accordingly, coverage in Atlas Obscura is insufficient to determine that a topic is Notable and therefore eligible for a Wikipedia article. It is not a reliable source. So, it is up to you to find higher quality sources if you want to see an article about this rock formation on Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 06:12, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you... I have removed the reference. Xanman2112 (talk) 12:20, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

@Xanman2112, interesting. An alternate approach may be to aim for a Mount Pemigewasset article. We need a few sources per WP:GNG. This one [2] looks useful. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:17, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I'd prefer to just stick to the profile instead of the mountain it sits upon. I created a draft and submitted for review. Xanman2112 (talk) 12:21, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

COURTESY: Draft:Indian Head. (So that Teahouse hosts who are curious can view it.) David notMD (talk) 12:28, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

@Xanman2112@David notMD@Cullen328 APOLOGIES! I didn't check back and created my own version, Mount Pemigewasset. Xanman2112 so sorry for stepping on your toes. However, of the 3 current sources in your draft, one is a WP:BLOG and the other 2 doesn't mention the topic of the article. When the topic is something like a mountain, books may be the place to look for WP:RS. The sources I've read so far says Mount Pemigewasset and Indian Head are different names for the same thing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:27, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

And I've created a redirect from Indian Head (New Hampshire) to the Mount Pemigewasset article. I think any further information about the "face" formation can be added to that article. Deor (talk) 16:19, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Ping @Deor, if you have any recommendation. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:19, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

See above. We apparently edited here at the same time, and I, at least, didn't encounter an edit conflict. Deor (talk) 16:21, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Me neither. Modern technology. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:28, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Different data mentioned in different links.

Hello, I made contributions to the page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India%E2%80%93Nepal_relations#Trade I found two sources that mention different numbers for the amount of electricity that has been authorised to sell. One link mentions 400MW - https://kathmandupost.com/national/2022/11/15/nepal-reduces-power-export-to-india-as-production-dips Another link mentions 364MW - https://www.thehindu.com/business/Industry/nepal-starts-exporting-364-mw-electricity-to-india/article65516780.ece

What should I do in such a conflict of data? Thank you. ANLgrad (talk) 16:59, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

If the two sources appear equally reliable, then you should give both numbers, cited to the appropriate source, and leave it to the reader to decide how they want to resolve the conflict. Note that if you round 364MW to 1 significant figure you get 400MW (I have no idea whether that is the issue here). ColinFine (talk) 18:26, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

@ColinFine thanks for always helping out. I initially thought exactly what you mentioned, that 400MW was a rounded up figure. But, since it's an authorised amount, it should be a specific number. I will try doing more research to see what is the exact amount. I am sure it has to be specified somewhere. Otherwise, I will follow your suggestion and include both the numbers with their respective sources. Thank you. ANLgrad (talk) 17:28, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Article getting declined despite direct references to prove that they have studio albums with a major label

Is there a lot of room for discussion around band wipipedia requirements still? I have a band entry that I took some time to find references for. While some references are from online magazines - but general ones like metal.com etc... - I keep getting the rejection reason: not sure if it qualifies for WP:BAND

Band has a ton of requirements but says "one of the following" should be sufficient.

This band "Seven Spires" has two studio albums on Frontiers Music and I linked to the band and both albums on that label's site.

The label currently manages a lot of artists that I would think qualify as well known enough to qualify this record label as major enough. They have Def Leppard among other acts and I showed the links to the reviewers.

Reviewers are not calling out any particular references as lacking credibility.

Some of the references are of course from the creative work of the band itself, but these are not the ones that I'm trying to use to substantiate that the article should exists, just ones that a user can use for convenience if they're interested in looking at the band's work. I don't think this is entirely an uncommon practice either as long as it's not the reference meant to substantiate the existence of the article. Dullb0yj4ck (talk) 08:52, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Seven Spires Jolly1253 (talk) 09:27, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

• @Dullb0yj4ck: Arguing over whether or not Frontiers Music is a "major label" for WP:BAND #5 is in my opinion not very productive, because even if it is, a reviewer could always argue that you need WP:GNG-compliant sources anyway (else it would be hard to write an independent, encyclopedic article).

A better try might be to provide GNG-compliant sources. Right now, the draft contains this and that album reviews that probably qualify. (This is an interview hence not independent, and that contains fairly little content about Seven Spires so it’s not in-depth.) If you can find a third source of the same or superior quality, that would probably put any concerns to rest.

Furthermore, you should make sure that the article accurately reflects the sources it is based upon. the band's albums have received strong reviews in particular for their vocal performances is a very partial reading of that review - it contains some negative content, as well. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 09:48, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback! I was indeed surprised also that the top Google results were all in Germany until I realized that I'm browsing here - I vpn to US on default most of the time. Searching for "Seven Spires Reviews" actually turns up so many results - all of them seem positive - that I don't quite understand why we don't just link that =) At any rate, I did add some references and the most recent reviewer answered that they agree that this particular band meets criterion 5 and the references overall are substantial now. Dullb0yj4ck (talk) 19:47, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

User:123FM

Hello! How are shutdown (closed) my old account User:123FM? СтасС (talk) 15:10, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi @СтасС, welcome to the Teahouse. There is no way to "shut down" an old account; you can put a note on the old user page saying that it's no longer in use, and add a link to your new account, if you wish. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:31, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I need to talk with wiki-admins or moderators. СтасС (talk) 16:50, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

How are closed my old account User:123FM?--СтасС (talk) 16:58, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

@СтасС, administrators can block accounts (there are no moderators here) - is that what you're asking to be done? 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:21, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

@199.208.172.35, yes, it is.--СтасС (talk) 17:24, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

@СтасС, I don't think an administrator will do that for you, since (even if you could prove that it is indeed your old account) that is not one of the purposes of blocks. But perhaps an admin will come along to weigh in on the subject. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:31, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

@СтасС:Actually, there are admins that will do that, see Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to consider placing self-requested blocks. But you can also have your old userpage redirect your new userpage. - wolf 18:50, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

@wolf, 199.208.172.35 (talk), done, thank you everyone!--СтасС (talk) 20:16, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Downloading all of these articles as PDF

Is it very possible to download all of these articles as PDF? Does it happen on all of these content pages?

If so or not, would you like to give me reasons why I should download all articles as PDF? -- 2601:205:C001:EA0:DD9D:F980:1B2C:6117 (talk) 20:11, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

You can download any page as a pdf file using the link located in the menubar at the left. Ruslik_Zero 20:18, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

What about all of these articles? -- 2601:205:C001:EA0:DD9D:F980:1B2C:6117 (talk) 20:19, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Which articles? The English Wikipedia includes 6,578,609 articles and it averages 563 new articles per day. It would not be practical to download them all. Shantavira|^{feed me} 20:46, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Fix error on page

Hi, on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_University_of_Idaho_killings there is an error.

The Latah County Coroner did not do the autopsies. The bodies were sent to Spokane County, where the autopsies were conducted. The Latah County Coroner reported on the findings. https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2022/nov/17/medical-examiner-completes-autopsies-of-four-slain/

Could this information be updated? Thank you. 134.39.169.218 (talk) 20:17, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

The best place to make this request is the talk page of the article. Maproom (talk) 21:57, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

WP:GA old articles

Has anybody noticed that the recent promotions section at WP:GA have been updated with decades-old GANs? Although there are many more, some I remember is White Dog (1982 film), promoted in 2009. It currently displays Stephen Lynch (politician) in recently listed good articles, which was promoted in 2011. Why is this? — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 08:06, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

@Vortex3427: both the articles you mention were recently moved. The bot which updates the recent GA list (User:LivingBot) doesn't seem to check whether an article title which newly appears in the list of GAs was previously listed under another title, so it gets confused when an article is moved. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:55, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Editing etiquette: How long to leave a discussion open before going ahead with an edit when edits have previously been controversial?

Hi, I'm relatively new and went a bit overboard with my edits to a page which has serious POV issues, however my edits were poorly thought-through, overly editorialised, and just as POV as the article itself. As such they were understandably reverted. Following feedback I've gone for a more relaxed, incremental approach. I proposed a new edit that's limited to one paragraph, more neutral and better-sourced. I was just wondering how long it is customary to leave such a proposal up on the talk page for comment before implementing it, assuming no objections obviously. The article is Firehose of falsehood and the proposed edit discussion is at Talk:Firehose of falsehood#Specific Edit Proposal for Lead Paragraph. Thanks! ShabbyHoose (talk) 22:49, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to the teahouse @ShabbyHoose! I would leave it for about a week. It might be worth leaving notes on the relevant WikiProject talk pages if it's a larger edit (which in this case looks like WikiProject Russia, WikiProject Media and WikiProject Politics), but it's up to you. Thanks, echidnaLives - talk - edits 23:36, 22 November 2022 (UTC).

Thank you @EchidnaLives! Appreciate it :) ShabbyHoose (talk) 23:40, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

probable copyrighted image use, but allowed under fair-use

Hello,

I recently created the article Me and My Dysphoria Monster without a cover image, and I just noticed that a user recently added a cover image to the page. I followed the link the Commons location of the image, and saw that it was uploaded under CC BY-SA 4.0. I'm certain the image is copyrighted!

Since the image is a low-quality, however, I think it is still fair-use, but I don't know how to update the license on commons / which to use etc. to indicate this.

I have to catch a plane soon so unfortunately I don't have time to look up what to do, hence why I'm making a post here.

Could someone please make the appropriate license adjustments? (And maybe send a friendly-ish message to the user who uploaded the image that they cannot simply upload images of other people's artwork as CC BY-SA 4.0 to Commons!)

Thanks, Neuroxic (talk) 00:26, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Neuroxic. This is a problem that cannot be fixed on Wikimedia Commons because that project does not accept copyrighted fair use images. The image can probably be uploaded here on English Wikipedia if it fully complies with the Non-free images policy. I will remove the image until it is uploaded properly. Cullen328 (talk) 01:01, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Meta Page Help

I Added a new tab called Article list to the Template:Code for Africa Climate Change Project but this does not show on the view page, I would be grateful if I get assistance. Thank you. Jwale2 (talk) 20:58, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

@Jwale2, the best place to ask questions about meta is on meta - they have a forum here. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 21:02, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Jwale2 (talk) 02:43, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

User:LordVoldemort728

I want that title of my userpage will look like this "𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️", for that I have done many efforts like I inserted this template Template:DISPLAYTITLE but I didn't worked so can anyone help me to change my title without changing address of my userpage. Thanks ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️ 04:57, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

@LordVoldemort728: Try using a colon (:) instead of a pipe (|) per the template instructions. Also the title needs to match your userpage, so you may need to do something with wikimarkup such as {{DISPLAYTITLE::User:'''LordVoldemort728'''}}. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:19, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Can I add "🧙‍♂️" in the title. If yes so how? ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️ 05:36, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

@LordVoldemort728: You might try it with the raw HTML entity codes, but I doubt it will work. The username characters in the template must match your username. An emoji is a character that doesn't exist in your username.

I suggest also, if you have a custom signature, to include a talk page link in it. That's where most people will go to communicate with you. Few will want to look at your user page unless they are curious to learn more; you shouldn't force people to go there first. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:42, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Ok ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk} ! 05:47, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Issue with sources or not. You can see it from the texts. I don't know whether it is proper to address this here but okay i will.

SCP – Containment Breach: Revision history - Wikipedia / Or just search scp containment breach and look at view history.

This is because on sources. "Another enemy faction to the Foundation that causes these breaches is a group only known as the Chaos Insurgency (a faction made up of rouge members of a taskforce known as the Red Right Hand." The original was staff/personnel, but I replaced it with members of a taskforce known as the Red Right Hand which there is evidence on scp wiki dot. This person says that I needed a source for that, but I don't recall there being one for the staff/personnel. Even if I could I do not know how. can somebody help PugAngel 11 (talk) 04:15, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

The SCP wiki wouldn't be a valid source here. It may take inspiration from the wiki, but it does not mean the lore is the same as the official SCP wiki lore. It may just be staff/personnel who defected in this game's lore. You have to collect reliable sources showing proof that they are, in fact, Red Right Hand members that defected. Ray 04:59, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

How do I do that aka showing reliable sources PugAngel 11 (talk) 05:04, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, PugAngel 11. How can anyone here comment when you do not provide a wikilink to the article in question? I guess you expect other editors to search your edit history instead of being clear with us. Cullen328 (talk) 05:40, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

I do not know how i also am quiting for the foreseeable future PugAngel 11 (talk) 05:47, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

OK, I have searched your edit history and I guess this has to do with the page about a horror video game called SCP – Containment Breach. I truly have no idea under the sun why anybody would waste their time arguing about this gameplay section. This is not Reddit or 4Chan. And this "lore" commentary by another editor is equally mystifying. This is a neutrally written, well referenced encyclopedia. It is not a place for video game fans to argue with each other. Cullen328 (talk) 05:57, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

could you stopp replieing its no point i quit for now for hopefully a long while so don't replie to me. the notifications are annoying PugAngel 11 (talk) 06:02, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

I was asking for the editor to collect sources to help his claim about the chaos insurgency and whatnot. I asked him to look for stuff that actually corresponds to what he is saying. I'm not a fan of this game; I haven't even played it. Ray 06:35, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

okay? well that dude i argued with he sucks PugAngel 11 (talk) 06:39, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

The urge of overhauling

Hi all! I have been staring at the 21st century in literature page for the last ten minutes to better drive myself up a wall. I think the page does not need to exist, or at least exist in its current format of listing Nobel Prize winners and a seemingly random selection of almost entirely Western books, particularly when a [year] in literature page exists for every single year covered in this article. By contrast, 21st century in poetry is just a gathering of said links (already gathered in a template box but okay) and does not have any mentions of specific poetic works.

I'm torn between a WP:BOLD prod nomination (sorry inclusionists) or revising it to be more like the poetry page, or neither! Any suggestions and help would be appreciated, I just know I don't want to leave it as it is! Kazamzam (talk) 23:21, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Whoa. This page hurts to look at. Is it a disambiguation, or an article, or a list? I would go with AfD, as that could get some eyes on it and it could end up being improved, but a PROD would probably be fine. Thanks, echidnaLives - talk - edits 23:42, 22 November 2022 (UTC).

It's also strongly biased. It lists about 20 works of literature, every one of them in English. Maproom (talk) 08:25, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Is my source assesment table wrong if so can someone provide me with an improved one

I made a wikipedia draft for the articles Draft:901 (PTV Bus) and Draft:903 (PTV Bus) after checking the sources on both articles I deemed both as notable as per the source assesment tables in Draft talk:901 (PTV Bus) and Draft talk:903 (PTV Bus) however both got declined just 2 days after submission.

I also do not understand how Draft:903 (PTV Bus) recieved "This submission appears to be a news report of a single event and may not be notable enough for an article in Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:NOT#NEWS and Wikipedia:ONEEVENT for more information." even through both articles were about two of melbourne's most used bus routes.

It would be great if anyone can help.

NotOrrio (talk) 02:39 21 November 2022 (UTC)

@NotOrrio I'm not sure that the News and One Event links are relevant.

But, do encyclopedias need articles about bus routes? Should every bus route in every city in the world have an article here? Who will keep all of that information updated? Should we include the fares? We could go even further, adding the average ridership, the model of the bus itself, the name of the usual bus driver, and so on.

No... I think the web site of the local tourist bureau or visitor's center, or just a web search engine, is a much better place for people to find this kind of information. I don't think any of this belongs in an encyclopedia, but that's just my opinion. Although, WP:NOT says "Wikipedia does not aim to contain all knowledge" . David10244 (talk) 08:34, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I think you missed the entire point of my question. If you arent going to answer my question do not ping me NotOrrio (talk) 09:11 22 November 2022 (UTC)

@NotOrrio I said that I didn't think the links to NOTNEWS and ONEEVENT, which came after "This submission appears to be a news report of a single event ..." were relevant, meaning I wasn't sure how they applied to your draft. That was my attempt to answer your question. Sorry if that didn't help you. I am allowed to make other comments on the draft; feel free to ignore them if you wish. David10244 (talk) 08:37, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

@NotOrrio What is significant about this entire bus route, to be precise? This fails WP:SIGCOV due to the lack of significant coverage. The references are not wholly independent of the subject and multiple sources are either passing mentions or just noting what places the route connects. Ray 04:53, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

SOS! NEED ART AND DANCE ADMIN FOR HELP!

Hello. I need Dance art Admin to watch my Page. All pages what i have created about Dance sphere and Famous dancers were nominated for deletion by one user. LoveInDance (talk) 19:55, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Some kind people above gave me this link. I hope that it helps you. Ghost of Kiev (talk) 19:58, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, LoveInDance, and welcome to the Teahouse. There is no such thing as a "Dance art Admin": Admins have no special authority, they are just people who have been trusted to use certain tools that the rest of us don't get to use.

The fact that you have had so many drafts declined or deleted suggests that you haven't understood something fundamental about how Wikipedia works. Please study WP:YFA and WP:NARTIST carefully. You might also like to ask some of the people participating in WP:WikiProject Dance if they will work with you (it appears that the project itself is inactive, but some of the members may be still active). ColinFine (talk) 20:12, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

It's you. You have been creating articles in mainspace without going through the articles for creation creation/review process. Your articles have been either Speedy deleted, nominated for deletion or draftified. Some of those drafts subsequently submitted to AfC and Declined. Please slow down. For the articles at AfD, you have about a week to improve the articles before an Administrator makes a decision. You can also add Comments at the AfDs. David notMD (talk) 20:18, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Please pay attention to the advice you have received, including mandatory disclosure requirements. Blanking your user page is not sufficient. The articles have been nominated because you are disregarding the feedback you received. Please disclose why you're in a rush to have these in mainspace and are not respecting the process in place for new editors to improve articles in advance of publishing them. Thank you Star Mississippi 20:38, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

The "one user" thing. Often, when a new account has a significant problem with article creation or editing, experienced editors will look at their other posts to see if similar problems exist. To the new editor, this may feel like malicious persecution. It's not. You have been advised to slow down. I will add, focus on getting one draft approved (or one AfD decided in your favor). That will be part of an education process which increases your likelihood of being more successful going forward. David notMD (talk) 21:22, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Khura14. In my judgment, you do not have adequate English language writing skills to contribute successfully here. I suggest that you focus on editing the Azerbaijani Wikipedia at least until your English skills are much better developed. Cullen328 (talk) 23:22, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

@Khura14 I agree about the English language fluency. All articles that I see by you do not use correct English, unfortunately. David10244 (talk) 09:08, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Can u correct them? LoveInDance (talk) 13:00, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

@Khura14 If most of your articles are being deleted or turned into drafts, as David notMD said, then it won't be a good use of my time to fix the wording. That's not the primary reason the articles are not being accepted; the subjects don't appear to be notable.

Also, it's a bit confusing when your username is not part of your signature. David10244 (talk) 08:51, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

What's Arbitration enforcement about?

I've seen on several Wikipedia articles like those about extremely notorious/infamous topics like the Arab Israeli conflict and Hitler that some of these articles are "level 4 like" extended confirmed user edit protected and are related to some "Arbitration enforcement", what does that mean? Is it usually reserved for topics that cause so much heated debate between Wikipedia editors due to their inflammatory nature? Hgh1985 (talk) 09:01, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

@Hgh1985 In short, if an article is under Arbitration enforcement, it means that editors must behave well and follow policies/guidelines closely. Admins will have less tolerance for disruption and may block etc more quickly than otherwise. More detail, including a list of these areas, at WP:AC/DS. These articles often, but not necessarily, have some kind of WP:PROTECTION as well. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:28, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

New to Wikipedia

HELP!! How can I get Monroe Veach from Trenton, MO (1896-1986) added to Wikipedia?? On Famous Veaches / On Well Known Missourians / On Western Saddle (under Premiere Saddle Makers). See: https://shoptalk-magazine.com/2019/11/18/monroe-veach-a-ten-dollar-horse-and-a-forty-dollar-saddle/ I have plenty of stories, articles and pictures. He was a Trick Roper, Cowboy, Saddle Maker, and there were 4 VEACH Saddlery places: Trenton, MO (still going at 103 years!), Tulsa, OK, Branson, MO & Colcord, OK. Lonny M. Veach, 77, Grandson Lonnyveach (talk) 22:46, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

@Lonnyveach: If you are his grandson or related to him, there is a conflict-of-interest to your creating or editing a page for Monroe Veach. You can submit an edit request or reach out to some people in WikiProject Missouri or other relevant areas but you cannot "get" an article on a topic added to Wikipedia simply by wanting it or claiming its topic is notable. That's just not how it works and those claims need to be evaluated and supported by independent third parties. Kazamzam (talk) 23:26, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

@Lonnyveach With a conflict of interest, you can TRY to create a draft for a new article -- see WP:YFA. If the draft gets accepted as an article, and if you wanted to make any additional changes, you would then be restricted to making edit requests as @Kazamzam said. Creating a new article takes a bit of learning. Good luck. David10244 (talk) 09:33, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Do we need to give source for Plot section of a movie?

Do we need to give source for plot section of a movie or not?? What if I have written the plot from a website; should I need to mention the source in this case? Ps103ankit (talk) 07:05, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

@Ps103ankit In general, no, see WP:PLOTSOURCE. But in the case you mention, you probably should, since you didn't see the film yourself. Also, don't WP:COPYPASTE. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:22, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you sir for clarifying my doubt. Ps103ankit (talk) 09:45, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Will conflict of interest make it impossible to publish an article of relative?

There is no financial interest. I would like to publish an article on my famous, deceased father in Law. A page for him would be a good fit for Wikipedia. Are there changes and steps to declare my conflict that would allow publication? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Edward_Eaton_Mason ParaDocs (talk) 19:44, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, ParaDocs, and welcome to the Teahouse. No, conflict of interest does not make it impossible to publish an article, but it does tend to make it harder to write the article, because it is often difficult to see whether one is writing sufficiently neutrally. Disclosure is not mandatory if there is no payment involved, but it is highly recommended, at least on the talk page of the draft or article. Please see WP:Conflict of interest for more details (or WP:PSCOI for a summary). ColinFine (talk) 20:05, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

@DavidTanCreti: Go to Wikipedia:Articles for creation and follow the process described there. That is the only venue we have for an editor with a conflict of interest to write an article for Wikipedia. Bear in mind the policy WP:NOTMEMORIAL; Wikipedia should not be used to memorialize someone. If your father in law has had significant coverage in multiple reliable published sources that are independent of him, then he would merit an article. See Wikipedia:Golden rule for an overview of what is expected. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:39, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

@DavidTanCreti To write an article that will be accepted, you need to, first, gather the reliable published sources that contain the information that will become the basis for your draft. You can't base an article on your own personal knowledge, because verifiability of info in an article, by other readers, is a core concept in Wikipedia. If you have those sources that you can cite, great! Carry on, using the Articles for creation link that the experienced editor Anachronist gave. In case you were not aware, all of these blue words are links that contain a lot of additional information. (I see that I repeated some of what Anachronist said. Oops.) David10244 (talk) 08:53, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

@DavidTanCreti Paradoxically, your current draft is probably too long. Despite trimming by David notMD, it contains lots of material written by Mason but not about him. It will assist the reviewers if you could list (perhaps as comments at the top of the draft) three or four sources that are all of reliable, WP:SECONDARY and WP:INDEPENDENT of him. That will show that he meets the notability criteria, which is the main hurdle to getting the draft accepted. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:25, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

@Michael D. Turnbull

I would love to place a WP:SECONDARY and WP:INDEPENDENT

source list at the top of the draft. How do I

format comments in the draft document? Thank you. ParaDocs (talk) 21:13, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

@DavidTanCreti I would recommend using the {{AfC comment}} template. See the link for how it is used. No need to give an extensive commentary, just say something like "Current references #1, 5, 10 and 20 [for example] are those which best show he meets WP:PERSON". Place this at the top of the article in source editing mode, just below the {{AfC submission}} template. At the moment, you have a Talk Page message suggesting why he is notable, which is fine and you could use the AfC comment template just to direct reviewers to that page. However, none of the awards listed have citations, so reviewers will find it difficult to verify what you are claiming he won. Try to make their review easy! Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:32, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

File licensing issues

Hi DavidTanCreti. In addition to the concerns raised above about the textual content of the draft, there are also issues related to the images you've uploaded to Commons that are being used in the draft. You seem to be misunderstanding some very important things about c:Commons:Licensing and copyright ownership in general. Pretty much all of your file uploads, except one, have issues that need addressing in order for them to be kept by Commons, and you can find out what these are by checking the notifications I posted at c:User talk:DavidTanCreti. You might want to take a look at c:Commons:Own work because "own work" has a very specific meaning when it comes to copyright law, and this meaning might not be familiar to you. Generally, it's the person who takes a photo who is considered to be the copyright holder of a photo; not the subject of a photo or anyone possessing a physical copy of a photo. So, "own work" would only apply to these photos if you actually were the person who originally took them. Photographing, scanning or otherwise digitalizing a photo originally taken by someone else doesn't make the original photo your "own work" and doesn't void any claim of copyright authorship held by the original photographer. In fact, in most cases, such a thing isn't even considered sufficient to generate a new copyright for your recreation. Even in cases where you're actually photographing someone else's publicly displayed creative work (e.g. a sculpture, a store signboard, a window display), you may need consider the copyright status of the original work. Bascially, you can't release someone else's work or a photograph of someone else's work under a Creative Commons license without their c:COM:CONSENT or providing evidence of a copyright transfer agreement. Image copyright can be tricky to figure out sometimes; so, if you have a specific questions about a particular file you uploaded, feel free to ask them on your Commons user talk page. Just post your question comment below the notification I added for the relevant image and I will try and answer it. Since whether the draft you're working on is ultimately accepted by English Wikipedia is not related in any way to the images being used in it, it's much better to specific details related to the your file uploads over at Commons and keep the discussion separate from what's being discussed above. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:21, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Translation for page "Porto Montenegro"

I would like to ask for your help in publishing the translation for the "Porto Montenegro" page in English. The page already exists in Serbian, I translated it in English, but I can't publish it because I don't have enough experience on Wikipedia. I can only save it as a personal draft version. Vujacic99 (talk) 09:04, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

You'll find advice at WP:Translation. You would need to provide appropriate references to independent sources, & remove external links from the body text. - David Biddulph (talk) 10:17, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Vujacic99, and welcome to the Teahouse. I have added a header to your translated draft so that when it is ready for review you can easily submit it for review.

The fact that it exists in another Wikipedia is not sufficient to get the translation included in English Wikipedia: it must meet English Wikipedia's requirements for referencing and notability. At present it has no independent sources at all, and so does not establish that the marina is notable according to English Wikipedia's requirements, and so it has zero changes of being accepted in its present state. ColinFine (talk) 11:32, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

One other point: I see that you created your account on sr-wiki two weeks ago, and every single one of your edits both on sr-wiki and en-wiki has been on the subject of Porto Montenegro. This pattern of editing usually means that the editor has a close connection with the subject. What is your connection with Porto Montenegro? You need to read about editing with a conflict of interest, and if you are in any way employed or paid by or on behalf of Porto Montenegro, then you must read and comply with paid editing. ColinFine (talk) 11:42, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Contest for deletion

Who may I send my article to to proofread so it doesn't go up for deletion? Feyisara99 (talk) 10:07, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Rasheed Sarumi - It is currently up for speedy deletion under G11. Jolly1253 (talk) 10:13, 22 November 2022 (UTC) (Original article was deleted, draft was created later on) Jolly1253 (talk) 10:37, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

For clarification, the draft Draft:Rasheed Sarumi had been created before the article Rasheed Sarumi, but the latter has been deleted and the draft remains. To add further to the confusion, there is also a user sandbox draft at User:Feyisara99/sandbox/Rasheed. - David Biddulph (talk) 11:15, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

It does not need proofreading, and lack of proofreading is not a criterion for deletion. What it urgently needs is reliable sourcing with inline citations and removal of all the WP:PEACOCKing. Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:31, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

@Feyisara99 The article has now been deleted. If you are going to work on fixing the errors brought up previously, you can check out WP:REFUND or recreate it. Articles require full sources that are reliable, independent and in depth. The article must also be written from the neutral point of view. This is core to Wikipedia articles as we don't want to be a platform for promotion. If these conditions are met, you may resubmit the article. Thanks, echidnaLives - talk - edits 10:39, 22 November 2022 (UTC).

 Courtesy link: Draft:Rasheed Sarumi exists, with no references. The awards are minor, and thus do not contribute to notability even if those were referenced. David notMD (talk) 13:21, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Trying to resubmit a draft

I now have references. Rifken (talk) 17:26, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

you have moved your draft to The Still Life (2007 film). This is permitted, but unwise unless you are very sure that the draft is good enough for main space. Yours is not, so I expect that somebody will shortly bounce it back to draft space. ColinFine (talk) 17:56, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I say it is not good enough for main space because the referencing is a mess. Please read WP:REFB and WP:RS. Some of the later refernces might be valuable if they were formatted properly, but the first four are red flags saying to a reviewer "This was written by somebody who does not understand Wikipedia referencing". ColinFine (talk) 18:03, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Currently at Draft:The Still Life (2007 film) and submitted to AfC. Past Declines restored. David notMD (talk) 13:23, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Is my account eligible for new article?

Is my account eligible for creating a new article? Santhini Sekar (talk) 06:21, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Santhini Sekar! Your account must be autoconfirmed in order to create articles, so you have to make ten edits total first. The reason for this is that creating new articles is very difficult on Wikipedia; there are a lot of policies you have to follow (including notability, verifiability, and neutral point of view), and it takes time to get familiar with them all. It's suggested that newcomers spend time improving existing articles first; there are over six million articles already on Wikipedia, and many of them could use plenty of work. Happy editing! Perfect4th (talk) 06:28, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

I have seen your sandbox draft, and you need to read Wikipedia's advice against autobiography. - David Biddulph (talk) 08:14, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Ten edits and four days allows editors to create articles in main space. However, new editors are STRONGLY advised to use the WP:YFA process to create and submit drafts to the review process. Any submission that by-passes Articles for creation (AfC) will be seen by New Pages Patrol, where it can be accepted, flipped to draft, or deleted. Your attempt at an article about yourself has no potential to succeed because it has no references that confirm your notability in the Wikipedia sense of the word. David notMD (talk) 13:43, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Dealing with disruptive editor?

I have found an editor on Wikipedia who persistently makes bad edits. This includes the unnecessary removal of wiki links across multiple pages, idiosyncratic edits with no edit summary (this user also stated on their talk page that they will refuse to use edit summaries going forward), and stylistic edits that are either redundant or inaccurate (e.g. adding 'CEO' to Bill Gates' opening sentence). Most of the edits are style changes and seem to be in good faith, but the guy's edits are often questionable and subsequently reverted. He's been warned about his edits on his talk page a number of times (I haven't interacted personally), and I'm just wondering what can be done to prevent further bad edits in the future. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 12:20, 23 November 2022 (UTC) Dawkin Verbier (talk) 12:20, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Your edit history shows you undo a lot of editor contributions. Which one is this about? David notMD (talk) 13:48, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Why write out translations in-line, when we can use explanatory footnotes?

Hello, and thank you for your time! I've noticed that in most cases, retroactive translations of foreign words or names are given an in-line list, even in cases exceeding three languages. From the Ruthenia article:

Ruthenia (/ruːˈθiːniə/; Latin: Ruthenia or Rutenia, Ukrainian: Рутенія, romanized: Rutenia or Русь, Rus, Polish: Ruś, Belarusian: Рутэнія, Русь, Russian: Рутения, Русь,) is an exonym, originally used in Medieval Latin as one of several terms for Kievan Rus', the Kingdom of Galicia-Volhynia and, after their collapse, for East Slavic and Eastern Orthodox regions of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the Kingdom of Poland, corresponding to what is now Ukraine and Belarus.

Other articles, particularly significant ones, contain such a list in an explanatory footnote after the term. From the Abraham article:

Abraham[efn, three languages] (originally Abram)[efn, one language] is the common Hebrew patriarch of the Abrahamic religions, including Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

I feel that the latter is a much better way conveying this information, particularly with longer lists, mainly because it looks a lot neater and easier to read. I also find it kind of distracts from the content to have a word explained in a multitude of languages, often in scripts many readers can't even read without transliterations, making the in-line list even longer. Are there any rules governing when to use an EFN and when to write them in-line, and would I be wrong to change some of the longer lists I find to EFN's? Kaasterly (talk) 10:46, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

@Kaasterly I expected to find some guidance at MOS:FOREIGN but didn't see anything about EFN, except "Foreign terms should be used sparingly". I agree with you that in the Ruthenia example an EFN would be better. Where the cut-off of "too long" should be, I don't know. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:51, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Aah, thank you for your response! It seems not much is written about it in the Help docs, but this provides some clarity. I'll continue using EFN where reasonable. Kaasterly (talk) 14:10, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Infobox for a digital library

Hello! I'm trying to edit the Perseus Digital Library page (known as Perseus Project here).

I'm wanting to add an infobox among other things, and I just wanted to check that I should use the Template:Infobox_website and not the Template:Infobox_library which seems to be for buildings. Library seems more precise, but since it is digital, it is not a physical building.

Any advice on infoboxes?

Thanks in advance!

Tsiluciole (talk) 11:31, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

@Tsiluciole Welcome to the Teahouse. I suggest you look in Category:Digital_library_projects and see whether any other similar articles have a relevant infobox. I took a quick look at a few and found none that used one: infoboxes are certainly not obligatory even in otherwise highly-rated articles. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:38, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, I didn't know there was such a category. I'd still like to have an infobox if possible, but I'll check what I can find! Tsiluciole (talk) 15:12, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Deleting Sourced Material

There was an anti-semitic incident at Cranbrook School, Sydney. It made the news and I added it to the page. Wik-ed100 has removed my sourced edits a number of times - without any explanation. I added something to the talk page - nothing. I don't want to get into an editing war, but how do I deal with an editor who is basically initiating one. He doesn't discuss why he's removing the sourced material. Sure he doesn't have to like the content on the page, but there are processes involved. There's no justification for just deleting it - over and over and over again. MaskedSinger (talk) 19:28, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

You have already asked this on the Help Desk, and had a response there. Please don't ask the same question in more than one place, it can waste hosts' time. Maproom (talk) 21:53, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Actually I posted here first ;) I only posted there as well as no one got back to me. MaskedSinger (talk) 15:16, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Unable to publish, as the menu doesn't offer MORE and MOVE

I have created a new article in sandbox mode, and now cannot move it into the public Wikipedia area, because there is no menu button right of the little star. Can anybody help? Thank you. Doctorshresta (talk) 15:24, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Doctorshresta, welcome to the Teahouse. You cannot move the article as your account is not yet WP:AUTOCONFIRMED. In any case, the article is not ready for mainspace at all - it is a WP:BLP with only a single reference, and that reference is to Wikipedia itself (the German version). This is entirely insufficient on English Wikipedia.

 Courtesy link: User:Doctorshresta/ElinaSchnizler - 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:39, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick answer. I can add all necesssary citations, but the MOVE button will still not appear. Or will it? Doctorshresta (talk) 15:53, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

@Doctorshresta, the link I gave you explains that your account needs to be at least 4 days old and have made at least 10 edits. Once you have made a total of ten edits, the move button will appear. If you try to move the article before adding the necessary citations, I think you will quickly find it back in your user space - WP:BLP issues are taken very seriously. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:57, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Doctorshresta Writing a new article is the most difficult task to attempt on Wikipedia. We usually recommend that new users first gain experience and knowledge by editing existing articles, and using the new user tutorial. If new users still want to start off by creating a new article, it is highly recommended that you submit a draft for review at Articles for creation instead of attempting to move it to the encyclopedia yourself. If you move it yourself, you may be setting yourself up for disappointment, which no one wants to see. 331dot (talk) 16:10, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Okay. Got it. Thank you. Doctorshresta (talk) 16:19, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Abortion statistics in the United States

I am not disputing the statistics in the article on "Abortion statistics in the United States".

I am only saying that the tables in it need some clarification. I don't know how to do it myself, so I leave it up to the experts.

Specifically, the tables need an explanation for what constitutes "abortion rate" and "abortion ratio" for each of the two data sources:

-- the Guttmacher Institute and the CDCC.

Currently, the tables look something like this (for the year 2016):

Extended content

Guttmacher Institute data year_____number of abortions _____ abortion rate ____________ abortion ratio 2016 _____ 874,100 _______________ 13.7 __________________ 18.3 CDC data year_____number of abortions _____ abortion rate ____________ abortion ratio 2016 ________ 623,471 _____________ 11.6 __________________ 186 Notice that the "abortion rate" numbers are fairly close: ----- 13.7 vs. 11.6. But the "abortion ratio" numbers are wildly different: --------- 18.3 vs. 186. My suggestion is that someone add the following explanation to the tables: Guttmacher Institute data year_____number of abortions _____ abortion rate ____________ abortion ratio (abortions per (abortions per 100 pregnancies 1,000 women ending in an abortion or live birth, ages 15 to 44) excluding miscarriages) 2016 _____ 874,100 _______________ 13.7 __________________ 18.3 CDC data year_____number of abortions _____ abortion rate ____________ abortion ratio (abortions per (abortions per 1000 live births) 1,000 women ages 15 to 44) 2016 ________ 623,471 _____________ 11.6 __________________ 186

Thank you very much,

Steve Maricic 192.231.202.250 (talk) 15:29, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Have you considered discussing this at Talk:Abortion statistics in the United States or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Abortion? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:20, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

How does one export the entire Revision History table for a specific page?

How does one export the entire Revision History table for a specific page? I have found how to export an article itself, both the text and the XML, but I would like to export the Revision History page related to the article. 1n44n6 (talk) 16:25, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

@1n44n6 The instructions are at H:PH. I've never tried to do this myself, so I don't know how it copes with long-standing articles with huge histories. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:32, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

New subject: Creating article about 2,3-Dichloroaniline

ComplexRational, how I create the article about 2,3-Dichloroaniline? This chemical substance exists!

85.109.136.232 (talk) 12:28, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Merely existing does not mean it qualifies for an article. You need to first establish whether it meets the general notability guidelines. Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:04, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

read up on help:your first article. → lettherebedarklight → 晚安 → おやすみ → 15:12, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

IP user. Note that the compound is mentioned at Dichloroaniline. Some of the other isomers have articles but are somewhat short of details compared to what we would currently expect. However, their chemboxes will give you some hints on how to proceed. Use the WP:AFC process if you have not previously created an article for Wikipedia, so experienced editors can make sure you have satisfied the requirements. Given the extensive literature in Pubchem and elsewhere, there should be no problem meeting the notability guidelines. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:47, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Video Sourcing and Czech language

I am trying to cite a video that was made for national TV about a non-profit I am creating a page for. The video was aired on Czech National Television almost as a type of documentary about a landmark and ongoing project in Prague- which is being done by CCEA- but it is in Czech. Could someone who speaks Czech help me review the source and see if I can use it as a source about the project and the non-profit?

Může prosím někdo prověřit tento zdroj z České národní televize, zda je pro mě důvěryhodný a mohu ho použít jako zdroj o studiu CCEA MOBA?

Also, how does it work when I cite something in another language? Can I get a Czech editor on my page to help me? How do I request that? GlobalAaloo (talk) 09:57, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

For citing in another language, add |language= and |trans-title= (optional) for the translated title. ██ Dentsinhere43 is a new Wikipedian. 10:19, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

@GlobalAaloo Editors who are willing to do Czech -> English translations can be found in Category:Translators cs-en. You could take a look at some of these to see who is currently active and then ask them politely via their Talk Page. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:57, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

I need to build consensus about multiple page move with >100 pages renamed, where do I do that?

The way current cricket tour pages are named are something like
[ visiting country ] cricket team in [ host country ] [ year ]
which is not the way cricket community, or rather any entity refers to cricket tours. The correct way is
[ visiting country ] tour of [ host country ] [ year ]
With 10s of pages named in this undesirable way every year, possibly >100 pages would need to be renamed. What is the correct place to build consensus about this. An RfC? Somewhere else? >>> Extorc.talk 14:08, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Examples of pages effected can be seen at Catagory of International cricket tours

• Afghan cricket team in Ireland in 2022
• Australian cricket team in Sri Lanka in 2022
• Bangladeshi cricket team in Zimbabwe in 2022

List continues >>> Extorc.talk 14:09, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Within the cricket community the wording you suggest might be reasonable, but in the wider world we need to be unambiguous, hence the inclusion of the words "cricket team". Your proposal would therefore be unlikely to be successful. - David Biddulph (talk) 14:11, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

@David Biddulph But here, should COMMONNAME be taken into account how literally sites like cricbuzz, espn cricinfo and even the official ICC website use the exact same naming convention. Shouldnt cricket be the primary topic with this naming convention? >>> Extorc.talk 14:19, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

@David Biddulph, Anyway, I'd like to try. >>> Extorc.talk 14:20, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Extorc, you seem sure about "the way cricket community, or rather any entity refers to cricket tours". Wikipedia is an entity, so we already have one exception. As for the "cricket community", if some cricket organization or magazine writes or speaks of "Belize tour of Sri Lanka 2017", nobody will think that it might be talking about a hockey team or symphony orchestra of Belize; and therefore its specifying "cricket" would hardly be more helpful than its specifying "AD" for "2017". But Wikipedia is outside the "cricket community". Nobody here can stop you from trying to effect a change towards ambiguity and confusion, but perhaps nobody here will help you either. After all, your attempt would obviously be doomed. -- Hoary (talk) 23:10, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Hoary. If I saw an article titled "Afghan tour of Ireland 2022", my first thought would be that it was about a musical group named "Afghan". If I had 100 guesses, there's no way I would guess that it was about cricket. I would advise you don't waste other editor's time with this proposal which will certainly fail, and would degrade the usefulness of the encyclopedia if it somehow did manage to succeed. CodeTalker (talk) 02:34, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

@Extorc I was going to say what Hoary said -- a title like "Australian tour of Sri Lanka 2022", as an article title, is extremely confusing. Also I don't understand your question "Shouldnt cricket be the primary topic with this naming convention". Are you suggesting that all readers should know, or learn, that article titles in this form are about cricket? If that's what you meant, that is not realistic, but surely you were asking something else.

If we somehow knew that we are in the cricket world, then your proposed titles might be ok. But the title doesn't let us know that we are "in cricket". I don't think the existing titles are "undesirable"; I think they are fine. I have to disagree with this proposal. David10244 (talk) 09:18, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

A workable alternative wording could be Bangladeshi cricket tour of Zimbabwe in 2022 in place of Bangladeshi cricket team in Zimbabwe in 2022. Looking at just this example, the lead sentence starts "The Bangladesh cricket team toured Zimbabwe in July and August 2022 to play …", so it's explained to the uninitiated that a tour is something undertaken by a team. On the other hand, the short description is "International cricket tour" : search results that show title+SD will already be clear that the article is about a tour. To me, tour (singular) seems to imply all games were played in a single visit. ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 18:42, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Typing "Bangladeshi tour of Zimbabwe 2022" in the search box doesn't produce any suggestions, only "search for pages containing…". The full results do list Bangladeshi cricket team in Zimbabwe in 2022 as the top hit. I also see that for the previous year we have a redirect Bangladesh tour of Zimbabwe 2021, though that doesn't help if my search phrase has different word order "Bangladesh Zimbabwe tour". ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 18:58, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

• @Extorc: Answering the original question, an RfC on WT:CRICKET would probably be the way to search for that consensus. In light of the current opposition (with which I agree), youm might want to reconsider, and/or open a non-RfC thread first to see if you have any support before committing to the full bureaucratic stuff. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 17:30, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Extorc! You could ask the folk at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket. ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 18:08, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Building up a section

Hello, I am building up the publications section on this page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henley_%26_Partners

For better understanding, I am trying to highlight the reports and index like it has been done here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanwatch

Right now, the Publication section on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henley_%26_Partners has a brief description of only one report - Investment Migration Programs Health Risk Assessment Report. There are other reports, but only the names are mentioned. I feel adding one line brief outline of the other reports will help the readers. Also, subsections will organize it.

Could you please tell me if this will be a good way to improve the publication section?

=== Africa Wealth Report ===
The Africa Wealth Report is an annual report which lists private wealth in the African continent. The 2022 report was released by the company in collaboration with New World Wealth.<ref name="africa report detail">{{cite news |last1=Rahhali |first1=Lamine |title=Morocco 1 of 5 Countries with More than 50% of Africa’s Private Wealth |url=https://www.moroccoworldnews.com/2022/04/348605/morocco-1-of-5-countries-with-more-than-50-of-africas-private-wealth |access-date=15 September 2022 |work=[[Morocco World News]] |language=en |quote=The Africa Wealth Report is a yearly report that lists private wealth in the continent.}}</ref><ref name="africa wealth report">{{cite news |last1=Benson |first1=Emmanuel Abara |title=10 African countries with the highest number of dollar millionaires, according to latest ranking |url=https://africa.businessinsider.com/local/markets/10-african-countries-with-the-highest-number-of-dollar-millionaires-according-to/ntd6by1 |access-date=7 September 2022 |work=[[Business Insider]] Africa |date=27 April 2022 |language=en}}</ref>

=== Henley Passport Index ===
{{main|Henley Passport Index}}
The Henley Passport Index is an annual ranking of countries for the 199 passports in the world based on how many travel destinations are accessible to the passport holders without a prior visa.<ref name="index 199">{{cite news |last1=Report |first1=Dawn |title=Pakistani passport remains ‘fourth-worst in world’ |url=https://www.dawn.com/news/1700802 |work=[[Dawn (newspaper)|Dawn]] |date=21 July 2022 |language=en |quote=The Henley Passport Index is a ranking of all the world’s 199 passports according to the number of destinations their holders can access without a prior visa}}</ref><ref name="about index">{{cite news |last1=McDonagh |first1=Shannon |title=These are the world's most powerful passports in 2022 |url=https://www.euronews.com/travel/2022/01/31/this-country-will-have-the-most-valuable-passport-in-our-post-pandemic-world |access-date=15 September 2022 |work=[[Euronews]] |date=31 January 2022 |language=en}}</ref>

=== Investment Migration Climate Resilience Index ===
The Investment Migration Climate Resilience Index by the company assesses a country's climate resilience and ranks climate resilient locations for migration. It is in collaboration with Deep Knowledge Analytics and the 2022 report evaluated 180 countries based on five parameters of 900 data points.<ref name="parameters migration climate">{{cite news |last1=Chadha |first1=Sunainaa |title=Best investment migration options to improve climate resilience |url=https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/best-investment-migration-options-to-improve-climate-resilience-india-ranks-35-us-ranks-1-followed-by-germany-and-uk/articleshow/91631246.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_camp |access-date=29 September 2022 |work=[[The Times of India]] |language=en |quote=The study comprises over 900 different data points within 5 parameters}}</ref>

{{reflist-talk}}

ANLgrad (talk) 17:49, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

@ANLgrad That article has 33 page wathcers currently, which is not a huge number but enough that the proposal would be better made on its Talk Page, or you could just be WP:BOLD and make the change. If you find that others object, discuss it with them on Talk:Henley & Partners. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:13, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

@Michael D. Turnbull Thank you for helping out. Last time I had posted on the talk page, I didn't get much response from the page watchers as I don't think they are very active. So, I thought I would get to reach out to a wider set of people here on Teahouse, who can tell me if this is a good improvement. ANLgrad (talk) 18:34, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

@ANLgrad: If you do post something like the above once again on the article's talk page or on some other talk, I don't suggest you format it like you would in the article itself because that formatting could create formatting problems or other issues on the page where you post it. Sometimes using the syntax WP:PRE or WP:NOWIKI is sufficient to allow others to assess the proposed content without the formatting of the content being enabled. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:47, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I haven't checked the sources, but on the face of it your addition seems reasonable, ANLgrad. If each report is described in one or two sentences, you might consider whether a bullet list or just plain paragraphs would look better than subheadings. A plus for subheads is you get hyperlink targets without resorting to {{anchor}}. E.g. Henley & Partners#Africa Wealth Report. Once this thread is archived, you could drop a note on the article talk page linking back to this discussion so that others can find it. ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 19:11, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Quick question

Is there a tool that helps when I want to translate an article from another language? I want to translate https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%94%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B4%D0%B6%D0%B8,_%D0%90%D0%B1%D0%B4%D1%83%D0%BB%D0%BB%D0%B0_%D0%98%D0%B1%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87 to English but I don't know how to make the fact box show up right on this Wikipedia. Ghost of Kiev (talk) 22:26, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

@Ghost of Kiev: I don't think that you have enough edits (500) to be able to use the content translation tool, and in any event I don't think that it helps with infoboxes. You'll probably just need to use {{Infobox writer}} and fill in the fields by hand. You'll definitely want to read Help:Translation, though. Deor (talk) 22:44, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for this knowledge. Ghost of Kiev (talk) 22:46, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

@Ghost of Kiev: (edit conflict) I suggest you run it through Google Translate, and use {{Infobox writer}} as Deor said. Fill in the fields that are recognizable in the Google-translated version. You would have to re-do the wikilinking with this method, however. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:48, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Ghost of Kiev. First note that you can use a Wikilink to the article ru:Дерменджи, Абдулла Ибраимович (make sure you put a colon (:) before the "ru:", or the software will think that you are saying that that article corresponds to this page that we are on!)

I won't duplicate the Information Deor has given you; but note that each Wikipedia has its own policies on things like notability. My Russian isn't very good, but it doesn't look to me as if the three sources in the ru article are sufficient to establish notability for en-wiki. My advice is to treat this as a new English draft, maybe translating some text from the Russian, but certainly finding and using better sources. ColinFine (talk) 22:50, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for this knowledge. This person has an entry in the Encyclopedia of Modern Ukraine (https://esu.com.ua/search_articles.php?id=26271). Is that enough to get an article on Wikipedia? Ghost of Kiev (talk) 22:55, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

No, that is not enough. It may indicate that there are suitable sources that will meet English Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and perhaps even point to them; but as an encytclopaedia, it is a tertiary source; Wikipedia requires secondary sources. ColinFine (talk) 23:03, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

There is a moderator @Doug Weller who says I cannot translate this article because I do not have 500 edits, because of Wikipedia:GS/RUSUKR. Абдулла́ Ибраи́мович Дерменджи́ is a Crimean Tatar, but the man died in 1976, so I do not think he is related to the war. How do I appeal Mr. Weller's decision? I think he is wrong. Ghost of Kiev (talk) 14:37, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

I might be wrong. But you were told that this edit [3] was a violation bu User: ToBeFree. Perhaps he will comment. Doug Weller talk 14:53, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

I do not think that the unsourced statement that the 1900s stopped using "the" in "the Crimea" is part of the war, but even if it is I undid my edit on my ownhttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crimea&diff=next&oldid=1123113121 before @ToBeFree wrote on my talk page about it. Ghost of Kiev (talk) 14:59, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. That's correct: Special:Diff/1123113121 is a violation of the restrictions. It removes a link to a Washington Post article titled "To understand Crimea, take a look back at its complicated history". This is clearly related to the Russo-Ukrainian war. And because it was self-reverted and Ghost of Kiev seemed to be genuinely unaware of the "broadly construed" nature of topic bans, I simply informed them about the issue.

The translation tool is unavailable for unrelated reasons; the low quality of newcomers' translations led to the restriction of the translation tool.

I'm not too happy about having this discussion here, though. With every argument and complaint, with each "I think he is wrong" and attempts to circumvent the restriction as far as possible, an impression is strengthened of Ghost of Kiev being a single-topic editor who is unhappy about having been prohibited from editing about their only topic of interest. Ghost of Kiev, if you have registered only to edit about these topics (as your name seems to imply) and can't find unrelated topics interesting enough to edit about, then that's unfortunate but something you'll need to accept. Edit some of the over five million completely unrelated Wikipedia articles or don't. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:12, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

IN SATNA DISTRICT IT WILL BE BETTER TO DEVOLOP SAGMA FOR EASY PASSANGER TRAFFIC

CURRENTLY KHAJURAHO-PANNA-REWA - RAIL ROUTE IS BEING PREOARED. IT CROSSES SATNA ALLAHABAD ROUTE NEAR SUB STATION SAGMA . IF SAGMA IS DEVELOPED AS SATLITE STAION THEN PEAPLE COMING FROM EVERY FOUR DIRECTIONS WILL GET EASY APPROCH TO ANY DIRECTION FROM HERE WITHUOT RUNNING TO DIFFERENT LOCATION AT SATNA TO GET CONNECTING TRAINS TO OTHER PLACES . IF KAIMA IS DEVELOPED THAN PERSON WILL HAVE TO RUN 7 KM. TO CATCH TRAIN OF OERS ROUTE FROM SATNA AND VICE - VERSA . KINDLY TAKE NOTE OF THIS WHILE PLANNING . IT IS REQUESTED. 103.160.49.119 (talk) 08:43, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Please stop WP:SHOUTING.- David Biddulph (talk) 08:45, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

You are asking Wikipedia editors to take note of this while planning what? David10244 (talk) 09:41, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

• This is Wikipedia, and wikipedia does not control rail ministry of India. But if you'd like, we can order the Enterprise to establish an interstellar base at the location of your choice. —usernamekiran (talk) 22:27, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

  Assuming that I don't send the T'au and Havenites there first to fight over it. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 22:30, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

A couple of questions about categories

• Is there a way to view a history of pages added and removed from a category?
• Is there a way to recursively view all items in a category and all of its subcategories — that is, view all items contained in a given tree of categories?

Thanks. --Frogging101 (talk) 19:33, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Frogging101. Two interesting questions there!

I'm willing to be proved wrong, but on your first point I believe the answer is 'No'. Categories are not edited in the same way as pages are, so there's no history to see what was added to that category, and what was subsequently removed. You could check the View History' tab of one page that interests you to see what categories it has had throughout its life, but not vice versa.

However, your second question can be answered more positively. You can read more about how to display a Category Tree here. I believe I have in the past encountered various user tools created to display further Category information, including a full list of pages within a tree. I can't find it at the moment, but you might wish to try searching through the 98 Category tools listed at Toolhub, one of which might meet your needs. I helps this helps a bit. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:31, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Most edits in one day

Hi there! I was wondering if there was any way to find out the largest number of edits I've made in a single day? Thanks! 🥒 EpicPickle ^{(he/him | talk)} 21:04, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

EpicPupper I assume you are asking if there is something more efficient than consulting your contribution history and counting- that sounds like something that might exist, but I'm not familiar with it. 331dot (talk) 21:08, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

@EpicPupper I poked around WikiProject Edit Counters for a bit and found WikiChecker. I’ve already inputted your username in the link. Just enter the number of recent edits that you’d like to analyse. Enjoy! ◇HelenDegenerate◆ 21:41, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @HelenDegenerate and @331dot! Apparently I made 286 edits on February 2nd :) 🥒 EpicPickle ^{(he/him | talk)} 22:41, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Removal of COVID-19 pandemic from ITN

Hello! I noticed that COVID-19 pandemic is no longer listed as ongoing on ITN. Was there a specific discussion about this somewhere? I tried to look in the archives but got no luck. Cheers! 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 00:42, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi @EpicPupper, welcome back :D the discussion was here Justiyaya 01:31, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

editing pages

editing 105.242.104.17 (talk) 09:51, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. What is your question? - David Biddulph (talk) 09:52, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Share your views on my draft

Hello everyone,

I've submitted my first page for review about 18 days ago. However, I'm not sure if the references which I've provided are good enough. The page which I've created is for actor/model.

• Draft:Aberaam Varma

I've provided citations from new articles which are from the top e-papers within our state. Can anyone go through the page and share their thoughts? Crishna nandyala (talk) 07:22, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Looks good, but all of your claims in the article needs to be cited. I see some statements without sources. Roost^T_C(please ping me when replying) 11:39, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Adding arbitrary subsection breaks in long talk page threads

Is there any WP policy or guidance on this topic? For example, I recall seeing subsection breaks added to long talk page threads, in the format e.g. "===Arbitrary break===" in order to make it easier to edit the page. Thank you, Sandbh (talk) 07:12, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

@Sandbh The guidance is at WP:Talk_page_guidelines#Technical_and_format_standards. However, for some of the threads you are involved with WP:TLDR applies and it would be better if everyone concerned was much more concise! Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:54, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Link is wrong

Hi, I was browsing through the wiki page titled: "List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Tyne and Wear" and I noticed under the "Herrington Hill" SSSI link sent to a wiki page of a Herrington Hill in Antarctica (which is wrong). I'm not proficient with editing Wikipedia so just wanted to let someone more clever know about it and fix it! Thanks! 5.65.129.10 (talk) 15:49, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't have an article about the relevant Herrington Hill, and as far as I can tell, doesn't even mention it anywhere else. So I have removed the wikilink. Maproom (talk) 16:18, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Dealt with. It's now a redlink. Thanks for letting us know. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:18, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Typo

Hello, How do I report mispellings of names in entries. Knud Lonberg-Holm has his name spelled correctly and also as "Londberg-Holm (which is incorrect) in the same entry. I would have contacted the person who made the entry but don't know how to do that. Thanks, Fred 2603:7000:DC3C:D48A:34C3:A4F7:A3FF:28F1 (talk) 18:14, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello Fred, and welcome to the Teahouse! It seems to have been fixed now, but for almost all articles, you could have done it yourself! Click "Edit" or "Edit source" near the top of the article you want to improve and be WP:BOLD! More on this at WP:TUTORIAL. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:26, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

... just a comment, if you do make name-corrections yourself, it's a good idea to use the "Edit Summary" box to explain why you're doing it. Edits from IP addresses that change names very often get reverted by well-meaning people watching recent changes as they leap to the conclusion that the IP editor doesn't know what they're doing, or has failed to notice that someone has alternate spellings and Wikipedia's presumably selected the most commonly used in source. Sadly, the recent change patrollers are often right. If you find that when you change names you get reverted a lot, you might consider registering yourself for an account. It improves your privacy by hiding your IP address, makes it easier for people to communicate with you via a talk-page, and other editors automatically assume you know what you're doing, rather than assuming you don't. Elemimele (talk) 17:15, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

What do I do if I find that the main part of an article was copied directly (and I am not sure how to fix it)?

I was checking Thiazepine, and I found that the first part of the article matches some text in this source "https://meshb.nlm.nih.gov/record/ui?name=Thiazepines".

While it might be a wikipedia mirror, the earliest revision lists it as a source (unless I can't read these things. On the other hand, removing it would take a large chunk of the article away, and I do not know enough about chemistry to feel comfortable redoing it.

Any help would be appreciated!

Balnibarbarian (talk) 01:47, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Balnibarbarian, as a US government website, its contents are in the public domain; see here for more detail. Zoozaz1 (talk) 02:01, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! Balnibarbarian (talk) 02:04, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

@Balnibarbarian:, @Zoozaz1:, yes-and-no. Yes, it's okay to use text copied directly from the source because it's open-source and that's specifically allowed in the license. However, the license also specifically requests that the source be acknowledged. It should have been, and wasn't. There's no indication in the edit history that it's a cut-and-paste copy. The source has been cited, but we'd cite a source even when we paraphrase, so merely citing doesn't indicate a copy. There is nothing in the edit summary to record that this is a copy-paste of someone else's work. Instead there's a hidden note in the text itself indicating that the source is open-source, but that's also irrelevant because again, it doesn't say why open-source matters: that it's a word-for-word copy. We also owe it to our readers to distinguish between situations where we paraphrase multiple sources, and situations where we reduce Wikipedia to being a mere mirror-site by copying text verbatim. Having said all that (big whinge), in this case, the text is one simple statement of what these chemicals are, which could hardly be written differently. If you asked 50 chemists to describe that structure, ten of them would have used the source's words even if they'd never seen the source. So it's not a big issue! But pedantically speaking, this wasn't done correctly... Elemimele (talk) 17:04, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

The text is in the public domain so we don't actually have to obey the source's request for attribution. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 17:13, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

@Madeline:, no, technically we don't have to, but it's somewhat disrespectful to the original author to ignore their request. Also, as a community who care about sourcing and accuracy, we owe it to our readers to make it clear what we're doing. Copying word-for-word without proper attribution is not a great look for Wikipedia. Elemimele (talk) 17:18, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Well, I've cited it now, so it's no problem anymore. Balnibarbarian (talk) 17:18, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

I’m confused about sources.

My first attempt at a Wikipedia article was declined due to lack of sources. Because of the nature of my article ( a dinner party group) I am unsure how I would be able to cite sources, unless I merely linked it to other wiki articles such as ‘dinner party’. What can I do to have my page accepted? RaleighGibbs (talk) 07:36, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

@RaleighGibbs, WP:GNG applies. And WP-articles are among the things that aren't acceptable WP:RS, see WP:RSPWP. If you don't have the sources required at WP:GNG, you can't make a WP-article that "sticks". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:51, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:18, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, RaleighGibbs. According to the General notability guideline, A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Without significant coverage of the topic in independent, reliable sources, it is not possible to write an acceptable Wikipedia article. Cullen328 (talk) 19:07, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Research of effectiveness of Wikipedia for a Master Assigment

Hello everyone, I would like to research the following topic for an Assignment for a Marketing project in the Master in Management program. I know that Wikipedia is not a marketing platform and I highly respect so but I am always been fascinated by how Wikipedia can affect the perception of a certain person, topic, or company.

My goal is to understand what would be more effective for the credibility and trust around a company. I am humbly asking for your opinion on the pro and cons of having a Wikipedia page and in case what would be more effective to create trust around certain niche disciplines of storytelling:

- A Person, I am trying to understand if he/she would be suitable for Wikipedia has published 17 research papers on Google Scholar, and he/she has been mentioned in 3 different books on Google Books. She/He is a professor with a doctorate.

- A topic that is strictly connected with the professor above mentioned but still there is no related Wikipedia page about the topic. The professor works/studies in this field and is one of the best developers of the topic/discipline

- A company that the professor has founded and that aims to help humanitarian organizations use the topic/discipline above mentioned. The professor works alone and he/she is the face company.

Also if you could develop just one, which would be to be as effective as possible to create trust and celebrate the company? I am deeply sorry if didn't use technical words or if this question may sound inappropriate but I am a curious student that needs help from you.

Thank you. ScientistDurandDurand (talk) 20:26, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

ScientistDurandDurand, you haven't said who your professor is, what their discipline is, or what the company is. That makes me a bit suspicious. Your purpose seems to be to improve the image of professor or company. That it not what Wikipedia is for. Wikipedia can change its readers' perception of subjects because its readers trust it to be impartial. Contributors who have a conflict of interest, as you appear to have, are strongly discouraged. Maproom (talk) 20:42, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank your your answer, I am deeply sorry if I was was misunderstood by I am just a student the professor is called Massimiliano Fusari and one of field that he is researching on is the visual storytelling we notice that there is not particular wikipedia page about this branch of the story telling the company and is

My goal is to understand the possibility of developing such pages. Do you think that creating so would create a conflict of interest even if, from my understand he may have the notability, is that right?

Thank you for your help :) ScientistDurandDurand (talk) 21:24, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

@ScientistDurandDurand Is your instructor coordinating with WikiEd? Given your comments here I doubt it; this looks like a poorly-disguised breaching experiment at best and the standard mercenary bullshit lie at worst. As such, you're not going to get much in terms of a useful responce. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 20:55, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Sincerely I didn't knew what is WikiED, I still really knew at this platform. I will ask him as soon as possible? Thank you.

Thank your reply.

I am student I have no interest beside the academic research about this topic, I deeply sorry if I gave this impression. I didn't meant to create bad impression

The professor is called Massimiliano Fusari and the discipline is called visual story telling, the company is called visual story telling academy. I trying to figure out if it would be possible to explore this path to create celebrate and create trust with wikipedia around him. ScientistDurandDurand (talk) 21:30, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

We have an article called Visual narrative which covers this topic. Under no circumstances should you add your professor or their company to that article, you have a conflict of interest. MrOllie (talk) 21:36, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

We straight up do not celebrate and create trust^[sic] with topics. We are an encyclopaedia project, not Cision. Any trust created is, as noted by Maproom, because our articles are impartially-written, something which someone in your position is unlikely to be able to do without expending a lot more effort because your view of "neutral" is compromised. That you assume we "celebrate" article subjects is evidence that you've got, at best, screamsheet knowledge of Wikipedia and haven't bothered to look any deeper at how things work here, whether from a cultural or policy standpoint. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 21:41, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

I think given your advice @MrOllie @Jéské Couriano, I will reconsider this study case.

But for example, Tony C Caputo why this is not a conflict interest?

he wrote one of the two articles referred in the Visual Narrative and his company have a low level of citation + he got his own page on Wikipedia.

I humbly assuming that there a lack of neutrality. In my point of view this affect how the user feels and perceive about him. Can you give me a feedback? ScientistDurandDurand (talk) 21:59, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

The reference to Caputo's book was added by a long-term Wikipedia editor who has no connection to Caputo. MrOllie (talk) 22:04, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

@ScientistDurandDurand, it was certainly an apparent conflict of interest for someone with the user name Tonyccaputo to edit Tony C. Caputo. That's why there's a tag about it on the article. If you think the article subject does not meet our notability standards, you are free to nominate it for deletion. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 22:05, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

You cannot use the presence, absence, or condition of other articles to argue for your own. To that note, I'm taking a scalpel to that article - there are unreferenced claims in it, and a massive chunk of its sources have rotted. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 22:22, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

thank your reply

@Jéské Couriano @MrOllie, to give a more neutral point of View and not reference the visual storytelling just at Tony C caputo boom, wouldn't be better to add more references on the Visual Narrative page? ScientistDurandDurand (talk) 22:29, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

sorry for my grammar mistakes, but I am working/studying since 15 hours and i am a bit tired. Thank your for understanding ScientistDurandDurand (talk) 22:31, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia is not a place to promote your professor. MrOllie (talk) 23:56, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

@ScientistDurandDurand: how do you plan to measure trust? Will you have subjects read the Wikipedia articles and fill out a questionnaire? Or do a guided interview? I don't have a marketing background so honestly don't know what methods are commonly used in the field. What is the control condition? Will some read materials like a company web page and score trust based on those? I strongly suggest you use an existing set of Wikipedia articles rather than trying to create some for the purpose. ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 20:30, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Cedarview utah

I am creating a article about this community. But I do not know where to find the geographic names information system summary about it. I use the database to create articles about communities in the USA. Does anyone know how to find this community on the database? I am working on it in User:HelpingWorld/sandbox. Any help is appreciated!`~HelpingWorld~` ^(👽🛸) 04:50, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

@HelpingWorld: There is no GNIS entry for a Cedarview in Summit County, Utah. The only entry for a Cedarview in Utah is for one in Duchesne County. Deor (talk) 15:24, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Yeah thats the one, thanks!`~HelpingWorld~` ^(👽🛸) 21:43, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

How can we do redirects--so that M.D. Coverley also shows up when you search for Marjorie Luesebrink, etc.

Hi I want to make sure that people can find writers, even if they have used a pen name (Mark Twain should also return results for Samuel Clemens, etc.) Is there a way to do that?Marjorie Luesebrink LoveElectronicLiterature (talk) 23:22, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Samuel Clemens does redirect to Mark Twain, and M.D. Coverley does redirect to Marjorie Luesebrink. What was your question? - David Biddulph (talk) 01:22, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

LoveElectronicLiterature, if you're wondering how (for example) "Samuel Clemens" can be got to redirect to "Mark Twain", then see this. For more on how, when, why, etc, then Wikipedia:Redirect. -- Hoary (talk) 01:32, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

@Hoary

Ah ok, so I would create a redirect page that would be something like this:

#REDIRECT [[M.D. Coverley]] ::{{Redirect category shell|h=This is short for '''{{-r|Marjorie Luesebrink}}'''.| ::{{R from personal name}} ::{{R from short name}} ::{{R unprintworthy}} ::}} ::{{DEFAULTSORT:Luesebrink, Marjorie}} [[User:LoveElectronicLiterature|LoveElectronicLiterature]] ([[User talk:LoveElectronicLiterature|talk]]) 20:25, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

All of Marjorie Luesebrink's fiction and electronic literature works are under her pen name M.D. Coverley. So would I need to include all of these warnings? Thank you LoveElectronicLiterature (talk) 20:26, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

LoveElectronicLiterature, I still don't understand what it is that you want to do. There already is an article about Marjorie Luesebrink; M.D. Coverley redirects to it (and has done so for the last seven years). Are you perhaps hoping to switch these around (to title the article "M.D. Coverley", and have "Marjorie Luesebrink" redirect to this)? If so, such a reversal isn't something that most people are able to do. (That's because it involves the deletion of a page, something that admins, bureaucrats and so forth can do, but regular users can't.) Instead, it's something you have to ask for. Because such a retitling is potentially controversial, it's better asked for at WP:Requested moves#CM. -- Hoary (talk) 22:48, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

issue on User:HelpingWorld/sandbox with the template being above the references.

I am having this issue on my sandbox when everytime I add a template to an article I work on, it goes above the references. Any help is appreciated.`~HelpingWorld~` ^(👽🛸) 22:38, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Merely adding the header "References" doesn't trigger a reference dump, which by default occurs at the foot of the page. Where you want the reference dump to be, add <references /> -- Hoary (talk) 23:59, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Some biting issues (pun intended)

Hi editors,

I have recently been patrolling recent changes and, I must admit, I feel a little bit bitten. @Mr.weedle was patrolling recent changes at around the same time as I was, I believe, and while I understand that speed is essential in recent changes patrolling and the volume of vandalism is such that patrollers don't have time to read every edit in detail, but I now have two template warnings [4][5] on my talk page for two things which I don't feel warrant any sort of template warning. The first one, concerning this diff [6], was about unsourced material, which I had addressed in the edit sumary (admittedly, I should have manually reverted and added the source at the same time, but the edit summary is there for people to read?) and the second one was concerning this diff [7] to Spring Valley station (DART). I feel that the edit was clearly constrctive and not patent nonsense. I am, of course, not experienced in editing according to the MoS, but the magnitude of the offense should not warrant in any situation a block. Moreover, with only a generic link to the MoS, I have no idea which part of my edits violated MoS, how to correct it, etc. and I feel that the templating is generally unconstructive towards my ability to contribute. I have replied to the template both times on my talk page regarding these issues, but have received no response.

On a broader note, I notice that recent change patrollers often simply revert valuable but problematic material from IPs (e.g. unsourced but factually correct and verifiable) instead of fixing it. As stated above, I understand that patrollers don't have time, but surely this can be remedied by more manpower/resources. I would welcome others' input on this. Fermiboson (talk) 07:48, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Commenting only on the paragraph immediately above: if someone adds content that is unsourced but verifiable, it doesn't somehow become someone else's duty to add a source. If you somehow know that it's verifiable, and its removal bothers you, you can restore it and add the source yourself. Maproom (talk) 08:40, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

That‘s fair enough, and has been what I have been doing (and, you will note, the cause of the second warn). Fermiboson (talk) 10:04, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that if someone removes the unsourced but verifiable information, although someone else can put it back in, they may not be aware that it was ever there, so they have no motivation to go looking for the facts and the sources. Avid readers of this Teahouse will know that I very much favour quality over quantity. It is better (in my personal view) to go to the trouble of checking a fact is verifiable before deleting it. Unsourced, accurate facts are neutral: they don't mislead the reader, but they don't help much because there's no way to tell if they're true, or read more about it. Missing facts are negative. Sourced facts are positive. Incorrect facts are negative. Faced with an unsourced but correct fact, the only way to improve Wikipedia is to add a source. When people merely delete unsourced facts in hopes that this is improving the encyclopaedia, they're taking a punt on the fact also being wrong.

My problem with recent page patrolling is your first comment, "I understand that speed is essential in recent changes patrolling"; no, it isn't. There is no point in trying to accumulate kudos by out-gunning Cluebot. As humans, we can actually do google searches, check facts, employ a human brain. Instead of knee-jerk reverting anything inserted by an IP editor, we can use their edits as a spring-board to genuine improvements. The world won't stop because Wikipedia briefly thinks California is in the UK; before reverting this fact, it's worth doing the search, just in case the editor is right. Elemimele (talk) 13:56, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Sorry you feel bitten, that's certainly not the intent here. Also apologies for not getting back to you sooner, I was asleep not long after you posted your reply on your talk page.

No ones out to block you or dissuade you here, though I can appreciate that the automated templates can certainly be perceived in many ways - please let me state that they are nothing at all personal. I am sorry that our tools automatically escalated the warnings made to you on your page for your manual of style issues, that wasn't necessary. When I get a moment, I will try and work on Huggle, our anti-vandal tool, to see if I can add a feature to not escalate for different categories.

Wikipedia usually goes through high periods of significant vandalism, and in many cases, especially last night, there may be only 1 person online actively monitoring recent changes. It's not a race, and no, it has nothing to do with out-running cluebot, (which btw only looks for really evident vandalism, and wont take action on many of the issues discussed here). At times there can be over 30 changes a minute, and if we stop to manually search and add sources, or manually fix template mistakes, we would be -massively- outpaced by the rate of changes, and our beloved wiki would be worse off. I very much agree its a people power issue here, if we had lots more folks working on patrolling changes, I would LOVE to do research and add sources. When I find down time, or low rates of changes, you will see that's actually what I do; but alas, it's not always possible.

At the end of the day, it's the authors job to add sources, and there's a lot of precedent for reverting changes. It's also extremely easy to revert my changes through the history tab of the article; I'm not going to back and forth edit war with you (unless it's blatant vandalism!). I can see you've made lots of good edits, so please keep up the great work!

P.S. It's not all doom and gloom from me, you will also see I have left you several thanks for your recent edits as well. When I see good edits or corrections made, I do make an effort to also send positive reenforcement too! Mr.weedle (talk) 18:51, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply and very much appreciate your compliments. I do understand the stress factor involved which is why I tried not to come across as too confrontational above. If you (or anyone else here) could explain in more detail which part of the MoS I didn't follow, that would also be appreciated so I can go back and improve my edit, and hopefully also the erstwhile IP's. With the manpower issue, I would love to help patrol recent changes in any limited way I could (as I was trying to do, albeit at a much lower efficiency, when all of this occurred).

The other concern I have is that, now that I have three warning templates on my talk page for vandalism, the next time I make a mistake a random admin might just wander across and slap a block on me. Is this worry warranted and/or is there any way to remedy it? I don't want to blank talk page warnings before asking. Fermiboson (talk) 19:38, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Please rest assured, no admin is going to block you for that. You can definitely blank the talk-page warnings; there is very little you can't blank on your talk-page. Blanking them is regarded as acknowledging you've read them, but otherwise carries no consequences. Also, the admins are decent people, who are really rather reticent to block. They will block people who attack others, and they will block people who repeatedly show themselves unable to make good edits, but even then, usually only after a really good attempt at communication. It's quite hard to get blocked here! Also I think everyone appreciates that the templated warnings, while useful and convenient for the busy reviewer, are a bit of a blunt object: they don't always fit the situation perfectly, and some look scarier than they are. Many good editors will have had plenty of them stuck on their talk-page, so you're in good company. By the way, Mr.weedle, I apologise if I came across too ferocious! I do appreciate that there are different approaches to life: some people zap stuff that's not supported on sight, others prefer to pick one thing and make it right. I'm in the latter camp and tend to be a bit disparaging about the former, but the truth is that Wikipedia is greatly strengthened by having a diversity of editors all working in different ways to make sure the information here is accurate and sourced. Apologies! Elemimele (talk) 21:09, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much, appreciate it. Fermiboson (talk) 02:57, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Fandom and other wiki websites, VERY GOOD QUESTION

For other websites that use a wiki engine like Wikipedia and Fandom, does that mean that their technical ways of for example editing articles or equivalents/pages, and putting codes in articles to perform specific functions in editing, as well as having "revision history" of articles/pages etc universal and with the same procedure? Like does this layout apply to all wiki website? Like will typing Wikipedia in brackets in any wiki editor make it into a hyperlink and similar things? Hgh1985 (talk) 03:15, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Mostly. However just typing [[Wikipedia]] in an wiki editor won't work unless that wiki has a page/article for Wikipedia. However linking any page/article that is on the Wiki works the same. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 03:18, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Fandom and other websites use the same software called MediaWiki. See Category:MediaWiki websites. If they don't then it might not be the same 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 03:18, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Not sure if this is where I ask, but does anyone know why and how to stop the Wikipedia mobile app sending erroneous notifications?

I keep receiving a mobile notification thanking me for my first edit, sometimes it's tenth or 100th. I'm up to 900 edits and started editing over a year ago, but it still spams me with these. Is there a way to turn them off while still being able to see talk page messages and relevant communications? Zorya's Leshak▲ (-10.0) 23:47, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Zorya's Leshak: I think there is a option to turn it off in the notification section of Special:Preferences. Roost^T_C(Please ping me) 00:44, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I've turned off "edit milestones", I'll see if it fixes it. Zorya's Leshak▲ (-10.0) 01:29, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

@Zorya's Leshak: Wikipedia:APP Has a link to the FAQ for that app, maybe that will help you RudolfRed (talk) 00:49, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I think if you go to Settings in the app, then notifications, you can turn these off. I had a similar issue on iOS and it worked, but I don't know about android. Thanks, echidnaLives - talk - edits 00:58, 22 November 2022 (UTC).

@Zorya's Leshak Thanks for this note. We'll investigate why the app might be sending erroneous notifications. In the meantime, you can indeed disable just the "milestone"-type notifications: Go into the app, go to the Notifications screen (bell icon), go to Notification Preferences (from the three-dots menu at the top), and tap "Customize push notifications". You should see a list of all the types of notifications, with checkboxes to enable/disable each one. DBrant (WMF) (talk) 13:44, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi Zorya's Leshak. I have been using the android mobile app for a few months now. This sounds like it might be a technical issue since it keeps happening, so I'll ping DBrant (WMF). He might be able to explain what's going on and fix it if there is an issue with the app itself. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 02:33, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm on Android, too. I just got a notification that a page I created months ago was reviewed... so it's not just the milestones. Zorya's Leshak▲ (-10.0) 02:44, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Another alternative, Zorya's Leshak, is to use the fully functional desktop site, which works perfectly well on Android devices. I wrote an essay about this, User:Cullen328/Smartphone editing. Cullen328 (talk) 03:00, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I'll probably just disable notifications from my phone's settings. It's just annoying to not get relevant notifications. Zorya's Leshak▲ (-10.0) 03:02, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I'll point out that this question is about push notifications, which the desktop site does not provide. DBrant (WMF) (talk) 13:45, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

@DBrant (WMF) The mobile app seems to be pretty crappy all around. No notifications is better than incorrect notifications. David10244 (talk) 08:57, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

David10244 If it can be fixed, I'd say actually fixing the issue would be a better long term solution. As for disabling notifications completely, that can lead to problems like WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 11:54, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Zorya's Leshak, I noticed something upon my rereading of this section. The notification about the reviewed page you created months ago may indeed be accurate. New page patrol often have a very long backlog and it's not uncommon for that situation to happen. If it's possible, can you check if you recieved the same notification on desktop? If you didn't, it's likely an app issue. If you did, that specific notification is accurate. It still wouldn't explain the duplicate notifications about edit milestones, though. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:36, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

That article was created via AFC, so it's probably a bug, as all the redirects I created relating to it in mainspace were reviewed many months ago. Oddly, your mention displayed properly this time on mobile. Zorya's Leshak▲ (-10.0) 04:42, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

@Zorya's Leshak: Do pings usually not show up the way they should? I haven't had those same issues with the app as you have, although occasionally I'll get delayed notifications about other people mentioning me, usually push notifications. I think that has more to do with my phone settings, though. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:49, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

No cussing/cursing rule?

Is there a rule against any and all forms of cussing/cursing/swearing when it comes to talk pages and editors and discourse etc.? I am aware of the whole WP:CIVIL thing, but I have seen some editors before swear/cuss/curse (whatever you want to call it) in the past without punishment or recourse, and I was just curious if that is normal or just allowed as long as one isn't attacking another editor (like just venting about something) etc.? TY — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 20:18, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

There has never been any general rule about cursing. Ruslik_Zero 20:19, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

People are allowed to swear, especially if they're venting or emphasising, as long as they're otherwise civil, not attacking other editors, etc. Besides, legislating morality in this fashion just plain doesn't fucking work - people are going to vent one way or another, and it's counterproductive to tone police them. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 00:32, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

@Moops: Also, WP:Wikipedia is not censored. Cursing at others, however, would be seen as a violation of Wikipedia:Civility policy, so be judicious in your use of such words, reserving them for emphasis only if absolutely fucking necessary. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:25, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

I see what you both did there. David10244 (talk) 09:27, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

But some words will get you in trouble. Even discussing the word nigger is risky, though we have an article on it. And using the n-word in practice is skating awfully close to hate speech or racial vilification. The c-word ("do you think I mean country matters?") is marginal, where I'm from it has more shock value than the f-bomb. There is precedent for it being tolerated here; for some it's a feminist issue and could get you embroiled in a culture war. I think part of the difference is that words like fucken (general intensifier) and shitty (bad) have acquired more general senses, where the n- and c- words are still fairly specific. ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 20:09, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Slurs are a special class of profanity and should be avoided. While there's some variety in severity (e.g. "boche" vs. the n-word), they are generally treated as fighting words on Wikipedia. See also WP:Hate is disruptive _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:31, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

It is best to not cuss at someone.Cwater1 (talk) 04:51, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

New watchlist icon

Hi there! I notice that the watchlist button icon has changed to an all-black version. Is there a page documenting the reasoning behind this change somewhere? Thanks! 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 02:26, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

I think it did on the skin you are using.Cwater1 (talk) 04:59, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Need Help on get approve an article

Hi Friends, I have made an article that got declined. Please help me with this article. Here is the article Draft:R. Rajiv Gandhi

Thanks in advance. Keech KeechB (talk) 09:38, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

KeechB Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Please read the comments left by reviewers, especially that about the definition of a notable politician. In short, to merit an article as a politican, the person must hold a public office or have won election to a public office. The person you are writing about seems to just be a a member of a political party who has sought public office, but not yet held one. If he does not hold public office, he would need to meet the broader definition of a notable person- either way, there will need to be significant coverage of him in independent reliable sources; please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 09:56, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Help please!

I'm new to this website and I don't know how to make the text bigger on articles, anyone know how? Sairaraosucksfrfr (talk) 10:42, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

@Sairaraosucksfrfr: What text do you want to make bigger, on what article, and why? Section headings should normally be placed between pairs of equals signs, which caused them to be displayed in bigger print, so for example if you click the "edit" link for this page section you will find the heading looks like this:

==Help please! ==

Other than section headings, article text should not normally be put in large text. JBW (talk) 11:03, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

@Sairaraosucksfrfr: If you mean that you just want the text to appear bigger in your browser for easier reading, that's a function of your browser settings. Most if not all of them allow you to enlarge the appearance of the text. 331dot (talk) 11:07, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

How can I know the reasons why my article got denied?

Please provide additional information on why would my article get denied after providing multiple citations, having no errors in grammar, and publishing a notable person. Liamkingbme (talk) 10:51, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Liamkingbme Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The reason for the decline was given by the reviewer- but to restate it another way, you have documented what this person has done, but you need to summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about them and why they are significant or influential. Please see Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 10:57, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

STATUS: Draft:Anderson Ohiaeri Obiagwu submitted, declined, revised (more content and refs) and resubmitted. Obiagwu is founder of a magazine about African music. The magazine/organization also has annual awards for different catagories of music. David notMD (talk) 11:55, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Escalating bad editing

Hello there anyone, I'm "kindof" new in Wikipedia and have never had this problem before so I'm not sure how to deal with it. In the Merdeka page, an IP had done a significant change which includes many typos, grammar mistakes and basically bad editing/writing. Which comes into question whether what the IP writes is really reliable. Feel free to see the edit changes, I really believe it makes the page worse for other readers.

I've reverted the edits but just for the edits to be reverted back by the IP. Is there a formal/usual way of (escalating) bringing another editor or admin into this? For them to review and remove the edits if it is as bad as I believe it is. Danial Bass (talk) 03:10, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello @Danial Bass and welcome to the Teahouse! I would check the contributions of the IP address and if there had been other problematic editing associated with this IP address, I would go and address the situation at WP:ANI but only do this if the IP user has had other situations like this. If not, I would leave a message on their talk page using {{subst:uw-test1|Merdeka}} and see where that gets you. Happy Editing (and reverting!) Helloheart (talk) 03:43, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation! Danial Bass (talk) 10:20, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello @Danial Bass. Consider also asking for protection (see Wikipedia:Requests for page protection), as that would stop IPs and newly created accounts from editing the article. David notMD (talk) 11:01, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

@Danial Bass The edit summary is "Best sentence editing". Tbat's a bit weird, like the edit itself. David10244 (talk) 13:50, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Can I add information to an article that contradicts another article?

Based on https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/38-1/s134#details there were 3 Democratic Senators that voted in favor of the 13th amendment to the constitution, yet on the 13th amendment and Senator James Nesmith's pages, they claim that only 2 Democratic Senators, James Nesmith and Reverdy Johnson, voted in favor of the 13th amendment's passage.

The missing Senator in question is Benjamin F Harding. His page, alongside Reverdy Johnson's, has no mention of their votes in favor of the amendment.

I was planning on correcting both claims in the two articles alongside adding the claim to the pages of the 2 other Senators. The claim on the 13th amendment is not sourced, but the page is semi-protected and I don't want to step on any toes editing something there. So I figured I'd change it on the 3 men's pages, and whenever I'm more confident in my change, I'll try adding it to the article.

I also ran into a bit of a dilemma on James Nesmith's page. The claim there is sourced twice in two different books. I have been able to read the first source online, and the claim is dubious at best. The page they cite has no mention of either James Nesmith's vote or Reverdy Johnson's vote. It mentions Reverdy Johnson's support of an amendment like the 13th and the previous pages spoke of other prominent Democrats that supported such an amendment, yet no mention of the actual voting. Reading past the page they cite will require I get access to the book. I plan on doing so if I can find it at my local library.

I have not been able to view the page of the second source, if my local library has it I'll try and read it. Though if it's as dubious as the first citation I doubt it has the facts to back up the article's claim.

Am I in my rights to add the note to the articles of Reverdy Johnson and Benjamin F. Harding if I leave the other two articles alone? I was planning on doing so but thought it'd be strange to have these claims hyperlinked to James Nesmith's and the 13th Amendment's pages with contradictory statements.

So, can I delete the claim on James Nesmith's page and add my correction? The two sources are only used once in the article, in the claim I'm disputing, so I'd feel bad for the person who originally put the effort in publishing the claim only for me to remove it and their two sources entirely. ~~~~ Jinandwin (talk) 09:58, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Jinandwin Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If you have contradictory information, you should first discuss it on the article talk page to reach a consensus with other editors as to what the article should say. Perhaps the other editors of that article are aware of the information you have, or if they aren't, can work with you to present all the sources of information. 331dot (talk) 11:00, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Asking for consensus on their talk pages may be useless, as the articles about these men get few visitors, and even fewer visitors to the Talk pages. David notMD (talk) 11:46, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

When not entirely sure of myself on an article with light traffic, my method is to propose my change in the talk page. Usually there is no answer in a few days, so I go ahead. Yes, it may still be reverted, but the ensuing discussion is likely to be constructive. Jim.henderson (talk) 14:21, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Should a primary source specifically be removed if its backed up by a reliable secondary source

Recently one of my draft articles had tags stating [non primary source needed since two of the sources with the tags clearly had a secondary source backing up I removed the tags, later the person who added those tags accused me of white washing and explained my intent was to decieve editors keep in mind there were two more sources with that tag and 2 more with a different tag that I didn't remove. I explained that both of sources I removed tags for had a secondary source backing them up, I later recieved a reply from another user stating that if the primary source is backed up by a secondary source the primary source should be removed.

I either have 2 options here

I can either keep both sources?

Or remove the primary source?

Which one is better to do?

Draft talk:903 (PTV Bus) NotOrrio (talk) 22:07, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

It is rarely necessary to have more than one citation for a particular piece of information, and doing so often looks like an editor trying to make up for quality with quantity. (Of course, sometimes a sentence will contain more than one claim and two sources might be needed). I haven't looked at your draft to see the specifics, but if the secondary source verifies the information, what would be the point of keeping the primary source as well? ColinFine (talk) 15:39, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Tea house 🍵

How can I write my own article? Alyssap167 (talk) 16:08, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Alyssap167, and welcome to the Teahouse, and to Wikipedia. Please see Your first article. I strongly advise you to spend a few months learning how Wikipedia works by making improvements to some of our six million articles before you embark on that often frustrating journey.

If the article you want to write is about you, or somebody or something you are close to, I advise you not to: please see WP:COI. ColinFine (talk) 16:41, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

If you mean an article about yourself, then you shouldn't. Please read the advice against autobiography. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:42, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Lastly, you will not "own" what you contribute to Wikipedia. In general, any editor can edit any article, as long as content is verified by reliable source references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David notMD (talk • contribs) 17:54, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Not able to create a wiki page.

Hello, I am simply trying to set a genuine page for a legal business, I am having some issues, please help. Downtown Heroes FC (talk) 19:32, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Your draft was blatant advertising and totally inappropriate for an encyclopaedia article. Theroadislong (talk) 19:41, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

The deletion was the second. The first deletion was of a draft created by another single-purpose account. That was deleted (by Deb) two years ago as a copyright violation. The recent, second deletion (by 331dot) cited "Unambiguous advertising or promotion". Yes, it was unambiguously promotional: if I'd seen it before 331dot did, I wouldn't have hesitated to delete it for that reason alone. But unambiguous promotion wasn't all. It didn't just sound like recycled publicity, it was recycled publicity. It came from this downtownheroesfc.com page, at the foot of which we're told "©Downtown Heroes Football Club". So the rightly deleted Draft:Downtown Heroes FC was a copyright violation. -- Hoary (talk) 22:03, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

You don't set up a "page" about a business--legal or otherwise--in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a directory or social networking site. If this business is sufficiently notable to have been written about substantially in several reliable and reputable sources--sources completely unconnected with the business--then someone here, ideally not connected with that business, might undertake to write an ARTICLE about the business. And then, others (ideally not connected) might edit that article--trivially or substantially. And the result might or might not be to the business's liking. But if it's all properly and reliably sourced, if it doesn't violate copyright, and if it follows a couple of other rules, then the business will not be able to do much about it. Uporządnicki (talk)

Improving visual formatting for an article

Hello people, as I am still learning how to edit, I wanted to ask if there's somebody I could ask to improve an article visually, and on a similar note is there an article detailing how I could make graphs and add tables to an article? Thank you for your help. Wpakxl (talk) 22:11, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello @Wpakxl, and welcome to the Teahouse. You didn't specify the article you're interested in improving but, for learning about graphs, you may wish to carefully read and work through Wikipedia:Graphs and charts, and for tables (which are not the easiest things to deal with) see Help:Table. For improving article layout and content, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Please be aware that you've asked about three very complicated areas, so you will need to work slowly and carefully though each one in turn to understand what's involved.

We're happy to answer more specific questions, but context is everything. regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:47, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for your reply. This is the page I wanted to improve upon : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_chief_ministers_of_Delhi. There's too much empty space for my liking and the textboxes feel like they haven't been formatted properly, Wpakxl (talk) 15:51, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

@Wpakxl The large amount of empty space towards the top is caused by the long infobox on the right being followed immediately by a table. Because of the table being present, there's little we can do about that, except that I've moved the 2nd paragraph of the introductory text into a 'History' section, which fills it out a bit more. (Feel free to revert this if you don't think it was a good idea.) You could do the same with the section after the tables, entitled 'Living former chief minister' - that would occupy a bit more of the white space, too, and fit in with the 'History' section I made.

I am unsure what you were referring to by "textboxes feel like they haven't been formatted properly" but I urge you to take extreme care when editing tables - they can very easily be damaged by a careless edit, so always check afterwards and be prepared to revert your own edit if you make a mistake. I often advise people to copy a table's wikicode into their user sandbox and play around with editing that first, before trying to alter the article itself. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 17:33, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, and thank you for your help. As for my textboxes comment, they looked a bit off-centre to me then, but now they appear to be fine. I think I will leave the article as it is, for some future editor to improve, while I try to gain some more experience with formatting and such. I will keep your advice in mind, and thank you again for assisting me. I really appreciate it. Wpakxl (talk) 00:21, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

How to add a note to a statement in an article?

In this article, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shintaro_Ishihara#Personal_life_and_death - an editor has added a 'citation needed' for the place where Mr. Ishihara died, and most of the news articles talk about Mr. Ishihara dying at his Tokyo home but they don't mention that it was in the Ota Ward of Tokyo : https://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/14537506, under the image it is mentioned his house was in Ota Ward and in this article https://japannews.yomiuri.co.jp/society/general-news/20220618-38766/, the author's house in Ota Ward, but because these facts aren't directly linked to each other, and you have to put two and two together, how do I add this note to the article? Thank you for your help. Wpakxl (talk) 16:00, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Wpakxi. I'm afraid that that looks to me like synthesis, and so not permitted. I don't like this conclusion, but it's how I read it. The safest is perhaps to leave it at "Tokyo". (Or you might decide to WP:IAR). ColinFine (talk) 17:15, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, now that you mention it, it does sound like it is original research, I think I will change it to just Tokyo and remove the 'citation needed' warning. Thank you for your help. Wpakxl (talk) 00:23, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

An Accident

I Accidently messed up My Gym Partner's a Monkey season 2 episodes! I need help restoring, Jacksoncochran048484 (talk) 00:44, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Think this is ok now. I looked at the changes you had made through viewing history, and put the double {s back. All ok. Tacyarg (talk) 00:55, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Notability

Hi, I am writing an article Draft:Lewis A. Novack, but my rejection is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Any advice on advancing the article

- Seven3531 Seven3531 (talk) 00:41, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Seven3531, it was rejected. It says at the top: "Stop". "Stop" means stop. -- Hoary (talk) 00:53, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Hoary for the advice. Seven3531 (talk) 01:04, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Help please

can someone direct me to someplace in wikipedia that serves as a chat room? Allaoii ^talk<:/span> 19:15, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Allaoii Please see WP:IRC. You may also ask questions here. 331dot (talk) 19:23, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Why do you want a chat room? Discussions on Wikipedia are meant for shop talk, not general discussion. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 19:24, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm assuming they want a chat room about Wikipedia. Frogging101 (talk) 19:28, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

i have a question that doesnt fit normal wikipedia talks and since im on a whitelist this is pretty much my only option Allaoii ^talk 19:28, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

@Allaoii, if you can't use IRC or Discord, then the Teahouse/Help Desk areas are as close as you can probably get to a general-purpose "chat room" for Wikipedia related things. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 19:49, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

this is a question that is related to a topic covered by wikipedia, not wikipedia itself Allaoii ^talk 21:02, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Allaoii, try the Reference desks. Cullen328 (talk) 21:11, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

there's no way theyll take it Allaoii ^talk 02:01, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Lodz in music

There is a dispute on the talk (and article) page of Lodz. I believe that a particular song about the town should be mentioned. Another editor, Merangs, writes it off as trivial. The song was Vicky Leandros's first number-one hit in Germany and has become an evergreen. Since the Lodz page has a section on the town in literature and film, I don't see why music should not also be included. Can we get outside input? Kdammers (talk) 01:58, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Courtesy links: Łódź and Talk:Łódź#Song Jolly1253 (talk) 02:13, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Looking for Someone to help with Writing the Wiki Page for me

Afternoon Wiki Land

I am looking for someone to write a Wikipedia page for me - Please advise what I am do here. I am a complete Rookie

IT isnt really the easiest place to work things out

Dave

Feeling lost and confused in Wikipedia land. KahuKiwi (talk) 03:39, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello @KahuKiwi and welcome to the Teahouse! You can write a Wikipedia page yourself, so long that the subject is suitable for a Wikipedia article (i.e. make sure the subject is notable). Once you are sure that you are ready, I would go to WP:AFC and start creating your article there. (Keep in mind that articles submitted at Articles for Creation take time to review.) If you really think that you can't create the article, you can request that the article be created or you can keep learning about Wikipedia, and once you feel experienced enough, create the article. Happy editing! Helloheart (talk) 03:53, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

General advice is gain experience by improving existing articles before attempting to create an article. Requesting that an article be created rarely succeeds. David notMD (talk) 04:18, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

@David notMD Should the editor's phone number be redacted from their talk page? (Search for "0468"). David10244 (talk) 14:28, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello @KahuKiwi, you can add it to Wikipedia:Requested articles.`~HelpingWorld~` ^(👽🛸) 05:36, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

KahuKiwi, adding a suggestion/request to Wikipedia:Requested articles is usually just a waste of time. Plenty of outfits offer to create articles for money, but we take a dim view of this. The general recommendation is DIY. However, (i) you need to acquire skills and experience before attempting a new article, and (ii) if the subject you're suggesting is yourself, please don't. -- Hoary (talk) 08:58, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello @KahuKiwi You started by putting article-like content on your User page, which was the wrong place, hence deleted and the comment on your Talk page. You have since created Draft:Kahu the Kiwi Rugby and World Sports and submitted it even though it has no content. Hence declined. You will succeed only if there are published articles about this topic that you can cite as references for verification. What you personally know to be true contributes nothing to Wikipedia notability. From what you wrote on your Talk page, I strongly doubt that this topic qualifies for an article. I suggest you abandon the draft. Six months from now it will be deleted for lack of progress. David notMD (talk) 11:36, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

@Horay, how is it a waste of time, its sometimes active and people add articles and remove them from time to time.`~HelpingWorld~` ^(👽🛸) 23:15, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

@HelpingWorld, the trouble is that "time to time" is getting longer, while the list itself continues to grow. It's pretty much not for the impatient, nor for the merely mortal. Quisqualis (talk) 02:18, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Please get the shit off my page.

I do not want all that stuff all over the page your autobots just posted.

Delete it now! #Angry

~~ Missbellanash (talk) 03:11, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

@Missbellanash: If you are referring to your user talk page, you could edit it yourself and remove it. Also, note that Wikipedia is not social media. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 03:12, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

It is sm if I want it to be, stop being instructive and ignore the things you can't do.

Take that ridiculous fake code out and put a name in, it says "name" for a reason.

~~ Missbellanash (talk) 03:17, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

What name? I can't find any use of the word "name" in your user talk page. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 03:20, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

@Missbellanash Your talk page says "Please do not place signatures on the same line as comments". Editors making comments and replies aren't likely to follow that request, nor should they need to.

You said "It [Wikipedia] is [social media] if I want it to be". Just so you know, you are wrong about that. David10244 (talk) 14:08, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

You can opt out of notifications. I don't think that will stop the messages from being written. You can delete the message though.Cwater1 (talk) 04:57, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

You have a robust turn of phrase, Missbellanash. This doesn't worry me personally, but do note that WP:Civility isn't a mere essay, it's a policy page. -- Hoary (talk) 09:04, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Policy Bashing i one of my pastimes, probably not a good idea to compliment me..it just gets worse. Heh

@Hoary I hope you had a wonderful Thanksgiving and weekend! Take care, #best!

~~ Missbellanash (talk) 06:13, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Article creation

Hello, I’m the Christian Cartoonist. I desire to be a Wikipedia article creator, but it’s difficult with all the procedures and what to put in there. What are some things I can do? The Christian Cartoonist (talk) 03:21, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

General advice is gain experience by improving existing articles before attempting to create an article - a difficult task for beginners. David notMD (talk) 08:03, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! One thing you can do is to make sure you have the sources required at WP:GNG before trying to make an article. If you don't, write about something else. If you do, see WP:TUTORIAL on how to add references correctly and WP:YFA on how to start an article. See "Help out" at Wikipedia:Community portal, there's much to do besides making new articles. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:28, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Create Article

How can I created article in wikipedia Hey Samsung (talk) 13:31, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse, if you want to create an article you should read here for instructions: WP:MFA. Remember to keep your language encylopedic and to source any claims you make. FishandChipper 🐟🍟 13:34, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Hey Samsung Be advised that writing a new article is the most difficult task to perform on Wikipedia, and you may set yourself up for disappointment and frustration if you dive in too quickly- please spend some time editing existing articles first, and use the new user tutorial. 331dot (talk) 13:39, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Alt

I would like to get permission to use my alternate account, User:Villanykörte. I will mainly use this account for editing tests. Ricciardo Best (talk) 15:08, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

You're generally allowed to use alternative accounts for test edits. The best way to do it is to create a user page and make sure it says on your page what your alternate account is. Read the sockpuppetry page for more information on when you can and can't use alternate accounts. Usually you don't need a second account to do testing though unless you're working with scripting or something like that. Your sandbox is a good place to do test edits, and you can always create a second sandbox if you need to. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:31, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Request for a site unban

My site was banned from wikipedia for creating a talk page or including it as a business. It was banned back in 2021 I came to know just a few weeks ago. How do I request for excluding my web address from banned list? Jabbar132 (talk) 06:28, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Flatly speaking, you don't. While you technically could appeal a blacklisting at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist (assuming it was blacklisted on the English-language Wikipedia) in practice requests to remove one's own website from the blacklist are summarily rejected. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 07:16, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I presume you are talking about your website being added to either the local spam blacklist or the global blacklist. If so, either of these has a talkpage (local | global ) where delisting requests can be made, however, the chance that requests from site owners are granted are extremely low.

If this is about gari.pk, for which you made a whitelist request in June this year, the reply you recived by Anachronist is still valid. gari.pk is on the global blacklist (added here) and as such a delisting request would need to be made here.

If this is about something else, woould you please specify what? Victor Schmidt (talk) 07:18, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes I request about gari.pk but got no answers, As you mentioned let me check and continue if still problem occurs I'll ask here Jabbar132 (talk) 07:48, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

It is about gari.pk but I found no way of requesting unban of site or I'm missing something. Can you help me out Jabbar132 (talk) 10:40, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Personal websites are not allowed on Wikipedia. There is nothing you can do to unban it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:35, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Archiving URLs

I archived an article at archive.today but then thought it might be better to use Wayback Machine. Now I have archived versions from both and am wondering if I can somehow use both or if one is preferable to the other. Mcljlm (talk) 16:57, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

There are a number of archiving services available. The biggest advantage of Wayback is that it does a lot of pro-active archiving, and you often will have a large selection of existing archive versions to choose from. Also, Wayback generally will have linked pages archived as well, which can be critical to the usefulness of an archive link.

I had been using archive.today in many cases when there were issues with Wayback. However, their on-screen advertisements have at times become excessively intrusive, and even though the archived page from archive.today may seem acceptable today, if they change how the ads display, that will affect previously-archived pages. As a result, I have started to look for alernatives. In particular, Wikiwix seems to be a popular alternative, though I have been using ghostarchive. Every archiving service will have its peculiarities. Unfortunately the interfaces are all different and not all web pages can be effectively archive on all the archiving services. I'm mostly concerned with having workable archive copies and not too concerned if Wikipedia readers have to put up with these slightly different interfaces. Fabrickator (talk) 19:58, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, it's me, Some random account on this website.

And yes, i have a question. Do i need to start to edit a wikipedia article? Some random account on this website (talk) 17:02, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Some random account, and welcome to the Teahouse. Please see my reply to the previous question.

Sorry, I've just realised you weren't asking about creating a new article. I'm not sure what you were asking. You can edit most articles (a few are semi-protected so that new accounts can't edit them). But you should make sure you follow Wikipedia's policies on neutrality and verifiability. Please see Help:Intro. ColinFine (talk) 17:03, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

It's ok, some people can make mistakes. Some random account on this website (talk) 17:09, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

And thanks for the answer! Some random account on this website (talk) 17:10, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

@Some random account on this website I wonder if your question is, since you've set up an account, are you required to start editing something. As far as I know, the answer is no. Uporządnicki (talk) 15:34, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

ok Some random account on this website (talk) 20:10, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Article Creation Request

Is it at all possible to get help creating an article from a semi notable band Infamous Sinphony? I tried in the past with no success only reason I ask for help. Thanks!

Here is their official website and a couple other sources: http://www.infamoussinphony.com/ https://www.n1m.com/infamoussinphony https://www.metal-archives.com/bands/Infamous_Sinphony/11263 Pjryb (talk) 06:47, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

@Pjryb Their own website is useless for notability (connexion to subject), we can't use n1m (streaming service), and the Encyclopaedia Metallum link is useless for notability (too sparse). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 08:14, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Pjryb, and welcome to the Teahouse. The answer to your question is that is is not impossible to get some help, but there are some significant hurdles that you will need to overcome. Remember that Wikipedia is entirely edited by volunteers, who work on what they choose (for example, I mostly choose to help people here and at the Help Desk, and don't do a huge amount of work on articles). So in order to get help, you will need to get somebody's interest up enough that they choose to work with you. It is possible that you can do that by asking here, but not very likely. You might have more success asking at WT:WikiProject Metal, but there are no guarantees.

In any case, one of the things that somebody who helps you will want to be sure of is that their work will not be wasted, and so they will want to be sure that Infamous Sinphony meets Wikipedia's requirements for notability, because if they don't then there is no point in anybody spending any time at all on an article. What you can usefully do is look for the independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the band which are an absolute requirement. If you can find them, then there is a chance of an article, either by you or if you can find a collaborator. (Follow the blue links to learn what those terms all mean in this context). If you can't find the sources, you'll know to give up. ColinFine (talk) 15:56, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello @Pjryb and welcome to the Teahouse! What you really need are sources that show that the article is notable, so I would ask at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment and see where that gets you. Happy editing! Helloheart (talk) 20:36, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

How do I reference myself when adding my family information to my fathers wiki site, i.e. wives and children?

I am the 2nd daughter of two biological daughters of Charles "Charlie" Applewhite, and there is no family (wives, children) information listed. I added under "Notes", because I did not know how to list a ref. Could you please let me know how I should do this? Best, Lisa Applewhite Kimbell (redacted) Apple1954 (talk) 17:12, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Apple1954 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You cannot reference yourself, because Wikipedia summarizes what published reliable sources that can be verified state. There needs to be such a source for family information in order to include it in an article. 331dot (talk) 17:16, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

@Apple1954 Wikipedia has a core policy that everything written in articles must be able to be verified by its readers from the cited sources. Thus whatever you happen to know but has not been published in such a source cannot be in an article here. I will revert your addition in a moment and place some further information on your Talk Page. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:18, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

How do you prove that you are the daughter of someone you are trying to write about, and/or is this a conflict of interest? Apple1954 Apple1954 (talk) 17:25, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Apple1954 We don't necessarily need you to prove you are who you say you are- but you do likely have a conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 17:29, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it is almost certainly a conflict of interest; but apart from the question of conflict of interest, it is usually irrelevant whether you are the daughter. Wikipedia articles should be neutral summaries of what independent reliable published sources say about the subject. In principle the subject's daughter can do that as well as anybody else, but it may be difficult for her to confine herself to what the published sources say, especially when they appear to say something different from her memories. ColinFine (talk) 17:30, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Dear ColinFine,

Thank you, for the information. BTW, you write beautifully!

Best,

Apple1954 Apple1954 (talk) 17:41, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Apple1954 It seems to me that you don't have to prove that you ARE the daughter; you only have to document the existence of the daughter. And actually, it's probably better done by someone who is not the daughter. Uporządnicki (talk) 15:19, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Lisa. For notes, we often use the template {{efn}}, which is the approach used in Charlie's article. If you're new to Wikipedia, that is quite esoteric! I'm just mentioning it so that you may know how explanatory footnotes are created, though I realize it's not your primary concern. I hope you can find a source that mentions your name. An offline obituary maybe? Our article does say that he had two daughters, but I can't access the supporting sources to see whether names are mentioned. ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 22:06, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello.

Hello there, I would like to know, how do I join this lovely place? Kind regards, H2Perkins. H2Perkins (talk) 16:29, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

It seems you already have. All you have to do now is make edits that improve the encyclopedia. Fix errors when you see them or add content based on reliable sources. What I suggest you don't do is ruin pages that you don't like, like you did on the talk page for Brazil. We're happy to have you here as long as your edits are helpful. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:14, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Oops - editor now blocked for making unconstructive edits (per filter log). Nick Moyes (talk) 23:08, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

How to edit Wikipedia Article

Please any one can teach me how to edit wikipedia article in simple way. Hey Samsung (talk) 14:35, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

You can start at Help:Introduction. - David Biddulph (talk) 14:41, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Oh dear. User now blocked as a WP:SOCKPUPPET. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:10, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Gopal Tamang and Sabina Bajagain

Can any one create about Gopal Tamang and Sabina Bajagain article in Wikipedia for some information in people Hey Samsung (talk) 15:16, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Hey Samsung I get the sense that English may not be your primary language; have you considered editing the version of Wikipedia that is in your primary language? 331dot (talk) 15:19, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Are you go to create Wikipedia Article about Gopal Tamang and Sabina Bajagain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hey Samsung (talk • contribs) 15:26, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

I personally am not going to; you may request it at Requested articles but there are many thousands of requests there, and it may be a long time. Could you answer my question please? 331dot (talk) 15:31, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Indef blocked as sock. David notMD (talk) 23:34, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

youtuber wikipedia article

if your a youtuber what number of subscibers do you need in order to have a wikipedia article Joel clements is D E A D (talk) 02:18, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Finn McCool (youtuber) echidnaLives - talk - edits 02:21, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

It's not based on number of subscribers, it's based on WP:CREATOR. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:22, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Can I post pictures I took of a singer during their concert to their Wikipedia page?

Hello. I follow a singer whose page's photos haven't been updated in awhile. If I have a great photo of him that I own the copyright to (because I took it during one his concerts) am I allowed to post it on his page, including replacing the current photo in his page's infobox? I know that I'd have to upload the image to the Wikimedia Commons first. I understand the technicalities pretty well; I need advice on the legalities. Thanks. Kirkdudley (talk) 03:27, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello @Kirkdudley, welcome to the teahouse! You can use these images, but generally they should be high-quality enough that the musician is recognisable. So, if you were close-ish to the stage and got a good quality picture, great! But if you were at the back and can barely make them out in the image, maybe not... But, there is no guideline/policies based on this, just a community norm.

Thanks, echidnaLives - talk - edits 04:09, 27 November 2022 (UTC).

Thanks! Kirkdudley (talk) 04:24, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

@Kirkdudley: Images should be posted on Wikimedia Commons, and into a Wikipedia article from there. You won't be able to post them directly into Wikipedia. Also, please be selective - each picture should highlight something from the article, not just "here are a hundred pictures I took".--Gronk Oz (talk) 05:36, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

how to add musical artist information in wikipedia?

Recently I send a new craft about our musical group 'popeye(band)'. But it's declined because of "not adequately supported by reliable sources". How can I fix this problem? Agentsame (talk) 08:01, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Agentsame Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. First, please review conflict of interest for information on how to disclose your relationship with the band on your user page. Wikipedia is not a place for bands to tell the world about themselves, and were mere existence warrants a mention. This is an encyclopedia with criteria for inclusion, called notability- in particular, the definition of a notable band. An article about a band must not merely describe the band and the music it has produced. It must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the band, showing how it meets that special definition of notability. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 08:10, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! It helped a lot. Agentsame (talk) 09:34, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Another question regarding sourcing and adding references

Hello, I have another question relating to the same article as before : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shintaro_Ishihara#Books_written_by_Ishihara in this an editor has added an template asking for sourcing to be added to the bibliography of Shintaro Ishihara. Does Wikipedia require a list of books authored by a certain person to be sourced from secondary sources, because by what I can tell most western authors' books on here are either referenced by their ISBN code or have sources added only if their books won an award. I am pretty confused. What steps can I take to help add references for the books? Thank you again for your help. Wpakxl (talk) 00:58, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

My first reaction, Wpakxl, was "Of course that's not necessary"; but I took a look at the list and yes it does need referencing. Not "<ref>blah blah</ref>" referencing, but referencing all the same. For any book whose first edition has an ISBN, provide the ISBN. For any whose first edition does not, provide the NCID or a good OCLC or (better) both for that first edition. There's your referencing done. And of course it's not merely referencing: it helps readers locate the books. (Here's a model.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:58, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

PS, Wpakxl, strictly speaking, an ISBN is not a reference. The ISBN for a book doesn't even prove that a book matching the ISBN even exists. However, a typical ISBN can be used for finding bibliographical information for a real-world edition of a book. Somebody could reasonably question the accuracy, usefulness or validity of this or that particular ISBN, but I don't think that they could reasonably claim that a set of demonstrably valid ISBNs for a writer with print runs as large as Ishihara's was insufficient evidence for the existence of those editions. -- Hoary (talk) 12:30, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello and thanks for your reply. I will do as you say. I wanted to ask if there is a need for the bibliography to be in the form of a table like something over at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_King_bibliography or is the current format sufficient? Also, as I can clearly see you have sufficient experience in editing pages related to Japanese culture, would it be fine if I could come to your talk page to ask your for any doubts I might have? Again, thanks a lot for your advice. Wpakxl (talk) 02:38, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Wpakxl, I don't like the King bibliography: the complexity of its layout seems quite unnecessary, and the fact that it's tabular greatly increases the amount of scrolling that's needed. Other editors here may well have very different opinions. One thing that doesn't satisfy me about the Ishihara bibliography is that the status of many of the English titles isn't clear. When this is on a book published in Japan, is this an alternative, English-language title that actually appears in or on the book (as frequently happens for all-Japanese-language books), or is it a nonce translation by a Wikipedia editor? You're welcome to ask me questions; but if these are about a specific article it's better to ask them to nobody in particular on that article's talk page, and if you don't get helpful answers, then to ping me to get my attention. -- Hoary (talk) 11:10, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Help understanding copyright

Hi,

Dumb question maybe but I want to add an English translation to this page.

I got my edit reverted because I didn't cite my source. I realize that is bad practice so sorry :)

Someone on this website insists they own the copyright to the translation.

Clearly the translation there was verbatim copied from a comment 7 years earlier on a imperial Japan reenactment forum.

Are forum comments in the public domain?

Thanks,

Rishi RishiKakade (talk) 21:20, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

@RishiKakade: No, forum posts are not usally in the public domain. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, wether the translation was copied from lyrictranslate.com or tapatalk.com is a distinction without a difference since neither has any evidence on it that its freely licensed, and Wikipedia assumes things to be under standard "all rights reserved" copyright unless there is evidence to the contrary. (Courtesy Ping DanCherek as the revdelling admin) Additionally, translations are derivative works, so there are actually two copyrights to consider, the copyright of the original work (I am not an expert at Japanese Copyright, but if the song was released in 1885 its probbably PD now) and the copyright of the translation (which is still copyrighted). Victor Schmidt (talk) 21:57, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Welcome to the Teahouse, RishiKakade, and thanks for your question. I'm afraid that forum contents are not in the public domain (unless there is a specific and clearly-stated agreement that those who post to it are releasing their words under a Creative Commons commercial license, just as we do here. That would be quite unusual, I suspect, and so the content would be the copyright of the person who posted those comments. But there is a bigger issue here - discussion forums are not seen as reliable sources because anyone can post anything to them without any editorial oversight. Therefore we do not permit them as sources, just as we don't accept personal blogs and personal websites, or self-published vanity books. I don't know enough about translations from Japanese to English to know whether there would be intellectual copyright on a high quality translation. The song you want to write about is clearly long past any copyright issue. I might have to leave that for others to comment on. But because it is a simple matter of copying the Japanese into Googler translate and coming up with a poor, but workable translation, I wonder whether it would be best not to include any translation in the article at all, and let readers do it for themselves until such time as a reliably-sourced, high-quality translation can be cited. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:06, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

A quick check online shows that human-made translations are copyrighted, regardless of quality. For translations on public domain text like in this, the copyright is usually held by the translator. – robertsky (talk) 02:43, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Just a comment, Nick Moyes, an appreciable number of forums state in their terms and conditions that the copyright of any text posted belongs to the forum, not to the person who posted it. This makes logical sense as the forum owner may wish to protect themselves from someone mirroring the entire forum, and if posting is anonymous, sorting out who owns the copyright would otherwise by quite tricky. A lot of forum users have absolutely no idea of this, and don't bother reading the small print. It's generally not a big problem, but I've seen it become an issue in a self-help forum where one particularly regular poster was considering using her accumulated posts as the foundation for writing a book, and was a bit shocked to realise she needed the forum owner's consent! Elemimele (talk) 12:10, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

No eps for Season 14 of Barney and Friends?

Can someone fix this? What user did this? 174.27.66.83 (talk) 15:51, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

For some reason it was removed over a year ago with this edit by @One-Winged Devil. ––FormalDude (talk) 16:01, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Help to get to neutral tone

Greetings:

I would appreciate a second look at this page Draft:Norma Jean to help point out anything that needs editing to meet the Wikipedia standards. Angelagh (talk) 13:42, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

@Angelagh Welcome to the Teahouse, and thank you for declaring your paid connection to Norma Jean. Where did you get the information about her early life and career from? Most of that content is unavailable in the cited sources, so please delete them. We don't want to know what the subject says about themselves and their backgrounds - only what reliable sources have written about that person. There are far too many External Links; one official website and one social media account will suffice.

In essence, collate only what others have already published about this person, and ensure you cite each of them properly. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:48, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes THANK YOU! I see your point! I missed where I was referencing that information. I have removed it now. I also removed several external links. I'm open to any other recommendations as well as if it is perhaps at the point to be accepted for publication. Angelagh (talk) 15:05, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Oh - I found some of that content, but that raises another issue, now. Never do what you did here and copy paste from other websites (https://normajeanactress.wordpress.com/about/). That content is copyright of its authors (even if that person is you), and would need to be rewritten to have a more encyclopaedic tone of voice and not to closely paraphrase the original in any way. Not only that, the information comes from the subject's own website, and is not acceptable for Wikipedia. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:07, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes I just realized I didn't publish the latest changes where I removed a lot of the content. Hopefully the latest edits have removed the questionable material. thanks again! Angelagh (talk) 16:18, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

2011 Los Angeles Angels season correction

Hello. Please go to above article. Scroll down to pitchers section. I dont know how to seperate from hitters section, should be individual box by itself. Need help. Please fix. Thank you.Theairportman33531 (talk) 13:46, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I believe I made the change you wanted, let me know 2011 Los Angeles Angels season Angelagh (talk) 14:24, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, however, one more thing. Where it says Pitching statistics; move that all the way to the left, please. Thank you for your help.Theairportman33531 (talk) 16:07, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

@Theairportman33531 It is left aligned now :) Angelagh (talk) 16:24, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

How to find Reliable Sources On A Subject with not much Information

I am a new editor and tried to make a draft on “Simon Barrett” Sadly I could not find any reliable source as the decent ones were “LinkedIn” and “Find and update company info service” which are not moderated, Any Help?

Read My Draft Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Simon_Barratt Im Following The Username Policy (talk) 15:30, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid that if you (who are the one who is interested in writing about Simon Barratt) cannot find any reliable independent sources, it is likely that he does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. (I'm extremely dubious that Four Door Lemon meets those criteria either. It was created in 2009, when we were less careful about standards).

Note that writing a single word of an article before finding the reliable sources is usually a waste of time, because either the sources aren't there and the subject isn't notable, or if the sources are there, it's quite likely to need to be rewritten from scratch according to what the sources say. See WP:BACKWARD. ColinFine (talk) 16:14, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

OK, thank you, I'll make sure to take note. Im Following The Username Policy (talk) 16:39, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Black hat

Black hat (computer security) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamaal5 (talk • contribs) 17:31, 27 November 2022 (UTC) please look at the edit, it uses Wikipedia as a source multiple times, and Wikipedia is clearly not a reliable source in and of itself — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamaal5 (talk • contribs) 17:19, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

@Jamaal5 - Though the vandalism warnings were indeed quite inappropriate (WP:BITE, anyone?), you did remove a lot more then just the Wikipedia citations. casualdejekyll 17:53, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Jamaal5, and welcome to the Teahouse. You're right that Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and cannot be used as a reference. However, deleting the reference while leaving the text in the article is not helpful. Either the information can be found in a reliable source, in which case cite that; or it can't, in which case the information should be removed from the article.

In fact, the sentence you removed the reference from in your last edit, is copied from the article white hat (computer security), where it has proper references. A more helpful thing to do would be to copy the citations from that article. ColinFine (talk) 17:56, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Healthcare Campaigns

I apologize if I am in the wrong place.

There is a need for a page indexing all Wikipedia-listed health campaigns, it would be useful for public officials, nonprofits, researchers, and providers.

For instance, there are these one-issue campaigns:

March of Dimes

Easter Seals

Pink Ribbon

Jerry Lewis Telethon

Great American Smokeout

How many more are there?

At the same time, there are multi-issue, regional/state-wide/nation-wide/worldwide campaigns, which are so important, but many of which do not have a Wikipedia page:

2019 Arizona State Health Assessment https://directorsblog.health.azdhs.gov/public-healths-10-essential-services/

Virginia Well-Being https://virginiawellbeing.com/

Blueprint for Coachella Valley: https://coachellavalleyweekly.com/blueprint-for-the-coachella-valley/

I thought about trying to start this myself, but just simple Wikipedia edits take me over an hour... if someone wants to work with me, contact me. Thanks. BooksXYZ (talk) 19:04, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

BooksXYZ Hello. This sort of comment may be better suited to the Village Pump. That said, most of those articles are members of categories that seem to be similar to what you are suggesting(such as Category:Health charities in the United States). Are you proposing a new category? 331dot (talk) 19:07, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

@BooksXYZ: We also have Category:Health campaigns but based on your examples you may not have the normal meaning of health campaign in mind. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:28, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Someone called Materialscientist stated my edit "did not appear constructive" and amended it, Why?

Why is Materialscientist allowed to edit my statement because it doesn't suit him/her and mentioned it "did not appear constructive", so because it does not "appear" to suit his/her idealogy they are allowed to negate my opinion? 175.38.119.96 (talk) 12:26, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

It looks like you edited an article but didn't cite any sources for your addition. Please read WP:CITE and WP:RS so when you add to articles you can reference where the fact comes from. Thanks. Glen (talk) 12:32, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

IP editor, you should not put "opinions" in Wikipedia. David10244 (talk) 14:33, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. The other thing you need to read, beside what Glen pointed you at, is BRD, to see why Materialscientist's reversion was not personal, but absolutely central to the way Wikipedia works. ColinFine (talk) 16:01, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Remember: "anyone can edit" means "anyone can undo your edit if they don't think it's an improvement". DS (talk) 20:20, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

@175.38.119.96: your only Wikipedia contribution (apart from asking this question) has been this one, so I assume that is what you are refering to. It makes quite a controversial claim without giving any source to support it. Your next step should be to go to the Talk page of that article and outline why that statement should be included, backed up by reliable sources. All concerned editors can then discuss it and agree what to do.--Gronk Oz (talk) 22:13, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

The stock exchange release is not a reliable source according to Wikipedia?

Why does Wikipedia not accept stock exchange releases as reliable sources? Unlike many newspapers, which are accepted as reliable sources, the text of stock exchange releases must be pure fact. If misleading information is given, the company may come under investigation and face serious problems in addition to reputational damage. I can well understand that a company's press release, which is often more like an advertisement, is not accepted as a reliable source, but a stock exchange release is one that is monitored by the market authorities.

The financial information of all companies listed on Wikipedia is taken from their stock exchange releases (financial statements). Similarly, news about companies is mainly based on the company's stock exchange releases. Science tends to refer to the original source rather than a source that refers to it, but Wikipedia considers the original source to be unreliable because the information comes from the company itself. In contrast, if a politically active journalist makes a newspaper story about it, which reports the story from the angle he wants in a major newspaper, suddenly that source becomes reliable?

I am referring to an article I did about a company founded in 2005, formerly focused on developing clean technology companies, which decided in 2021 to focus on one of its businesses, manufacturing energy-saving filters, and to sell its other holdings. The company changed its name to reflect this company this month. There are few reliable articles on the subject other than the company's stock exchange filings and for what the company does, the information is taken from their website. The article cannot be published on Wikipedia until some reliable sources have reported on it, because the official information from the company itself is considered as unreliable source? The article is here: Eagle Filters Group Senjasenkaappi (talk) 20:54, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Senjasenkaappi Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia is not interested in official information from a company, at least to establish notability(for a company). Wikipedia primarily summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a company. A company is free to speak about itself on its own website and social media. 331dot (talk) 21:04, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

@Senjasenkaappi I don't think that the issue is about the reliability of the sources in this case, because as you say these are subject to overview by the relevant authorities. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia which limits its content based on notability, not just mere existence. I could write a draft about myself that was entirely accurate, and so could seven billion other people. The criteria for an article here requires WP:INDEPENDENT WP:SECONDARY reliable sources which is why most of us have to use social media with less stringent rules. Mike Turnbull (talk) 21:09, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Senjasenkaappi. Material published by a regulated stock exchange may be reliable, but it is not independent because the purpose of the stock exchange is to buy and sell various stocks. What is required to establish notability is significant coverage that is both reliable and fully independent of the topic. Cullen328 (talk) 21:15, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

That's not entirely true. Stock exchange releases must provide investors with relevant information about the company if the situation has changed from before. This can have a positive, neutral or negative effect on the company's share price, but that is for the market to decide.Senjasenkaappi (talk) 10:22, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

You may include a stock exchange release. But it won't help establish that the company is notable.   Maproom (talk) 21:18, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

In this case, the company was set up in 2005. Its original idea was to own clean technology companies. The company the company decided to focus their business on has been developing filter materials since 1995. The company is listed on stock exchanges in two different countries. The fact that the company has been operating under its current name and in its current form since 14 November 2022 means that there have not yet been many articles about it, especially as it operates in Finland and publishes in English, which means that Finnish journalists, who are mainly interested in the subject, have to translate them into Finnish instead of copy-pasting them. It's apparently ok if I change the references in the article from English to the Finnish article behind the paywall instead of the orignal English release from the company? Especially as the editor seems to have translated using Google Translate? It is quite ridiculous that it is insisted that information from the company itself is always unreliable in Wikipedia, but when published in a reliable financial journal by a lazy journalist, the same thing becomes reliable, because the journal itself is a source known to be reliable and the journalist has assessed the reliability of the article. Senjasenkaappi (talk) 22:29, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Switching to rewritten press releases (that is, churnalism), won't help either. You need 3 or so sources that have been written independently. No one has said that that information from the company itself is always unreliable in Wikipedia - it just does not build the case for notability. We need some indication that people aside from the company itself and/or lazy journalists reposting press releases have decided this company is important enough to write about it. MrOllie (talk) 22:35, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Such a limitation is an excellent barrier to publication, because there are two major sources of financial news in Finland (Kauppalehti and Arvopaperi), so there will not be at least three. Or, in some sexy area, other magazines are also writing about it, but when was the last time you needed energy-saving gas turbine filters for your home? Senjasenkaappi (talk) 23:00, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

You assume that those two publications have a duopoly on reporting on companies. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 00:07, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Well, of course not, but the fact that it hasn't been reported by other media. The two are also co-authoring each other's articles and publishing them at the same time. It's much easier to find articles about something on Twitter or Facebook from different media, even women's magazines. The mechanical autism that company stock market reports are not reliable sources is Wikipedia's bad fault. Have you read the article? Why is the information that the trading symbol and name will change on xx day so unreliable as self-reported by the company that some media should have reported it to be reliable?Senjasenkaappi (talk) 10:03, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

You have already been told that it's not that stock reports are unreliable, but that they cannot be used to establish notability as they are not independent sources- they are the company speaking about themselves. In terms of establishing notability, Wikipedia wants to know what others say about the company on their own, not based on materials from the company. If no independent sources speak about the company, it wouldn't merit a Wikipedia article. 331dot (talk) 10:10, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

@Senjasenkaappi: Your English Wikipedia account is only a few days old and so far all of your edits have been related to trying to create an article or edit content about this particular company. Is that the only reason why you decided to create an English Wikipedia account? Are you connected to this company in some way? Were you asked or otherwise tasked by the company to create an English Wikipedia article about it? If you're connected to the company in some way, then that's OK; however, the more transparent you are about any such connection, the easier it will be for others to help you. Being connected to something doesn't mean you can't try and create a Wikipedia article about it, but there are certain policies and guidelines that you'll need to be aware of in order to avoid having problems when you try to do so. Is your draft a translation of fi:Eagle Filters Group? The formatting looks very similar. Translating articles from other language Wikipedias is allowed, but once again there are specific policies and guidelines that need to be complied with when doing so. Once again, the more transparent you are about these types of things, the easier it will be for someone to help you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:51, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

The reason I created the account was because I can't upload files without it (like the company logo). I usually edit Wikipedia anonymously because I like the idea that everyone can contribute and improve articles. I am not affiliated with the company in any way. I work in the energy sector, so I am familiar with gas turbines through that, and I know that the filter solution they have developed over a quarter of a century is one of the best in the world and reduces greenhouse emissions that way. Yes, the article is a direct translation I made from the Finnish article.Senjasenkaappi (talk) 12:43, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

​​​​​​ Thank you Senjasenkaappi for clarifying that your draft is a translation of the Finnish Wikipedia article. Translating articles from other language Wikipedias into English for possible inclusion in English Wikipedia is allowed, but it needs to be done in accordance with WP:TRANSLATE. There are a number of things you need to be aware of when doing such a thing. The first is that Wikipedia's general licensing requires that any reuse of textual content be properly attributed in order for it to not be considered a copyright violation, and this includes content translated from a non-English Wikipedia to English Wikipedia or vice versa. The reason for this is because the copyright owners of textual content are, for the most part, the persons who create or edit such content and not the Wikimedia Foundation. Although everyone who edits any Wikipedia page on any language Wikipedia is agreeing to release their contributions under Wikipedia's general licensing each time they click the "Publish changes" button, they are still considered to retain the copyright over such content. If you translate their content into English, you're creating a WP:Derivative work perhaps, but you still need to properly attributed the original non-English article for it to not be considered a WP:COPYVIO.

Assuming that your Finnish is good enough to translate the article into English (machine translations are considered unacceptable per WP:MACHINETRANSLATION), then the next thing you need to understand is that just because an article exists on Finnish Wikipedia is not a reason in and of itself for the same or a similar article to exist on English Wikipedia. Each language Wikipedia is a distinct project with its own community of editors as well as its own policies and guidelines. Since English Wikipedia is the largest of the various Wikipedia and it has the largest community of editors, many of its policies and guidelines have been adopted many by other language Wikipedias; so, there might be lots of overlapping in certain areas. There can, on the other hand, also be some important differences not only in the specific wording of a policy or guideline, but also in how rigorously it's being enforced. You're going to need to clearly establish that the company your draft is about meets WP:NCORP in order for the draft to be accepted as an article. In particular, you're going to need to show that reliable secondary sources have been giving it significant coverage per WP:CORPDEPTH for it to be considered notable for a stand-alone article to be written about it. This is a really big hurdle to WP:OVERCOME, but it's what you're going to be expected to do in order for your draft to be accepted.

Each language Wikipedia also tends to have different style guidelines as well and English Wikipedia articles needs to be written in accordance with its WP:MOS. For example, the coloring used in the table in your draft might be OK for Finnish Wikipedia, but it seems a bit odd per MOS:COLOR. Another example is where references are added with respect to punctuation as explained in WP:REFPUNC: English Wikipedia wants them added after punctuation for the most part. English Wikipedia also doesn't really use commas in place of decimal points as explained in MOS:DECIMAL. So, there might be differences in style between English and Finnish Wikipedia that you'll need to cleanup if you're able to resolve the notability questions.

You mentioned that you created an account because you want to upload the company's logo. Assuming this logo is thee same one you uploaded locally to Finnish Wikipedia as "non-free content", then I don't think it's complex enough to be eligible for copyright protection under US copyright law per c:COM:TOO United States as well as under Finnish copyright law per c:COM:TOO Finland. So, the file you uploaded could mostly likely be moved to Wikipedia Commons. You probably should check at c:COM:VPC just to make sure, but it should be OK for Commons. If it is, there will be no need for you to re-upload the logo to English Wikipedia since you can just use the Commons file instead.

Finally, you mentioned that you usually edit Wikipedia anonymously which I'm assuming means you edit using an IP address. That's perfectly OK, but it's not as anonymous as you might think since an IP address can often be geolocated and is visible to anyone who wants to see it. So, you might've actually been providing others with more information about who you are than you would've been doing with a registered account. You also should be aware that English Wikipedia has a strict policy against using multiple accounts in an inappropriate way and some examples of this are given in WP:SOCK. I'm going to assume that 62.78.251.132 isn't you, but you also need to be very careful with WP:MEAT if you did post on some off-Wikipedia forum seeking assistance from others to try and help get your draft accepted. Such an approach is pretty much never viewed favorably by the English Wikipedia community. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:58, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you @Marchjuly for for your very thorough reply, which showed that you have read the article carefully!

Should I somehow indicate in the article that it is a translation?

This company has made a significant improvement in air intake filters, which provide an average 2% increase in efficiency for gas turbines. The problem with the company's industry is that it is mainly covered in energy trade magazines, as their customers are energy companies and they have virtually no consumer products other than FFP2/FF3 masks, which are also mainly aimed at professionals. You probably don't know which company made the seat belts and airbags for your car, but it's almost certainly Autoliv, which you've hardly ever heard of. A 2% improvement in gas turbine efficiency may not sound like much, but with the price of gas multiplying and one kWh of gas costing around €0.34 to produce, that's a significant amount of money. A 400 MW gas turbine can produce 8 MW/h more electricity with more air permeable filters. That's an extra €2720 per hour, €65 280 per day and €23.8 million per year.

I corrected the comments on the colouring and commas. I removed all the colouring. It was done by somebody in the Finnish Wikipedia and it's not quite ok there either.

I agree about the complexity of the logo. I'll upload it to Commons.

I usually only make minor corrections and updates to articles, so that's why I haven't had time to "log in". Today I had to boot my router and apparently I have to make changes while logged in for now, because my new IP address is blocked in all Wikipedias.

There has been some discussion online about the fact that the company's Wikipedia page has been updated. There had been calls for a rewrite, as the information was in line with the previous company structure and was no longer accurate. In the same context, there have been questions about when the English version will be available. For example, Google uses Wikipedia articles to introduce companies. They have not yet updated the information to reflect the new name, as it is likely to be added manually rather than automatically. For example, for Eagle Filters Group, the reading the page from Finland appears in Finnish and from Sweden in Swedish. In English, the start of the Wikipedia page is not displayed at all: [https://www.google.com/finance/quote/EAGLE:HEL]. Senjasenkaappi (talk) 19:45, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

You can provide attribution for your translation by using the template {{Translated page}} on the article's talk page as explained in WP:TFOLWP. That should be sufficient for Wikipedia's licensing purposes. The other stuff about the logo, coloring and decimal points are things that are not really related to the WP:NCORP of the company and shouldn't really impact whether the draft is ultimately accepted; they were good to cleanup, but they could've been cleaned up at any point in time. You should always try to log in to you account when you edit, particularly to avoid editing the same page with different accounts. I you want to use an IP for some things, then that's OK; however, it's a very bad idea to do so on the same page unless you're quite clear that the IP is you. Good luck with the draft. Even if it's declined for being WP:TOOSOON, perhaps things will change in the near future if the company continues to do good things. A company doesn't need to be written about on Wikipedia to be considered a good company; in fact, some companies might prefer not to be written about on Wikipedia because they have pretty much zero editorial control over what's written.-- Marchjuly (talk) 23:30, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

declined Articles

Hello, I know an entrepreneur in the country I live in. available in all media and newspapers. everyone knows him. I wanted to introduce it to the whole world, but it was rejected. can you please help with this? All references are available on their website. Yasirazeri (talk) 06:50, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the teahouse~ This is the English Wikipedia, so we can't take submissions that are written in other languages (like Turkish). You may be interested in submitting it at the Turkish Wikipedia which, as the name suggests, is written in Turkish, however I am unsure of the processes there (it might be the same, it might be different.) Some policies and guidelines may also be different. Good luck! echidnaLives - talk - edits 07:03, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Thanks for suggests . Have nice day Yasirazeri (talk) 07:13, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

How to upload non-free files but use pay to upload?

but mostly non free files but using Advanced Wikimedia package upload to 4 files (Unadvanced User) upload to 8 files (Bronze User) upload to 16 files (Silver User) upload to 32 files (Gold User) upload to 64 or more (Platinum User) but free files outside Commons Can we upload at all. if Wikipedia users to me. 2001:44C8:41B2:5744:F8F8:7563:F7F6:750D (talk) 07:54, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi. Is this suggesting that you have been paid to upload files? 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 07:58, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I think it's suggesting that users should be allowed to upload non-free files if they pay Wikipedia. Maproom (talk) 08:05, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Oh right. Commons is for free files. On English Wikipedia you upload non-free files..? Note that the "free" means "freedom to reuse/redistribute/re-edit". Not free as in not paid. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 08:07, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Alternatively the suggestion may be how can someone buy the copyright to some images and then donate them to Wikipedia under an open licence. If that's the case you can upload them on Wikimedia Commons and then email the permission information to us per the instructions at commons:Commons:Volunteer Response Team ϢereSpielChequers 08:20, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Notability

Is the page Rekha Kamat notable enough to be included on Wikipedia? It is hard for me to tell for sure, but I have doubts. It mostly shows birth date, death date, family information about father, and a list of plays and films (most of which don’t have wikilink) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamaal5 (talk • contribs) 01:49, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

It is not the article (not "page", please) that needs to be notable, but the subject. The job of the article is to demonstrate that notability.

That said, I agree with you that the article does not, yet, demonstrate Rekha Kamat's notability. However, I would have expected that someone with such an extensive acting career, as evidenced by the list of her appearances, would be notable – i.e. that over the years sufficient material about her had been published in independent reliable sources. Someone needs to hunt down that material and add summaries of it to the article, with citations. Some of the sources already cited look as if they ought to contain a good deal of such material, but someone able to read Marathi (I cannot) would have to assess their contents and reliability.

Since the article was only created 2 days ago (by Morekar), there is ample scope for its improvement. Still, it might have been better to have created it as a Draft and expanded it at leisure, rather than as an Article which is immediately scrutinized and held up to higher standards.

Incidentally, the information about her father is, in my opinion, irrelevant and should be removed. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 176.249.29.80 (talk) 08:59, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Question about a edit dispute on PragerU between admin

I did edits on prageru based on their own sources of PragerU, these edits were reverted by an admin who told me PragerU couldn’t be used as a source for who’s the CEO for PragerU, I tried disputing this using wp:ABOUTSELF and telling him it’s used as the source itself but he told me I have no idea what I’m talking about and to stop messaging him

the current version he reverted to still uses the source and falsely references the information, as well as other issues

My edits he reverted https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1124154266 my CEO edit he later reverted https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1124155209

the exact conversation was this

Me: “Your reverting edits based on false merits due to self published sources being allowed on information about themselves wp:ABOUTSELF, which itself is already used in the article”

Him: “You seem to have no idea what you're talking about. Kindly stop messaging me”

the other message I sent he ignored which was: “Use the talk page for your reverts on PragerU your keeping false information up and misplacing information in the wrong tab”

Am I wrong? What did I get wrong? If he’s wrong can I still do nothing about it since he’s an admin? Bobisland (talk) 17:10, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Your edit wasn't reverted because of WP:SPS, but because you added an external link to the body of the article, which generally should not be done. Help:Referencing for beginners explains how to add sources correctly. Also, FormalDude is not an administrator. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 17:24, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Bobisland. Welcome to the Teahouse, and thank you for wanting to improve Wikipedia. That is welcome, but you need to learn how to do it properly according to our procedures - and getting reverted is part of that learning. Please read WP:Bold, revert, discuss which explains that that is the way that Wikipedia is developed. As Medline says, FormalDude is not an admin (if you look at their user page User:FormalDude, they actually say so, explicitly). But they are an experienced editor who understands what is and what is not accepted in a Wikipedia article. ColinFine (talk) 17:36, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

How is he able to decide whether a article is approved or not? Is this a separate Wikipedia given role outside of administrators or is this something any user can do? Bobisland (talk) 17:27, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Anyone can undo anyone else's edits, though keep in mind the edit warring policy. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 17:30, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "approved" (except in specific senses - eg a draft can be reviewed and accepted into the main part of the encyclopaedia), and no article is ever finished. But individual changes can be reverted by other editors, either because they are contrary to policy, or because (in the opinion of the reverting editor) they are not an improvement to the article. See WP:BRD that I linked to above. ColinFine (talk) 17:38, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I was referencing the quote on his profile “I frequently review articles for creation and patrol articles for deletion.”

And with external links it’s a blanket ban relating to biographies in the body including the infobox? And What do I do if someone ignores going to a talk page to dispute editorializing? Bobisland (talk) 18:38, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

And dispute other edits as the user is reverting edits based on false reasons and giving new ones when corrected, with an example calling the placement of who’s the CEO of a company wp:UNDUE in a lead, I told him to use the talk page to dispute these edits but he ignored me and I don’t know what to do about it, can he revert new edits while ignoring consensus disputes about his reverts? Bobisland (talk) 19:32, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

• @Bobisland: The one who needs to establish consensus is the one that wants to add or restore material. Otherwise, it seems to me that your exact dispute with FormalDude is one day old, that you are both civil, and that you could find the talk page - you can wait for a bit to see if someone else intervenes, or else follow the standard steps of the dispute resolution process. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 09:43, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Infobox

Can I get some help adding an infobox to the thoropa taophora page? I figured it out for the Civil Rights Movement pages, but I'm having trouble finding an appropriate infobox flavor for this one. Jamaal5 (talk) 03:04, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I believe the appropriate flavor is template:speciesbox, but I can't find the base code. Jamaal5 (talk) 03:08, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

There's some instructions here: Template:Speciesbox#Usage. - Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 07:00, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

You might consider borrowing one from one of the other species of Thoropa, taking care to change all the information particular to the species. The other species should not be difficult to find since, just a few seconds ago, I added the article to the Category for Thoropa. I also changed the statement that it's a "subgroup" of the genus; it's a species. And it didn't need to say that it's a species of Thoropa, since that's inherent in the scientific name; much more informative to mention the family. Uporządnicki (talk) 14:04, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

How to do this?

In Free State of Jones (film), in the Premise section is a quotation that begins, "based on the books." The quotation names two books and places them in both single quotes and italics. The Wikipedia version omitted the single quotes, so I added them. But, when a single quote is next to the italics code consisting of two vertical lines, then we have three vertical lines on each side, which bold the words in between them instead of placing the words in single quotes and italics. Therefore, I inserted an extra space between the single quote and the italics code consisting of two vertical lines, but that isn't good. How do we handle this? Maurice Magnus (talk) 23:13, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Use nowiki tags. I already did so on the article, so you can see the code. Sungodtemple (talk) 23:23, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Maurice Magnus and Sungodtemple, according to the Manual of Style, book titles are designated by italics and not by punctuation. I have removed the excess markup. Cullen328 (talk) 23:42, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Cullen328, wait! It was a quotation! If this was an error then [sic] tags would be appropriate. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 23:45, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Sungodtemple, we never change the words in a direct quotation, but we bring the typographic formatting into compliance with the MOS. Cullen328 (talk) 23:48, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Cullen328 and Sungodtemple: Yes, we can't change the words in a quotation, and we can't change the punctuation either. Because the sentence we are quoting has the book titles in single quotes and italics, then we must do the same. A "[sic]" is unnecessary to indicate that a punctuation error was in the original, and readers would not know what the "[sic]" referred to.Maurice Magnus (talk) 11:57, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Maurice Magnus, and welcome to the Teahouse. Your opinion does not agree with the documented consensus on Wikipedia: see MOS:CONFORM. If you think that consensus should be changed, you will need to persuade enough other editors. The place to start woukd be either WT:MOS or one of the sections of WP:VP, but frankly I don't think you've much hope. ColinFine (talk) 14:02, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

ColinFine (talk) OK, I will drop the matter. I will point out an exception to what I wrote above. There is an occasion when it is necessary to change the punctuation in a quotation -- this is apart from Wikipedia rules. If we quote something that itself contains a quotation with double quotation marks, then, if we put double quotation marks around what we're quoting, then we must change the internal quotation marks to single. Maurice Magnus (talk) 17:31, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Somehow My Company Website Got Banned From Wikipedia

Hello,

When I understood how Wikipedia works I stopped editing pages and stopped mentioning our company website (scaler.com) on Wikipedia.

I am not sure how but our company website on wikipedia is banned. Is there any reason for this ban? can someone help me remove this ban?

I don't know what to do and I don't know how this all happened. Bikashdaga09 (talk) 11:19, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Bikashdaga09 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Do you mean that your company website is on the spam blacklist? There isn't much you can do about that, unfortunately. 331dot (talk) 11:31, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it is in "Spam blacklist". But my question is, I haven't done any edits since very long on wikipedia and all of sudden this happened. I am totally broke now. I might have lost my Job too because of this. Is there no way to remove this ban? Bikashdaga09 (talk) 11:41, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

As the owner, you don't have to have edited anything. It could have been employees or even non employees. But, requests from a website owner(or their representatives) to remove their site from the list are not accepted. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#Proposed_removals. 331dot (talk) 11:48, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear about your circumstances, but those are outside of our area of concern. 331dot (talk) 11:50, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

scaler.com is globally blacklisted due to a "[m]assive cross-wiki campaign". See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/scaler.com. —Wasell^(T) 🌻🇺🇦 15:22, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

In other words, many accounts and IP addresses tried countless times to add links to scaler.com to many Wikimedia projects. That is spamming and it is not permitted. There is no good reason to have links to that promotional website anywhere on Wikimedia websites, and it is not going to happen. Cullen328 (talk) 18:50, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Can you use your own IMDb site as ref?

I am an actress with an IMDb page and my father is listed on my page, with a paragraph of his career. He has a Wiki page and I wanted to know if I could use IMDb as a ref? Apple1954 Apple1954 (talk) 17:33, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

@Apple1954: IMDB is not considered a reliable source on Wikipedia, see WP:IMDB. Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:40, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Dear victor,

Thank you. Apple1954 (talk) 17:42, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Apple1954 I had driven home to me the reliability--at least for establishing notability (not!)--of IMDB when I discovered that I have a page on IMDB. I had a sort of secondary, but significant--and speaking, and appearing throughout--role in a small independent movie involving a fantasy world and fantasy races from a series of graphic novels. All the actors were body painted according to their particular fantasy race. I myself portrayed a member of one "House" that has chosen to return to nature and forego clothing; we, the actors portraying that particular group, wore ONLY body paint. That movie only ever appeared on Vimeo.com, and it stayed there for a couple of years until Vimeo recently deleted the account--presumably because too many of us were running around naked. I don't consider myself Wikipedia-notable for that. Uporządnicki (talk) 15:29, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Why is IMDB not considered reliable?

@apple1954 I need help contacting a real person here please.Moderator Archer S Morrison (talk) 19:50, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

@Archer S Morrison, see the explanation at WP:IMDB. Can you explain what you mean by "a real person"? Wikipedia has administrators, not moderators; their toolset is used for curbing disruptive behavior. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 19:59, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

@Archer S Morrison IMDb is not considered a reliable source because whatever fact-checking processes they use - if any - are embarrassingly poor, and it's been known to use Wikipedia content itself. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 20:04, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Unexplained deletion of a long standing bio post

Hello. I am hoping someone on this site can help me with a frustrating situation.

The long standing Wikipedia biography post of a well known, and widely published Zen Buddhism author was recently deleted for no apparent reason.

It's possible one of Roshi Joan Sutherland's fans was innocently trying to update her bio, as it had become somewhat dated, and some very rude editor intervened, and as a result completely deleted her bio!

I can't provide a link to her page as it is now gone. Thanks in advance for any help here.

Another fan of Roshi Joan Sutherland 66.129.198.33 (talk) 17:14, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

The article, Joan Iten Sutherland, was deleted after the discussion among editors at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joan Iten Sutherland. DanCherek (talk) 17:17, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. The basic criterion for having an article about a subject in Wikipedia is that the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability - this is not quite the same as the general meaning of the word, and doesnt mean any of "famous", "popular", "important" or "influential" (though it often follows from those). It mostly means that several people, wholly unconnected with the subject, have chosen to publish significant amounts about them in reliable publications: if this has not happened, Wikipedia will not accept an article about them. If you look at the deletion discussion, it was about Sutherland not meeting those criteria.

The fact that the article had been around for a long time is, unfortunately irrelevant. Wikipedia has thousands and thousands of articles which were created before we were as careful about standards as we are now. Since it is entirely a volunteer organisation, it's not anybody's "job" to go through those and weed out the ones that shouldn't be there, so they remain until somebody for some reason decides to take action. Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. ColinFine (talk) 17:47, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. If you do your research, you will see Roshi just released another book this year, "Forests of Every Color", after her last one in 2016.

She has recently been featured in national magazines and on popular Buddhist websites. I don't understand how she gets deleted, when other less prolific authors keep their "privileged" status. Seems like you are discriminating, maybe not intentionally, but in fact you are hurting her reputation. So much for free distribution of important info, worldwide - I think you've lost your way if you are censoring good people, imho. 66.129.198.33 (talk) 15:47, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

It does not matter what YOU think about a subject, only what completely unrelated, reliable sources have to say. Also, if you don't mind me saying, if the lack of a Wikipedia Article is enough to damage her reputation, it probably wasn't stable in the first place. Club On a Sub 20 (talk) 20:43, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Writing a page about a criminal

Several times I wrote drafts about criminals as an anonymous user, but they were all deleted for being "attack pages". How do I prevent this from happening? Ricciardo Best (talk) 10:57, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Ricciardo Best Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. While I don't know which drafts you are referring to- I gather that you made posts telling the world about people you feel are criminals. This is not permitted. If you want to write neutral articles about people who meet Wikipedia's definition of a notable person due to having been convicted by a court of law of having committed a crime, there is a process to go through. You should also review WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLP1E. If the only thing that a person is known for is having been convicted of a single crime, it is doubtful that they would merit an article(unless it is someone like Lee Harvey Oswald or John Wilkes Booth). A career criminal may be different(see El Chapo) but you need extensive coverage in independent reliable sources. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 11:06, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, do make sure that the criminal really is notable first. Most are not, just like most estate-agents are not notable, even if they are good estate agents. To be notable for being a criminal, a criminal needs extended coverage in good secondary sources over a long period of time, not just the run-of-the-mill news reports at the time of the crime. Those involved in the great train robbery, for example, are notable because interest in their crime has been sustained and widespread. Second, make sure you summarise in a balanced way exactly what the sources say. Do not add even the faintest flavour of your own. Do not think for a moment that Wikipedia is here to castigate criminals or right wrongs. It isn't. It's here to give a simple historical record based on sources. We do not give any judgements ourselves. We can only report the moral statements that others have given, and even then we must be careful not to give undue weight to one individual's opinion, and we must give a balanced overview of what the sources genuinely say. Your best bet is to model your efforts on a good-quality article on another notable criminal, such as Ronnie Biggs, but remember, there are very few criminals who merit as much attention as that. And obviously, to be a criminal, the person must have been convicted. Elemimele (talk) 11:12, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Are people who are known to have committed a crime, but were never convicted still considered criminals? --Ricciardo Best (talk) 16:44, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Known by whom? A WP-article on any subject is supposed to cite and summarize WP:RS. See WP:BLPCRIME for some WP-context. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:49, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

@Ricciardo Best: there are very, very few circumstances in which someone who has not been convicted will nevertheless be described in Wikipedia as having committed the crime. The only one I can think of off-hand is where a suspect died before they could be tried, and a respectable number of neutral historians have since written that there is no doubt the suspect committed the crime. But even then, we might have to be a bit cagey and write that it is generally believed that they committed the crime (citing a couple of decent sources). As a rule of thumb, if you are feeling any form of emotion as you write about the person, or as you pose the question here, then you are probably not in a good position to write a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is a terribly amoral place: it doesn't care about right and wrong, it cares only about reflecting good sources in an unbiased way. If you think someone has escaped justice, make your case somewhere else, and if you manage to convince the world, Wikipedia will follow... we are usually last on the scene. Elemimele (talk) 18:44, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Elemimele, I disagree. Wikipedia cares a lot about getting things right, we have an entire policy that is concerned protecting the rights of living persons from edits that get things wrong. And the platform isn't amoral, it cares about editors treating each other with civility. This isn't a 4chan message board. I see the point you are trying to make but please be careful with generalizations that might misrepresent the encyclopedia to new editors. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:27, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Civility and amorality are different things Club On a Sub 20 (talk) 20:35, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

@Liz:, I'm sorry, I should have used clearer language rather than playing with words: I didn't mean immoral, I meant amoral in the sense that we do not make moral stands or moral judgements about our subjects and their views. We never say that someone is good or bad, let alone criminal, in the voice of Wikipedia, no matter how much we think it, and no matter how much we loathe (or love) the ethics of how they live. In this sense, Wikipedia has no "ethics" in that it's not making any ethical or moral decisions of its own. The one thing that we stick to, with absolute rigidity, in article-space, is accurate reflection of reliable sources. Even our policy on living people doesn't promise to refrain from saying nasty things about them. It just says that we will be super-cautious and only say nasty things if we are absolutely sure we can back them up with really good sourcing, and even then only if the things are genuinely highly relevant to that person's notability. But if the sourcing is there, then we do say the nasty things even if it's going to hurt; and that is why we always warn people who want "their" article that having a Wikipedia article isn't necessarily a great idea. I suppose our determination to report with total honesty is a moral decision in itself, but that's about as far as it goes. Behind the scenes, yes, of course we expect civility; but even behind the scenes, Wikipedia is remarkably tolerant of the varied ethics and moralities of its editors. It is one of our best strengths. For example, I personally have quite strong views about fair distribution of wealth, and regard many right-wing politicians as deeply immoral, no better than pick-pockets, but there are right-wing editors here who would disagree with me entirely, and Wikipedia as a community remains firmly aloof, siding with neither of us: it has no moral opinion on the rightness or wrongness of sharing wealth, it only cares what philosophers, politicians and newspapers have said about the subject over the centuries. There is really only a small handful of moral viewpoints that are so abhorrent or intolerant of others that we cannot tolerate them in our community. The point I was trying to make is that Wikipedia is not the place for holding a campaign and righting wrongs, even though someone, somewhere else, ought to be righting them. But as I say, I'm sorry to have created confusion, which is why I've ended up typing a mini-essay - it's an important point and goes to the heart of what we do, and you're quite right: I needed to make myself clear in case readers are misled by my first attempt. Elemimele (talk) 21:01, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Issue Uploading New Photo to Musician Page

I am a manager for an artist who is requesting an updated photo to her page. We have press photos that we commissioned to use and replace the current picture with but each time we upload they are reverted back to the current image. I've added these photos to the wiki database so it's not that. Is there an issue with clearance/credit even if it's been properly credited by the photographer we commissioned? Pyangy (talk) 21:08, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Pyangy, welcome to the Teahouse. Crediting the photographer is not enough. The person who holds the copyright must release it under the appropriate license, in writing, and that permission must be sent by them to Wikimedia Commons (unless you are trying to upload the image locally per our WP:FAIRUSE policy). If you have a contract with the photographer that transferred the copyright to you, then you can do it; if not, they have the copyright to their images and they must do it. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 21:14, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Is this about Banks (singer)? Please read WP:PAID and disclose who your clients are, and who is paying you, so that can be properly noted where it is applicable. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 21:22, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

User edit count

Please, what template, if any, do I use to output my edit count? Thanks. — Python Drink (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2022 (UTC) Python Drink (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello @Python Drink and welcome to the Teahouse! Are you talking about a userbox for your userpage? Helloheart (talk) 22:05, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Um no, @Helloheart, I'm not talking about a ubx. You know the {{NUMBEROF}} that can be used to output the number of user accounts, admins, etc on Wikipedia? Similarly I want a template that would output my edit count—the plain number itself— to my userpage? I hope I was able to make you understand. — Python Drink (talk) 22:14, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Python Drink, and welcome to Wikipedia! Unfortunately, a template that automatically detects edit count does not exist, due to performance reasons. Cheers, 🥒 EpicPickle ^{(he/him | talk)} 22:40, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Adding on to my comment, {{adminstats}} does exists. When placed on a page, Cyberbot I automatically creates a page and updates various statistics for administrators, including edit count. I understand the justification for disallowing non-admins/account creators to use the template (the bot might be overloaded with the amount of users), but it'd be interesting if the bot code is tweaked to allow for a separate version for non-admins (without the deletion, protection, block, etc statistics). I'll post on the operator's talk page. Cheers, 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 00:39, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

@EpicPupper, thanks a lot for your answer. I assume the talk page you're talking you're talking about is Template talk:Adminstats (coz I'd like to be there to see the discussion if there'll be any). Thanks again. — Python Drink (talk) 19:22, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

@Python Drink, I posted on the bot operator's talk page (User talk:Cyberpower678)! Cheers, 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 05:58, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Python Drink, there are user scripts that will show your edit count (and those of other editors) on your main user page and user talk page, right under your username. But it doesn't display these counts in a box, the only editors who will see the counts (along with your permissions and length of time as an editor) are those who have the script installed. Maybe EpicPupper can track the right one down. I know I have the script installed along with a lot of others. But to update my edit count on my user page, I just go into my Contributions and click on the Edit Count link, see what number is displayed on that page and update the userbox on the page manually. Python Drink, your page looks like this. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:34, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

@Python Drink: Hi. I recommend the same script user:Liz is referring to: User:PleaseStand/User info. Not sure what you want exactly, but this script shows the details/edit counts of other users (including yourself) to you. I have been using it since years, and I find it very useful. —usernamekiran (talk) 22:17, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Screenshot from Government Produced Video

I want to upload a screenshot from a video produced by the US government to Wikipedia. Is this alright? What is the copyright status on this gov't produced work? TheManInTheBlackHat (talk) 22:07, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

TheManInTheBlackHat this should be public domain according to WP:Public domain#Works ineligible for copyright protection. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 22:19, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Just going to clarify that it should be OK as long as the part of the video you sceencapture isn't someone else's copyright related work. Videos, even videos created by the US government, do sometimes incorporate content created by others, and this content may be protected by copyright and the government video may be using it under a claim of fair use or may have separately received permission to do so. Either case would not extend to any screenshot taken of the same content for the purpose of being uploaded to Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:31, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Why My page being rejected (article draft declined)

Hello,

I am a Fundraiser, I raise money for my medical treatment. Whydonate.nl help me to raise money thought their platform. WhyDonate is a crowdfunding and fundraising platform based in the Netherlands. When I am checking details about Whydonate, I found that other crowdfunding platforms are available on Wikipedia, but Whydonate's Wikipedia page is missing as I decided to create one page for WhyDonate.

Please help me what I am doing wrong?

Malvikashroff92 (talk) 13:29, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

One thing which you have done wrong is to resubmit for review without having addressed the result of the previous review. Alongside the "Resubmit" button it said: "Please note that if the issues are not fixed, the draft will be declined again." - David Biddulph (talk) 13:49, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Malvikashroff92 (ec) Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia is not a mere database where existence warrants a mention. This is an encyclopedia with criteria for inclusion, which we call "notability"- such as the definition of a notable organization. Not every organization in a field merits a Wikipedia article, it depends on the coverage it receives in independent reliable sources. Please see Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 13:53, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Additionally, the article appears to be a mission statement more than an encyclopedia article, which are primarily written based off of what reliable, secondary sources have to say about the subject, rather than what the subject itself has to say. Furthermore, while it is not disallowed to have a close connection with the subject of the article you are writing, you should be careful to not write something that reads like an advertisement, as it will likely be identified as spam. Nobility does not equal notability, and the draft does not demonstrate enough independent coverage in reliable sources to meet Wikipedia's threshold of notability for companies and organizations. DecafPotato (talk) 02:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Template Creation

What's the method for making a template accessible in the template search bar? I've planned and filled out the labels of the template in my sandbox.

TypistMonkey (talk) 21:48, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

TypistMonkey, you don't seem to have created a template in your sandbox. For the infobox you filled out in your sandbox, a transclusion of Template:Infobox, a Wikipedia article already exists for Farrer hypothesis. Please add to the existing content in that article. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 22:24, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

@TypistMonkey: Your sandbox has a template call, not a template. The sandbox calls Template:Infobox which is a template. I guess "the template search bar" refers to a VisualEditor feature but it's for making template calls from scratch, e.g. a call of Template:Infobox, without having parameter values already. You cannot use that unless you want to start over. What you can do is to just copy the template call from the sandbox to the article but I don't think it's a good idea to call Template:Infobox at all. The template page says: "In general, it is not meant for use directly in an article, but can be used on a one-off basis if required". It's rarely done and it doesn't seem required to me. Not every article needs an infobox. I didn't know the subject in advance and frankly, the infobox made no sense to me before I had read the lead of Farrer hypothesis. An infobox is supposed to be readable by itself. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:57, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't know the right terms to phrase my question. How do I create a template, not just call it through Template:Infobox?

The infobox would help those looking through information on the Synoptic Problem to be able to quickly identify key points of the hypothesis in question.

TypistMonkey (talk) 00:58, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

@TypistMonkey: I don't think that's a good idea either considering how few articles there are, how much the reader must already know to make sense of data organized in such an infobox, and how little template experience you have. If you really want to try this then see Template:Infobox for how to create infobox templates, and Help:Template for how to create templates in general. There is a risk that other editors will disapprove of the result and not let it be used in articles. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:04, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Two articles on the same topic

Hi. The 2022 annexation referendums in Russian-occupied Ukraine article was created under a different name (Kherson Oblast status referendum). It essentially covered the same topic. I only ask about merging the two histories so that the date of creation be 24 July not 11 August. I'm confused as to where I should ask about merging?--Sakiv (talk) 01:44, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

@Sakiv: On 24 July you created an article at Kherson Oblast status referendum. It was moved to 2022 Russian-occupied Ukraine referendums where the page history [8] still is. It was later redirected to 2022 annexation referendums in Russian-occupied Ukraine. There is no rule that the oldest article takes precedence when one article is redirected to another. The only rule is that if content is copied then the source must be attributed (see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia). Wikipedia:Requests for history merge is for cases where it wasn't done but it doesn't apply here. As far as I can tell, the content you wrote [9] was not used in the target article so no attribution or history merge is required. It appears the only one who broke attribution rules is you when you copied the other article to your article [10] without giving attribution. It was reverted. I understand it can be annoying that your earlier creation is no longer recognized but such things happen. It would even be allowed to delete the page history showing your creation if the content is not used anywhere. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:44, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: The article I created was linked and was not an orphan. This should not have happened at all and is unfair. I'm talking about something completely different, so why do you want to show everyone that I'm the one who made a mistake?--Sakiv (talk) 02:51, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

@Sakiv: The only way to show 24 July as creation is to make a history merge so I looked carefully for justification and that means missing attribution. I just said what I found but could have omitted it when it wasn't in your favour. Your content was 1535 bytes. I have written more in this discussion. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:16, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

The other article's creator gave his assent on the history merge, so there should be no problem here. Can we finish this once and for all?--Sakiv (talk) 03:36, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

@Sakiv: Where is the assent? I didn't find it at Special:Contributions/PLATEL. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

[11].--Sakiv (talk) 04:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

@Sakiv: Months ago on an archived page, and months after the article creations. No wonder I didn't find it. It would have been easier if you posted that from the start. I have made the history merge but it's not something we normally do in such a situation and it makes the switch [12] look odd. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:52, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: I see, thank you anyway.--Sakiv (talk) 04:57, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

help

what do i do if my only source is fandom wiki? :( I know i cant use that. :'( 50.103.196.209 (talk) 02:09, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

If the topic has not received significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, then it is not eligible for a Wikipedia article. Cullen328 (talk) 02:15, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

aw man rip. thanks anyway. 50.103.196.209 (talk) 02:17, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

look for an independent, reliable source. Wikipedia's definition of "independent and reliable" is far more strict de jure than it is de facto. There's probably something out there - but you may have to do some digging. If it were easily available, it'd likely already be on Wikipedia. Take a look at what that fandom wiki cites. Try different search engines, and use the advanced search features. If you can't find anything at all, then yes, it is not something that should be on Wikipedia. If you are writing a new article, be sure to base it off of more than one source. LesbianTiamat (talk) 07:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Making the article longer

How to make the article longer ? Please help ! JiafeiInformated (talk) 19:01, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi JiafeiInformated, welcome to the Teahouse. Which article? In general, look for reliable sources and summarize them. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:35, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Sia.

JiafeiInformated, a way not to do it is by inserting into the lede text like:

"In her,,About section on Spotify, it says that she was born from the bumhole of a unicorn named Steve." [sic],

as you did at 13:48, 25 June 2022, as your sole Article-space contribution to Wikipedia to date. (Reverted by SunDawn 4 minutes later.) Please read WP:Vandalism. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 176.249.29.80 (talk) 21:57, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I wrote something true there.. Please check Spotify. JiafeiInformated (talk) 07:34, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Don't bite the newbies, IP editor. One of my first edits was quite absurd and silly, but it was done in a way that genuinely added value to the article. This does not appear to be vandalism.

To lengthen an article, you must add information that is notable and pertinent to the topic. If the addition is not useful for understanding the topic, it should not be added. If there is nothing to add, leave it as it is. As much as I think Wikipedia could use some more whimsy, a stub is better than adding pointless silly fluff.

While the note about her Spotify about section may be true information, and interesting to fans, it does not make a point that adds to the article, nor provide useful or notable information to the average reader. Rather than simply adding information, add both the information and show why the information is notable. LesbianTiamat (talk) 07:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Draft Rejection

this draft was submitted for review - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Madhubanti_Bagchi it has been rejected - but the reason is not clear there are references from leading indian dailies and she has been singing playback for a decade now and has worked with leading indian composers.

am looking for some specifics in order to enhance the page and avoid rejection prat (talk) 09:29, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Prat bose, it has not been rejected; it has been declined. It currently has a total of four references, citing four sources. Which among the four sources treat(s) Madhubanti Bagchi in depth? If none does, you'll have to find and cite sources that do treat her in depth. If no such sources can be found, no article about her is possible. -- Hoary (talk) 09:40, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

In-depth is a subjective thing I guess. There are external links provided as well. Let me try to share some more references. prat (talk) 10:32, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, prat bose, and welcome to the Teahouse. Notability requires that the sources be independent as well as reliable. Three of the four sources are interviews, with only a paragraph or two not directly quoted - and it is likely that the information in those introductory paragraphs came from Bagchi anyway. Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. The fourth reference is about somebody else, and only mentions her in passing - not even a full sentence about her. ColinFine (talk) 14:06, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your response but let me clarify - apart from the early life section and the photograph nothing came from her. I am in no way connected or related to her - i have been contributing to wikipedia for a long time out of my own interest. So, I guess there is bit of assumption here which is not correct. The rest of the information is all available on the internet.

I shall work on the citing the references a lot better so that things are more transparent and clear. prat (talk) 19:15, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi, prat bose. I think you have misunderstood me. I'm not saying that you took the information in the draft from her: I'm saying that the sources that you cited (and from which you presumably took the information) are not independent of her, but are mostly interviews. Where are the sources that are wholly independent of her, and which talk about her in some depth? ColinFine (talk) 20:23, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for clarification :) I shall try to refine and resubmit. prat (talk) 11:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Follow-up to Zoe Carides, actor : my birthplace according to Wikipedia

Hello all at Teahouse. I am Zoe Carides, an Australian actor. Unfortunately, somebody has once again made a change to the entry regarding my place of birth. My place of birth was London, UK. However, someone keeps changing it to 'Sydney, Australia'. A couple of very helpful users here at Teahouse found a citation to support the fact of my British birthplace, but another user went back in and changed it to 'Sydney' again. I'm very upset about this, as it's now been going on for quite a few years. Is there any way of stopping this user from continually changing the entry to false information? I had thought, since @theroadislong had kindly found a correct citation and applied it, that all would be well. But alas it is not so. Any advice welcome. Cheers, Zoe Zozment (talk) 02:11, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi Zoe, I reverted it. The person below claims to have done it about 20 min ago, but it was not when I got the page.

Bye!

~~ Missbellanash (talk) 03:20, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

It was done in this edit. You did not edit that article, as you'll see from the article history and from your contribution record. Perhaps you were looking at a cached version? - David Biddulph (talk) 03:28, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Who knows, browser manufactures' are a strange lot.

~~ Missbellanash (talk) 03:51, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Browser manufactures' what? And what are browser manufactures, anyway? Uporządnicki (talk) 13:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

@Zozment Note that although we don't in general like the subject of an article doing any editing on it, there are exceptions including what has happened here with your place of birth. You are welcome to revert any edit that changes it again. See Wikipedia:FAQ/Article_subjects#The information in your article about me is wrong. How can I get it fixed? for the policy. For other changes, use the Talk Page of the article and make an {{edit request}}, with a reliable source for the new information. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:46, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks so much, Mike Turnbull - I really appreciate your help here. Zoe Zozment (talk) 08:49, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse&action=edit&section=new&preloadtitle=Follow-up+to+%5B%5BWikipedia%3ATeahouse%2FQuestions%2FArchive+1023%23Zoe_Carides%2C_actor_%3A_my_birthplace_according_to_Wikipedia%7CZoe+Carides%2C+actor+%3A+my+birthplace+according+to+Wikipedia%5D%5D

I've restored your birth info. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:23, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

The birth info is restored by UtherSRG here. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 03:24, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Oh wow, thank you so much UtherSRG! And what an excellent citation you found! I really appreciate your help and work in this. Also thanks to the other Teahouse users who've helped with extra info. Much, much appreciated. Zoe x Zozment (talk) 08:44, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Wondering why you allow this on wikipedia.

In my efforts to create an article and being a newbie as doing so under wiki "guidelines" my drafts have been "declined" so far. I am okay with that as I gaining experience on how to do things right. My question comes as the person I am writing the article about is getting unsolicited emails from a person purporting to be a consultation from wikisubmissions.com. How does this happen unless they are trolling wiki. I consider this spam in my opinion and somewhat annoying since their email says to "revert back" not "write back' if we want to engage their services. If they can get this own wording correct in a spam mail why would I even consider them. Get-Yer Done (talk) 13:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi Get-Yer Done, welcome to the Teahouse. You are right to be sceptical. Such services are not affiliated with Wikipedia and we advice against using them. In our experience they make false promises and poor articles which are often rejected if they even write anything for the money they get. They do indeed monitor drafts and contact the authors. I haven't heard of contacting the subjects. That sounds unpleasant. Maybe they bypassed you because you are yourself paid and unlikely to turn over work to somebody else. All pages including drafts are visible to everybody and we cannot prevent this. Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure does allow paid editors who follow certain rules but some would try such schemes even if all paid editing was disallowed. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:59, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick response. Yes that is what I thought. I will alert my client to block their emails. 207.35.246.114 (talk) 14:03, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I suggest you see WP:SCAM as well and report this "wikisubmissions.com" person to the email linekd on that page as it sounds like the usual AFC scam. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:11, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I have sent the spam email to the scam email noted int WP:SCAM Get-Yer Done (talk) 14:17, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

how i add my details in Wikipedia

how Aaabanti (talk) 09:59, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

If you are trying to write an autobiography, please don't. - David Biddulph (talk) 10:02, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

@Aaabanti If you are trying to start a WP-article about kainjara rajeshwari, start with WP:TUTORIAL and WP:YFA. To make a WP-article that "sticks", you need a good grasp on how this place works, so try getting some experience in just editing first. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:17, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello Aabanti, and welcome to the Teahouse. The short answer is that you don't: Wikipedia is not a directory or social media.

Having said that - if there has been enough independent material published about you that you meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability (but not otherwise), Wikipedia could have an article about you. This would be a neutral summary of what people unconnected with you had published about you. You are strongly discouraged from writing it yourself, but not forbidden. However, writing an article is difficult for new editors in any case, and writing one about yourseif is much more difficult.

Please also see an article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. ColinFine (talk) 10:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Also, see WP:UP for what belongs and what does not for a User page. David notMD (talk) 12:45, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

And please don't edit other articles (such as Business Process) in order to add details about yourself. You will have a very short tenure here on Wikipedia if you keep doing that. Neiltonks (talk) 14:53, 29 November 2022 (UTC)