Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1239

Archive 1235

←

Archive 1237

Archive 1238

Archive 1239

Archive 1240

Section link list

Given a page, I'd like to use the "what links here" tool—but only internal links whose wikitext looks like

[[Example#Example of normal heading]]

or

[[Example#Example of normal heading|example link]]

not

[[Example]]

nor

[[Example|example link]] Ss0jse (talk) 15:10, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Such a tool is (or, if it doesn't exist, would be) useful for post-split cleanup. Ss0jse (talk) 15:12, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Searching for something like insource:/Example#Example of normal heading/ might work. DMacks (talk) 15:29, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

A bare regex search like that should be avoided per mw:Help:CirrusSearch#Regular expression searches. You can for example add linksto:Example to the search. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:50, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Good point. I tried a few variants with a preceding search-term, but they did not work. For example, teahouse insource:/Teahouse#Section link list/ found a ton of pages that did not contain the string "Section link list". DMacks (talk) 16:57, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

So, DMacks and PrimeHunter, I think searching this could do what I'd like:

insource:"[[Security clearance#" insource:/"[[Security clearance#"/ Ss0jse (talk) 18:11, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

@Ss0jse: # and [ have special meaning in regex searches (the part in /.../) and must be escaped with backslashes if you just want to match the character. Don't include " unless you actually want that character. This works: insource:"[[Security clearance#" insource:/\[\[[Ss]ecurity clearance\#/. [Ss] finds two more links by including lowercase s. It may still miss some cases, e.g. if the source has underscore instead of space. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:51, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter Okay. Ss0jse (talk) 21:41, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Restore deleted page?

The page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_biblical_names_starting_with_X is marked as deleted with a few reasons. There is an overarching list at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_biblical_names and there is from my search only one name (XERXES) which would make the cut. The other page missing form the list is W where there are also not many, but e.g. WADI WAHEB WASHERMAN WORMWOOD are possible, which means the alphabet could be completed. I'm willing to create the pages, but I especially did not want to override the 2017 deletion. Wigbold (talk) 17:06, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, @Wigbold. I don't think it would be an issue for you to try again. But you would need to ensure the formatting followed the rest of the List Articles, and that each name entry is cited to a reliable source. Personally, I'd suggest creating just one page for both W and X. Something like List of biblical names starting with W or X. This could then be shortcutted (is that a real word? LOL!) to appear in all the page indices as below.

A – B – C – D – E – F – G – H – I – J – K – L – M – N – O – P – Q – R – S – T – U – V - W / X – Y – Z

How does that sound? Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:38, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Nick Moyes! That sounds good, and I like the combination. It will be my first full new page, so it will take me a little to get right. Appreciate the interaction! Wigbold (talk) 21:56, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

How can I create my own pictures?

I was trying to make a page, but I had to make my own pictures. How could I do it? Cheeks1234 (talk) 21:54, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

You'll need a camera or something (such as a phone) that works as a camera -- but no, you're probably asking about getting your photo into your creation Draft:Joyride (Candy). This has recently, and very correctly, been declined. If merely augmented with excellent photographs, it would still be declined. A template at its head tells you: "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources." (The reality is worse: it's not even slightly supported by any sources.) Have you found reliable and substantive sources that are independent of the candy, of the company that manufactures/sells it, and of the people associated with it? If so, then add text content to the draft and reference this properly (and later think about adding photographs). If not, then stop. -- Hoary (talk) 22:35, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Roy wants to create a "humorous essay" using WP

Hi! I was thinking to create a humourous essay using WP at Wikipedia: Department of Fun but I don't know how do I start, can someone help me? Royiswariii (talk) 17:11, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

You can create a humourous essay by placing the template {{humourous essay}} on top of the essay you've created. Ca ^{talk to me!} 19:50, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @Royiswariii. You can create one either in your user space (User:Royiswariii/My funny title) or in Wikipedia space (WP:My funny title). If you type one of those two - with your real title of course, instead of "My funny title") into the search bar, Wikipedia will tell you that the page doesn't exist, and invite you to create it and start typing into it. ColinFine (talk) 20:06, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi, ColinFine! Is there any guidlines in WP space when i'm writing {{humorous essay}}? I'll add first in my sandbox then i will transfer in WP. Royiswariii (talk) 23:54, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

@Royiswariii TBH: The best place to start is to find something humorous that nobody else has addressed before! The rest should follow.

Remember that nobody likes hearing the same funny story over and over. If an essay topic ain't original, don't think about starting one! Nick Moyes (talk) 20:26, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Nick Moyes! Of course i have a idea on what I will put a little story and essay. Royiswariii (talk) 23:56, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

what edit line do i use for citing?

What html edit line code do I use for citikng references? Jonahplayz (talk) 03:22, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

@Jonahplayz: Welcome to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1239. You will want to read Easy referencing for beginners. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:07, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

thank you! Jonahplayz (talk) 02:49, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Welcome! You have to read the help page @Tenryuu mentioned above. Electrou (formerly Susbush) (talk) 12:36, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

@Electrou: Please don't reiterate what other people have said if you have nothing new to add (barring edit conflicts). —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:08, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok! Electrou (formerly Susbush) (talk) 14:43, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I would like to ask you how to remove the maintenance template.

Hello.

I revised the reference for footnote 4 in the article below.

Coupang

Are there any other modifications required to remove the maintenance template?

I beg you. KIM Jeonng-hee (talk) 05:33, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I'd say yes there ae. There's a spelling mistake in the opening sentence. One paragraph reads "According to SoftBank, Coupang's estimated value is $9 billion, and it has earned $3.4 billion venture funding to date. SoftBank funded the company with $2 billion in 2018 and $1 billion in 2015." Those "citation needed" templates are dated November 2021. I didn't look any further in the article. -- Hoary (talk) 07:01, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Vancouver style error

Good morning,

I discovered that Zotero had a Wikipedia Template option, so I tried to use it, and it gave me a this :
{{cite book |title=Aragusuku Shichabaru Site #2 - Report on the Rescue Excavation Survey Implemented in Relation with the Construction of a Maintenance Facility in Camp Zukeran - [新城下原第二遺跡　ーキャンプ瑞慶覧内整備工場建設に係る緊急発掘調査報告書ー] [Aragusuku shichabaru dai ni iseki - kyanpu zukeran nai seibi kōjō kensetsu ni kakawaru kinkyū hakkutsu chōsa hōkokusho -] |vauthors=((Katagiri, C. [片桐千亜紀])), ((Kugai, M. [久貝弥嗣])), ((Sakihara, T. [崎原恒寿])), ((Kaneko, H. [金子浩昌])), ((Takamiya, H. [高宮広土])), ((Shimabukuro, H. [島袋晴美])), ((Kokankyō Research Institute Inc. [株式会社古環境研究所])), ((Palynosurvey Inc. [パリノサーヴェイ株式会社])) |date=2006 |publisher=Okinawa Prefectural Archaeological Center |veditors=Okinawa Prefectural Archaeological Center [沖縄県立埋蔵文化財センター] |series=Okinawa Prefectural Archaeological Center Survey Reports [沖縄県立埋蔵文化財センター調査報告書]}}
There is a problem with the authors list. First, it told me there was a problem with names 7 and 8, and I solved that by putting double parentheses around, as suggested in the help, but now it tells me there is a problem with the initials in name 1 (Vancouver style error: initials in name 1). I tried suppressing the Japanese bit, then the parentheses and comma and dot (made it simply vauthors=Katagiri C, Kugai M,...), but it is still not working. Anybody knows what I should do? Bérangère444 (talk) 00:13, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Bérangère444, a far better place to ask this kind of question is Help talk:Citation Style 1. But here we are, so: That isn't a valid title, I think. It's obviously composed of three parts. I don't know (without library research) whether the first is an alternative title (very common for Japanese research publications) or your own explanatory translation. If the former, I don't think that the template provides for it; if the latter, it's properly "trans-title". Stripped of brackets, the second and third are "script-title" and "title" respectively. Incidentally, the Japanese custom of enclosing a subtitle in dashes isn't something I'd copy into the romanized version thereof (I'd use just one colon). ¶ If you removed from ((Kokankyō Research Institute Inc. [株式会社古環境研究所])) what you say you did, you'd be left with Kokankyō Research Institute Inc, which doesn't comply with the stated requirements for "vauthors". ¶ NB If you haven't already guessed, I am underexperienced with the Cite templates. -- Hoary (talk) 05:21, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, I'm sorry I misplaced the question, I thought it was a general help forum. The problem does not come from Kokankyo, but, apparently, from the first of the author names. I suppose I will have to put the data in the system one by one as I used to do, but it would have been nice to be able to use zotero instead. Bérangère444 (talk) 06:30, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

It is a general help forum. I wasn't complaining; I just meant that you'd be more likely to get expert help on this if you asked elsewhere. Good luck! -- Hoary (talk) 07:03, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Request: Alerta move to disamb

Hello,

I would like assistance moving the page Alerta to a new page, and changing that page into a disambiguation page. I would do this, but I don't want to take page creation from the person who created the original Alerta page. I know we're probably not supposed to care about that, but it does feel good being the creator of something, and I don't want to take that away from them. Guylaen (talk) 07:21, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Nobody has provided a single reference for Alerta, a mere stub that says very little. So I wouldn't worry too much. Actually I wouldn't worry at all, because renaming a page (e.g., as here, an article) does not restart its history. Whoever is the creator remains the creator. You, or whoever executes the redirection, merely become(s) the creator of the redirect. -- Hoary (talk) 07:51, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Autoconfirmed account

Is Teahouse the appropriate place to ask questions? I'm not sure, but London School of Economics blog says so.

I noticed that I cannot edit some articles. I searched for the reason and my account needs to be "autoconfirmed". My account meets the conditions of "autoconfirmed" but isn't. How do I make my account "autoconfirmed"? Conditions here. Spirit of Performance (talk) 09:28, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Spirit of Performance: it seems you registered your account c. 3 days and 18 hrs ago. The requirement for autoconfirmed is 4 days, so you're still a few hours short of that. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:32, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

(ec) Hello. Yes, this is a place for new or inexperienced users to ask questions.

The four days requirement is a full four days, down to the hour. I suspect you'll be autoconfirmed soon. 331dot (talk) 09:32, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @331dot & @DoubleGrazing.

My mistake, I thought that I started almost a week ago. Spirit of Performance (talk) 09:40, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

"Simple math is not SYNTH"

I've been here long enough to know where to find that principle, but I'm afraid I don't. Would someone remind me, please, so I can bookmark it for future reference? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 09:45, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I believe what you're looking for is WP:2+2=4. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:46, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

How to avoid close paraphrasing when working with stuff like the Jepson Manual?

I'm trying to describe differences between subspecies of a thing and I'm working with a dichotomous key like the Jepson Manual with really terse descriptions. There are only a few differences between the subspecies, so how would you avoid close paraphrasng for that? 23:30, 21 October 2024 (UTC) Grapes of the bear (talk) 23:30, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

@Grapes of the bear Welcome to the 'Labrador Tea house' (sorry; couldn't resist the botanical joke). I'm not familiar with the specific key you mention, though am familiar with using UK floras with keys like Clive Stace's Flora of the British Isles.

Yes, with very few differences between taxa listed in a dichotomous key with perhaps ten words or less per option, it's simply a matter of perhaps re-ordering a few keywords, or finding alternative wording of a botanical term (which might help users understand the meaning better; glabrous=smooth/non-hairy; glaucous = grey/green in colour, dentate = toothed, etc etc). I think one can defend any accusation of close paraphrasing if the source information used is particularly terse.

Normally, I would expect to see distinguishing features to appear in a key before range information. So maybe you've managed to avoid c/p by swapping these around in your Arctostaphylos sandbox article? That seems a valid approach with so little information to choose from, though I'd prefer to see morphological differences and characteristics before distribution/range data, if possible.

May I make two further comments on your sandbox draft: Firstly, why not list the nominate subsp. first? And try to avoid creating uncertainty by stating things like "Subspecies of this species include: [bullet list]"

You've listed six subspp., but perhaps there are actually 26 subssp. known? Better to state, for example, that the 2007 revision of the Genus created 8 subspecies, including the following six... That way the reader understands any gaps in the taxonomic coverage within the article.

I hope this helps a bit. Keep up the good work! Nick Moyes (talk) 00:28, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much! (I have a soft spot for Rhododendrons, though I haven't been far north enough to see Labrador-tea)

Instead of "Subspecies of this species include:" would it be more appropriate to do "The subspecies of this species are:"?

> I'd prefer to see morphological differences and characteristics before distribution/range data, if possible

Thank you for this! I hadn't realized this would be a more logical ordering.

Grapes of the bear (talk) 03:59, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

@Grapes of the bear You're welcome! If there 'are' six subspecies, then definitely say there are six. If there might be others, and you're not sure how many, you could either use 'include' or say that "X's 2007 publication lists Y subspecies". Or, "the main subspecies described are:" It's all about neither accidentally adding unwarranted uncertainty, nor adding unjustified and misleading certainty when there isn't any.

We have just six 1km squares in the very highest moorland parts of our county in the midlands of England in which Labrador Tea has been recorded. The Flora I co-authored a few years ago explains that we do not fully understand their origin - possibly a few scattered individuals planted by gamekeepers for cover in the 1900s - or maybe bird-sown from migratory species. They are extremely uncommon, and look almost exactly like the surrounding clumps of Vaccinium myrtillus and Empetrum nigrum! Some photos here and here. (Note that I uploaded these prior to the nomenclatural changes when we all called it Ledum.) Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 11:54, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Display parameters - difference between desktop display and mobile display - Moldovan 2024 Elections

Hi,
While looking around for a casual talk about the Moldovan 2024 Elections, more specifically the page 2024 Moldovan presidential election, I was a little bitsurprised to see that the 2 candidates pictures didn't show at the same size - as usually, that's a big point on Wiki: WP:NPOV Neutrality.
When I got back on the desktop to correct that, I realised that it did display correctly on the computer screen. Dwelving into the code of the page doesn't bring me closer to an answer to why this glitches on the mobile - I can see some of the relative code, and think that something is wrong there, but I'm not sure what. Here's a snipnet:

| image_size = 130x130px | image1 = Maia Sandu, President of Moldova in 2024 (cropped).jpg | candidate1 = [[Maia Sandu]] | party1 = [[Independent politician|Independent]] ([[Party of Action and Solidarity|PAS]]){{efn|name=Sandu|The President of Moldova traditionally resigns from party membership after taking office. Although Sandu was officially an independent, her campaign was endorsed and funded by [[Party of Action and Solidarity]].}} | color1 = {{Party color|Party of Action and Solidarity}} | image2 = {{CSS image crop |Image = Alexandr Stoianoglo - interview for Prosecutor's Office, nov 2019.jpg |bSize = 200 |cWidth = 110 |cHeight = 130 |oTop = 5 |oLeft = 50

I think the bsize parameter is not right, but as this is a sensible subject and something strange, can someone better versed than me in the thing check this?
Thanks in advance, Zeugma fr (talk) 13:36, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Playing around with the preview on my computer and sometrickery with mobile view, I can confirm that yes, it's Template:CSS image crop that does not play nice. I can go around by uploading a crop of Alexandr Stoianoglo image on commons, but can someone look into it? Preferably a wizard of CSS and MediaWiki... --Zeugma fr (talk) 13:43, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Would like to know if I should create an article

I want to make my first article regarding a music school in my area, there are not many sources about it other than the city government and music school's website. There are over 800 students and the school is renowned in Luxembourg. Would this be a "notable" topic to create an article for? Atharva210 (talk) 13:25, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Atharva210. Unfortunately if those are the only sources then I don't think it would pass our WP:NORG notability guidelines. We usually look for at least three secondary sources that provide significant coverage - the city government and it's own website are both primary sources so wouldn't count.

We would be looking for national newspapers, books, articles, etc. Sources can also be offline, if it helps. Qcne (talk) 13:31, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I can try to find offline sources from a few newspapers, would it be fine then? Atharva210 (talk) 13:33, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Might be - your best bet is to go via the Wikipedia:Articles for creation process so it can get reviewed. Qcne (talk) 13:44, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

General questions!

I had some general questions.

-Firstly, if an IP puts a CSD tag on a Wikipedia article, will only an admin remove that tag, or can any other common user also revert it?

-Can an admin accuse any such user of alleged 'UPE' without any proof? Whereas that user has not been involved in any such activity till date.

Thank you. Jannatulbaqi (talk) 18:01, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

@Jannatulbaqi Welcome to the Teahouse! Sorry for the long wait for a reply.

As Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion states: "If an editor other than the creator removes a speedy deletion tag in good faith, it should be taken as a sign that the deletion is controversial and another deletion process should be used". So, yes, any user can remove a CSD notice if they disagree with it. See also Wikipedia:Deletion process.

re your 2nd question: No editor - especially an admin - should accuse someone of WP:UPE for no reason at all. But the reasons can be hard to discern. Experienced editors often have a 'sense' of whether someone is being paid or has a WP:COI.

The best approach is to directly ask the person whether or not they are being paid, rather than simply accusing them of it as if it were a statement of fact. Bear in mind that editors may well look at the manner of a person's edits and even occasionally go off-wiki for that evidence, but then they need to take extreme care not to DOX that editor when they ask their questions here! You can see an example of how I approached this recently by looking at the thread immediately above this one.

Usually, UPE involves people adding content, not deleting an article. But sometimes one wonders if a Wikipedia article that puts someone in a bad light is being CSD-ed by an IP editor trying to cleanse that person's online presence. If the CSD looks unjustified, it may well be UPE or simply just vandalism. Without specific diffs, it's hard to offer you further advice. But I hope this makes at least a bit of sense! Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:21, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @Jannatulbaqi, and welcome to the Teahouse.

For the first, any editor may remove a CSD tag from an article, except the creator of the article, as explained on WP:CSD.

For the second, anybody may argue that an editor is a UPE, but only an admin can block anybody. Normally, if somebody suspects that another editor is paid, they will ask them (see for example Nick Moyes's question in #Having problem with references just above). Usually the person will either declare their status, or explain that they are not a paid editor. If somebody suspects that they are not telling the truth, then they would need to take it to somewhere like WP:AIVWP:ANI, where the matter would get discussed in public, in view of many admins. ColinFine (talk) 20:23, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes, @ColinFine. Thank you very much; this has clarified many things for me. Jannatulbaqi (talk) 14:44, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Question (Redirects)

If someone has an account, with over 10+ edits, is the user allowed to still request a creation of a new draft on this page? Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects TheHuman630 (talk) 00:30, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @TheHuman630: I don't see why not. AFC is always an option, even for experienced editors. ColinFine (talk) 16:54, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Image question

May I use a photo I take to improve an article, or does it fall under original research? I am totally fine with a picture I take being circulated on the internet so there shouldn't be any legal copyright issues. If you want to know the specifics, I own a purebred black Jersey Wooly rabbit and I want to add a side and front profile under the appearance section of the article for the breed. Also, is there any standard for image quality on Wikipedia? If I were to add my own images to the article in question, they would be captured on a smartphone since rabbits are unpredictable animals and I probably wouldn't be able to get my rabbit to sit still long enough to get the pictures I want with a professional camera. My phone is relatively new (I bought it new in 2022) so its camera is fairly good. ApteryxRainWing (talk) 11:54, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

@ApteryxRainWing Thanks for wanting to improve Wikipedia with images. As you probably know, these are stored on Wikimedia Commons so they can be used in all the many language versions, not just here in English. One of the FAQ for Commons suggests uploading the highest resolution image you can. Images are not counted as original research, since it is assumed that everyone will agree that they show what the photographer says they show: they can be challenged and possibly deleted if they don't. Assuming good faith is one of the basic principles here. You'll find the upload wizard at commons:Special:UploadWizard. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:02, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

.... just to mention you should make sure you mark your image file as being in Commons:Category:Jersey Wooly, so others will be able to find it easily. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:11, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

ApteryxRainWing, high quality smartphone photos are perfectly acceptable on Wikimedia Commons as long as the photo is of educational value and is not a photo of an item subject to copyright. I have uploaded hundreds of my own photos there. So, a rabbit or a butterfly or a mountain or a Renaissance painting is fine. A contemporary painting or sculpture is not, because those are the intellectual property of the artist. Cullen328 (talk) 17:27, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Publishing an article

How can I publish the translation of an existing article;Katerinandreou (talk) 18:02, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @Katerinandreou, and welcome to the Teahouse. Please see WP:Translation if you are proposing to translate an article into English, and WP:translate us if you want to translate an article from English.

If you're translating into English, note that English Wikipedia has stricter criteria than most Wikipedias, so make sure that there are adequate sources to establish that the subject meets English Wikipedia's criteria for notability; and unless the original cites all the required sources, it is likely to need so much rewriting that it might be easier to write that English article afresh, perhaps drawing on parts of the original article. ColinFine (talk) 18:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Request: Matías Díaz Padrón

Please it would be much appreciated. He was a discoverer of the authorship of hundreds of works of art. Nice fellow as well. Art historian specialising in Flemish painting. TruPiGo (talk) 10:41, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello. What is it that you are requesting? 331dot (talk) 10:45, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I am sorry, I don't know how to use this page although I read it often. I am a fairly old person, I worked with Prof. Díaz Padrón, and I was surprised that he doesn't have an article in Wikipedia. I would be grateful if you could write it. He is an eminence, I had the pleasure of working with him on one occasion preparing an exhibition. TruPiGo (talk) 10:56, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

you, meaning anyone, it possible

Thank you. TruPiGo (talk) 10:57, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

@TruPiGo, if I understand you correctly, you'd like English Wikipedia to have an article about this man:[1]? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:58, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

OP started a draft about Matias Diaz Pardon back in August: User:TruPiGo/Sandbox

-- Maresa63 ^Talk 12:49, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

He exists in Wikidata, which has several links to possible sources but no foreign-language articles for him. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:36, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

The draft needs work, but the subject seems clearly notable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:34, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @TruPiGo, and welcome to the Teahouse. There is a place to make requests for articles - requested article - but in truth many requests never get picked up. This is a volunteer project, and people work on what they want to.

The most effective way to create an article you want to see, is to do it yourself; but unfortunately, creating an article is difficult for a new editor. My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. ColinFine (talk) 14:52, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

A page for the band Yunkyard Productions

I know a band called Yunkyard Productions(a family member is in it) and i wanted to make a page for the band but...IDK how to make pages. so i would like help Yayeyay (talk) 18:37, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Yayeyay. My earnest advice is to not think about creating new articles until you've had several weeks, months or experience editing and improving existing articles. Wikipedia is complicated and creating a new article is a really challenging task, it would be like trying to perform in an orchestra when you've only just picked up an instrument. This is not to discourage you, but to manage expectations and hopefully save you some frustration.

If you do want to go ahead and create an article for this band, you'll need to follow these steps:

- as your family member is a member of the band, you must declare your conflict of interest.

- research if the band passes our criteria for musical groups. Only bands that pass this criteria merit an article.

- if you think the band does pass the criteria, research and find at least three reliable secondary sources which are totally independent of the band and which discuss/critique/analyse/comment them in detail. This could be reviews from mainstream music journalists, as long as the source is not based on an interview or press releases.

- create a draft article via the Articles for Creation process which will be reviewed by experienced Wikipedia editors and either accepted, declined for further improvement, or rejected.

Hope that helps, let us know if you have any further questions though. Qcne (talk) 20:07, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Template:Poem_quote

Just wondering why this template page has a block of "Lorem ipsum" text visible above the "Template documentation" box.

—Protalina (talk) 20:54, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

@Protalina It is quite common for template pages to have a representative example of their output at the top of the template page. See {{Uw-test2}}, for example. Mike Turnbull (talk) 21:02, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, @Michael D. Turnbull.

But isn't what's shown on this "Poem_quote" page a block-quote of prose, and not a poem-like text? As the blurb says, "A template for quoting poems, song lyrics, and other things that have frequent line breaks."

If the Lorem text was line-breaked after every, say, 10 words, it would be more representative of the template's output.

—Protalina (talk) 21:55, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Good point indeed! As it wouldn't impact any transclusion of the template, you can WP:BEBOLD and change it yourself, or ask on the talk page if anyone objects. Personally, I would support it, per the arguments above. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:06, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

@Protalina Yes, agreed. I hadn't though about that detail in your question. I would suggest using a real (old, non-copyright) verse. Mike Turnbull (talk) 22:26, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good! Though this is beyond my wikitext skills at the moment – I keep getting "Template loop detected: Template:Poem quote" whatever tweak I try to the current Blockquote code at the top of the template page (including deleting it completely).

Anyway, the verse (& code) I've in mind is:

{{Poem quote

|text='Twas brillig, and the slithy toves

Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;

All mimsy were the borogoves,

And the mome raths outgrabe.

|sign=Lewis Carroll

|source=Through the Looking-Glass, and What Alice Found There (1871)

|title="Jabberwocky"

}}

Perhaps a first step could be to simply remove what's now at the top, on the grounds that it's misleading. As the page is short, the reader's eye would quickly be drawn to the worked example.

—Protalina (talk) 08:36, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

@JJMC89 Greetings! Looking at the history of the "Poem quote" page, I gather that you worked with former (?) user @Esszet to create the header Blockquote code back in 2015. Could you kindly help with the issue raised in this topic thread? Thanks a lot!

—Protalina (talk) 10:45, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I've removed the lorem ipsum text. The documentation has an example already. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:12, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you.

—Protalina (talk) 23:20, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Having problem with references

Draft:John James (businessman and philanthropist)

I've had this article declined due to insufficient references. I've put lots more in, but how can I tell if I've done enough? Jjarchivist (talk) 17:26, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Jjarchivist. You've probably done too much, actually! It's hard to wade through all those references, though I can see both an Independent and a Times (inaccessible to me) obituary, plus a book about the man, all suggest notability criteria will easily be met.

There are two tasks you should do before resubmitting your draft.

Firstly, your username and WP:SPA editing activity suggests you are employed or somehow connected with the John James Foundation, and/or that you are being paid to edit this draft, or maybe even the author of the biography about him? These would all be ' conflicts of interest' (see WP:COI) which, if present, we simply need you to declare on your user page. We require those who receive a salary or commission to create an article to declare this formally. See guidance at WP:PAID, please.

Secondly, read slowly though your draft. After each statement of 'fact', ensure you have used a Reliable Source that allows others to VERIFY what you have written by checking back to that source. I note there are still one or two statements that retain unsupported. So, either CITE or EXCISE them, please! The sentence about the contributing warp is most confusing and uncited. If this is an exhibition title, I think capital first letters might help.

I then think the draft will then be ready for resubmission.

Finally, for neatness, you could ensure you use just one reference for The Sky's The Limit book, not 14 separate ones! See WP:REFNAME and how to use the {{RP}} template to indicate which page of a detailed source such as a book that you are using for any given statement. That way the Reference Section lists the work only once. You might also like to add a link to the John James Foundation as an External Link. I hope this helps. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 19:59, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. This is really useful. I have now added a COI to my user page. Could you have a look and see if I've done that right? Jjarchivist (talk) 09:24, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

@Jjarchivist That's not too bad. Not perfect, but fine for now. As an archivist, do please bear in mind that (unfortunately) individual archived documents are primary sources, and no really acceptable for Wikipedia. We need to see secondary sources that have accessed those archives, rather than the archives themselves. This relates to Verifiability, wherein we expect any person, anywhere in the world, will be able to find a source and confirm that the statement added to Wikipedia is, indeed, correct. Being unique, archival documents are not normally of use to Wikipedia. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:03, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Also now tidied up book references and inserted external link. Shall now investigate retrieving newspaper articles Jjarchivist (talk) 11:19, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

This happens so often. A reviewer declines a draft with the words "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources" or the like, intended to mean "there aren't enough good references". But the submitter reads it as "there aren't enough references", and adds many more references, often of even lower quality than the ones that were there already. I used to think that the submitters were trying to disguise the lack of good references by putting up a smokescreen of garbage. I now realise that the submitter is acting in good faith, but the templates "not adequately supported" are misleading, and should be rewritten. Maproom (talk) 22:07, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

That makes sense! Nick Moyes (talk) 22:50, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree, and I have opened a discussion at WT:WikiProject Articles for creation#Misleading decline message ColinFine (talk) 16:51, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

link error of RFC

Hello

Can you please check the link error of RFC below?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2024_United_States_presidential_election#(RFC)_Lead_section_of_2024_United_States_presidential_election Goodtiming8871 (talk) 17:44, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Goodtiming8871. What are you referring to? PrimeHunter (talk) 21:33, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

ref-#7 has error message below, however, the reference #7 looks similar format to other reference #1-6.

{{cite web}}: Empty citation (help): Check date values in: |date= (help) Goodtiming8871 (talk) 22:11, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

@Goodtiming8871: Is this special:diff/1252777210 OK now? --CiaPan (talk) 22:16, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

PS. It's past midnight here at my place, I'll see your reply later. --CiaPan (talk) 22:25, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

thank you for your support and the link was updated so that }} location was also changed. please check whether it can be updated when you are convenient. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 00:55, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

New subject

Hi, I want to write an article on List of countries and territories with malaria-free status taking information from WHO's Global Malaria Programme. Is it ok or this list should be inserted at World Health Organisation who announces this. any idea.? —𝐏𝐞𝐫𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨(𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔) 11:07, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

How is it that a one-sentence summary within Malaria#Eradication_efforts of the WHO's list (of course with a link to that page) would be insufficient? -- Hoary (talk) 11:46, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

@Hoary I just checked Malaria#After 1969, where these informations are already there and updated. However, It seems it's incomplete considering the list. So, I'm thinking about to insert a table there. is it ok.? —𝐏𝐞𝐫𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨(𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔) 12:09, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Perfectodefecto, I do not believe that dumping a large table into this section of this article would improve the article. And if this were done, the information in the table ought really to be checked and where appropriate updated at least once every couple of years. If OTOH you simply link to the WHO page, then readers of the Wikipedia article can be assured that the information they're reading there is up to date.

The article Malaria is already dated. Consider this chunk from near the top:

In 2006, the organization Malaria No More set a public goal of eliminating malaria from Africa by 2015, and the organization claimed they planned to dissolve if that goal was accomplished. In 2007, World Malaria Day was established by the 60th session of the World Health Assembly. As of 2018, they [What or who are "they"? This is unexplained.] are still functioning. ¶ As of 2012, The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria has distributed 230 million insecticide-treated nets intended to stop mosquito-borne transmission of malaria. ["Has distributed" is an odd choice of tense to relay information that's now a dozen years old.] The U.S.-based Clinton Foundation has worked to manage demand and stabilize prices in the artemisinin market. [The reference for this was published in 2008. "Has worked" is an odd choice of tense to relay information that's now well over a dozen years old.]

It seems that you're interested in malaria. Why not work to make less misleading, or (better) to update, what Wikipedia articles already say about it? -- Hoary (talk) 22:02, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

alright. Many Thanks. —𝐏𝐞𝐫𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨(𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔) 02:02, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Mark Karpelès article

I have updated the Mark Karpelès article due to multiple issues related to outdated information, and an unbalanced portrayal of his career. The previous version focused heavily on negative aspects and lacked clarity in certain sections. I updated the article to provide a more balanced view of his contributions and legal matters, with all updates properly sourced, also, recent one from Japan Times. Since I think that there are some bad actors and sockpuppets who edit the article again and again, I ask for support from other editors to keep the article neutral. Amber hurt (talk) 14:09, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Amber hurt, I see that before your most recent edit to Mark Karpelès it had 49 references, and it now has 37. That looks to me more like a whitewash than an attempt to undo the work of unspecified "bad actors and sockpuppets". Maproom (talk) 14:20, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Damn, I had the feeling that sometimes too many citations were unnecessarily used. I will add them back Amber hurt (talk) 15:05, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Done - feel free to edit the article too please Amber hurt (talk) 15:22, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Amber hurt Citation removal can improve article quality as long as it is a matter of removing flawed refs or over-referencing simple facts, etc. David notMD (talk) 03:06, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Displaytitle not working

DISPLAYTITLE is not working in my talk page. Have I done anything wrong? 122.176.122.147 (talk) 06:57, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

DISPLAYTITLE cannot change the displayed title arbitrarily; see WP:DISPLAYTITLE. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 09:15, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

If you want to be known by a particular handle, sign up for an account. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:49, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Review - Awards Page

I have seen this on wiki Draft:Pride_of_Khyber_Pakhtunkhwa_Awards this is a award page might be it's eligible can someone review? Are suggest the changing according to the policies. 39.41.194.221 (talk) 16:17, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

You have resubmitted the draft for review (after being declined three times in three days by three different editors). As it says at the top, "This may take 6 weeks or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order". Please be patient.

I am not a reviewer, but it looks to me as if you have added sources about particular winners of the award. Unless these contain a significant amount of information (at least a couple of paragraphs) about the setting up, management, and history of the award, such sources do not contribute anything at all towards establishing that the award meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability, because, as regards the award, they are "passing mentions" rather than significant coverage. ColinFine (talk) 17:07, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, some sources are fully talked about the awards that's why i added might be it's eligible . 39.41.194.221 (talk) 18:32, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Please tell us there of the sources that do that, so we can check without having to read them all. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:38, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

https://www.nation.com.pk/22-Sep-2024/pride-of-kp-awards-at-5th-metrix-pakistan-youth-summit-on-oct-9-10

https://humenglish.com/press-release/pride-of-kp-awards-to-be-announced-at-5th-metrix-youth-summit/#:~:text=The%20awards%20are%20going%20to,%3A%2F%2Fmetrix.pk%2Fprideofkp. 39.41.194.221 (talk) 18:52, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

These two links simply note that these awards exist, and the minimal details provided in these links are quotes from someone associated with the awards. They both read as in the nature of a press release without a named author, and in fact, your second source explicitly characterizes it as as press release in the URL. These two sources do not help establish notability. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 04:24, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, the awards are organized by government see the link https://kpyouthaffairs.gov.pk/new-event/details/114

As multiple sources are talking about these awards. The news you're talking about are published in the news papers. I can share the link if you need i see today. Also no one can briefly define the awards might be it's count in promotional tone if some newspaper is briefly define. 39.41.194.221 (talk) 05:40, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deleted as promotional. Leave message to the Talk page of the Admin who deleted if you want to dispute. David notMD (talk) 12:08, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Check the notability of a topic

SAINT PAUL'S SCHOOL, JALPAIGURI 103.217.231.149 (talk) 11:30, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

If you want people here to check the notability of a potential subject, please (i) provide links to the best three sources for material about the subject that you know of; (ii) avoid all capitals; (iii) consider saying "please". -- Hoary (talk) 11:36, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

(iv) Please read WP:NSCHOOL. Shantavira|^{feed me} 14:18, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Broken link question

I have a Wikipedia article that is one-issue away from approval. I was notified that one link was broken. I checked the link, and the article is there. But it is behind a paywall. Does this mean the article can't be used? Is there a work-around? Thank you. Mary Bufe (talk) 15:00, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

You can cite sources behind paywalls. What is the link? ~Anachronist (talk) 15:37, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @Mary Bufe. There are two points here.

1. No, being behind a paywall is not a problem. But the error message on Draft:Nextracker says "Cite error: Invalid )

Seen here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tibet_House&diff=1240393344&oldid=1240160612 An editor then immediately deleted it. - New Delhi is not mentioned in either document. The first reference is to a copy of the original document. The second reference is a transcribed version of it.

Vacosea then reposted it: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tibet_House&diff=next&oldid=1240459870 and then added a partial quote from a reference document here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tibet_House&diff=next&oldid=1241187039

Then took out the invalid New Delhi reference here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tibet_House&diff=next&oldid=1241187487. and then added another partial quote from a reference.

Since Vacosea was obviously going to keep adding disingenuous partial information I researched it to get to the bottom of the issue. I added a factual summation of the two CIA references and the entire quote referred to (the only direct references to CIA funding in any US government document found anywhere available) supported by earlier dates in the article itself which is at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tibet_House&diff=next&oldid=1242834682: (There was a reference to Tibet House in a 1964 Central Intelligence Agency "Memorandum for the Special Group," which documented a projected budget meeting for a Cold War program focused on political action, propaganda, and paramilitary efforts aimed at sustaining the concept of an autonomous Tibet both within Tibet and among foreign nations. While the document's scope was extensive, a reference to Tibet House is limited and somewhat ambiguous: "Tibet Houses in New York, Geneva, and [less than 1 line of source text not declassified]" as a budget line item of $75,000 for half a year", with an explanatory paragraph. This isolated reference in the available historical documentation does not provide conclusive evidence of the CIA's involvement in the existing Tibet Houses. The context of the 1964 meeting memorandum suggests that these were planned or proposed establishments. This is supported by several facts: there was never a Tibet House in Geneva; Tibet House US in New York was founded in 1987; the main period of active CIA involvement with Tibet was from 1957 to 1969; the program was completely terminated in 1972, coinciding with President Nixon's visit to China to establish closer relations; and in 1998, the Tibetan government-in-exile stated that the CIA subsidy was "spent on setting up offices in Geneva and New York and on international lobbying," the Tibet Bureau in Geneva and the Office of Tibet in Washington D.C., formerly in New York.)

I went back to the Tibet House page today because I wanted to check my addition and be sure it conformed with Wiki rules since I had never made this type of Wiki entry before. To my surprise Vacosea had made many more edits and has now included my user name in the entry. And a statement at the end of the entry does not have a real reference and is apparently made up. Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tibet_House&diff=1251569974&oldid=1251569395 (Lodi Gyari, the Dalai Lama’s personal representative in Washington, said he did not know about the CIA's $180,000-a-year subsidy or where the money went.)

This behavior by the editor feels threatening, inappropriate and they appear to have an agenda. Insight into this matter and how to proceed would be appreciated. Thank you. @ Ogmany (talk) 21:46, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Ogmany, you've written a lot of text above, and I haven't read it all. I'm not surprised that no-one else has responded. But I see that someone has added your username to the text of Tibet House. That is certainly not justified. Maproom (talk) 07:12, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Ogmany, if an editor is reintroducing text that you believe is inappropriate, try discussing it with them on the article's Talk page. If the two of you are unable to resolve it there, or if the other editor continues to reintroduce the text without responding on the Talk page, then you can turn to other forms of Dispute resolution. Your name has been removed from the article; the editor who removed it also removed some of the text that you'd introduced, as they believed it to be WP:OR. I've left a note on the Talk page of the editor who introduced your name into the article's text. FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:13, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your insight and the note to that editor. Ogmany (talk) 23:42, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I did indeed write a lot of text above, do understand why no one had responded (and most of it was cut and paste in parentheses of the entry if someone wanted to see the history of the entry). Having been stalked online and irl I obviously do not react well to having my name posted, basically freeze, and just have no chill left. Thank you for agreeing adding my user name was inappropriate. Ogmany (talk) 23:30, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

References

I checked the sources again and they indeed support what I added. The CIA document appears to have been declassified twice, once redacting New Delhi but exposing it in another instance. I also added an RS (Los Angeles Times I believe). The statement about Lodi Gyari was paraphrased from The New York Times. Ogmany appears to feel very strongly about their position defending the Tibet Houses. That's why I decided against removing what they wrote entirely but instead attributed it to them, not to their sources which upon verification did not support what they added and was therefore misleading. I didn't mean to cause any personal offense and apologize if that's how they felt. Vacosea (talk) 20:51, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy ping to Ogmany re: the apology. To both you and Vacosea: again, if the two of you have a content disagreement (including one about what sources actually say), the place for that discussion in on the article's Talk page, so please take any further discussion of it there. FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:55, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

tagging original research vs deleting content?

I'm working on cleaning up CS1 errors and I came across this article D66 strain of Chlamydomonas reinhardtii that includes a paragraph where the reference is a "personal interview" (not a published interview as far as I can tell). To me, this falls under Wikipedia:No original research? When I'm just cleaning up small things, I don't usually want to switch to a "digging deeper" type of task. Is there a general guideline for just deleting the information related to the citation versus leaving the information and tagging wtih {{citation needed}} or other appropriate action? I'm asking for this, but also if I run across something similar in the future. As I'm not even sure this article meets notability requirements, but that would also require digging deeper and I was planning to also tag it with {{notability}}. Thanks! Cyanochic (talk) 01:32, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

This is the article's first edit. Based on that version, the entire article looks like based on a copyright violation to me and I'm tagging it as such. In order to be certain, I'd raise the issue on the talk page, but feel free to remove the section as improperly sourced. BusterD (talk) 03:37, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Also good to know. I might tackle looking at info about this strain sooner rather than later then, with so many issues. What tips you off that it's a copyright violation? Cyanochic (talk) 03:45, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

The formatting looks like it's been copypasted off of somebody's website or term-paper, but the pagecreator does attempt to source in their third edit (as it appears today). Earwig's tool sees no violations, though. In any case, you can't verify the source (even the pagecreator lists it as a personal interview, so it should be removed if not sourced directly). If you don't mind, link this discussion on the article's talk page for help in later attribution. BusterD (talk) 03:57, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you to both. I'm just now coming back to this article. After looking a bit for sources, I feel like this is probably not notable enough as a strain. (In my own looking for sources, in case I was missing something, I did ask a Chlamydomonas researcher who works in my building, and they hadn't heard of this strain.) My instnct is to just PROD the article, but I'm not as familiar with notability guidelines outside of articles about people. Are there notability guidelines for lab strains/systems of scientific study? Cyanochic (talk) 04:33, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Cyanochic, I've never worked on a biology article and haven't studied biology in decades, but the Notability (biology) page – which only got to a proposal stage – says that strains seldom merit their own article and might instead be addressed on the species page. Not sure that it's even worth identifying this specific strain on the species page (Google Scholar indicates ~200 research articles out of ~147,000 articles on the species, and I'm not in a position to know whether it being cell-wall-deficient is unusual), though perhaps worth adding something about the research to the Practical uses section there. I poked around a bit and confirmed that the article was created by an LSU student as a course assignment. The prof identifies himself on his own WP user page, but hasn't been active in a few years. FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:09, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I can definitely offer the biologist expert opinion side of it. C. reinhardtii is indeed a super highly used model system, so there are lots of available strains with known mutations. I don't think mentioning this one would make much sense in the encyclopedic sense (i.e. WP:UNDUE). Link to chlamy resource center strain list for an example on the magnitude of other strains.

I'm just still very new, so I'm not familiar with all the notability and other policies and guidelines. The biology notability page helps a lot even though it's only a proposal. Cyanochic (talk) 17:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Cyanochic, re: your general question, I asked something similar recently about a BLP that a random Help Center task took me to, and the closest I got to general guidance was that if it's not contentious or private info, then add {{citation needed}} if you think that it's something someone is likely to be able to find in a RS and otherwise delete it, though another editor said to just delete it per WP:BURDEN. Re: the "personal interview" citation, I tried to see if I could find anything written by a Michael Bailey about that algae strain, and this is the only result I found. My guess is that the WP article was created by an LSU student. FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:04, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Name for dual citizen in projects of different countries

Hello everyone, Fredis Beleris is a dual citizen with "Dionysios-Fredis Beleris" being the official Greek name elected in the EU parliament and "Dhionisios Alfred Beleri" is the official name being elected as mayor in Albania. I updated all pages that are relevant to the recent election in the EU parliament to have the name of his page "Fredis Beleris" (common name). I was stuck though in two pages Himarë and 2023 Albanian local elections, because his name is mentioned in the context of Albanian elections and I think it makes sense to keep the Albanian official name with which he was a candidate. I tried to use his full Albanian name but it's not a perfect solution, I don't like this inconsistency. Do you have any great idea of how to handle a case of a dual citizen who was elected (or at least participated) in two countries with different names? Maybe there has been another similar case or a wikipedia policy or guideline. Thank you. Cheers! Open Free Eye (talk) 18:14, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Watchlist Browser Notification User script?

Hello everyone,

This might be redundant and asked a lot about, but even after lot of searching through the user scripts list and even google aided wiki article search, I was not able to find something like it. Is there a user script which creates popup browser notifications for new updates in our watchlist, apart from the mails that we get?

Thanks! Bunnypranav (talk) 15:02, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't think so. And I cannot imagine why anybody would want such a thing. I have thousands of articles on my watch list. A pop-up for every update would make Wikipedia unusable. It's easier just to look at my watch list. When I'm done looking through it, I click on "mark all as read" and then the next time I look at it, it's easy to see what changed. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:41, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

That is true, but for a person who has 100 pages? Then it will be sensible right? Bunnypranav (talk) 16:03, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

My list has only 30 and I find that selecting Watchlist when I want to (not every time I log in) is sufficient. David notMD (talk) 16:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I too agree, but popup notifications might help with faster vandal reverts, especially if our watchlist contains many pages added after reverting vandalism. Bunnypranav (talk) 16:31, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

For that, it would be best to have an alert for when a specific user makes an edit, because if you're watching for repeat vandalism, it's likely to come from the same editor. This was discussed in the past but rejected by the community. It would certainly help admininistrators, however. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:20, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

@Bunnypranav Yes, you can arrange to have a notification popup for Watchlist changes, though it's not a Wikipedia tool that will do it.

This will require you to have given Wikipedia an email address when you created your account - or to add one now - and to use an email client that automatically gives you pop-up notifications of new email messages.

(I use MS Outlook in Office 365 and the Outlook client lets you add and view multiple email accounts from the likes of Hotmail, AOL, Gmail, etc. It gives me notifications of messages sent to any of my various accounts, including the one I specifically use for Wikipedia, irrespective of what I'm doing on my Windows desktop.

You now need to go to Wikipedia's User Profile Tab at Special:Preferences. In the 'Email options' section, tick the box marked "Email me when a page or a file on my Watchlist is changed" (a second line permits email notifications for minor edits, too, if you're so inclined).

From now on you will get an email for every change made to one of your Watchlist pages (another good reason not to use your main day-to-day email address for Wikipedia, or you'll be snided out with email notifications.) If your email client gives you popup notifications then, from now on, you'll quickly be alerted to changes on your Watchlist without lifting a finger, and can immediately act on them, or delete them without leaving the browser window you are currently on. Give it a try and let us know how you get on. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 18:41, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Kobi Arad UPE Tag

A while ago, I submitted the page for Kobi Arad to AFC with a paid disclosure, and it was reviewed and accepted by the experienced admin @Cullen328. Today, I noticed that someone has tagged a UPE message on it. I’m a bit confused and would appreciate some guidance. Shouldn’t a page that has been reviewed by an admin not be tagged like this, especially since:

a) I have disclosed my COI.

b) An admin has reviewed and approved the content.

Additionally, I see that other editors have made edits to the page. If any of them are suspected to be UPE, I understand that’s a different issue. However, shouldn’t there be a discussion by the person who tagged it about the issue and why they think some of the edits are UPE? Shouldn’t there be some kind of evidence and good faith in addressing this? Thank you for your help and understanding. Dwnloda (talk) 06:01, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Dwnloda, you are correct. You disclosed properly and I accepted your draft. I have removed the tag. Cullen328 (talk) 06:38, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Dwnloda (talk) 06:48, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

@Praxidicae: FYI. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:14, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Clarification Request:Edits Removed from 與非門樂隊 Article

Hi everyone,

I’m writing to respectfully appeal the removal of my recent contributions to the article on [與非門樂隊]. My intention was not to promote a business, but rather to correct factual errors and enhance the accuracy of the existing information. I spent a significant amount of time researching and editing the page, as this band has been dear to me since childhood, and I wanted to share accurate knowledge with others.

Some of the information I corrected was based on an incorrect citation, where the article cited was not accurate, but the content used from it was misinterpreted. I even conducted an interview with the band members to confirm these details, though I understand that original research isn’t allowed on Wikipedia. My goal was simply to align the page with the truth, not to promote the band.

I’m still learning how Wikipedia works, and I understand now that some of my efforts might not have perfectly followed the platform’s guidelines. I would appreciate any advice on how I can revise the content to meet Wikipedia’s standards. If possible, I’m happy to move the edits to a personal draft and work with others to improve them.

Thank you for your time and understanding. I truly believe in the value of Wikipedia as a platform for knowledge-sharing, and I would love to contribute constructively.

PS. I have been created this account name for a silly reason, I am a supper fan of the Band, but I am not any member of them. As I said earlier, I was a fan since I was very little earlier while the band just started , so I do know them in person.

Best regards, Louisa YuFeiMenCN (talk) 05:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

YuFeiMenCN: This is the English-language Wikipedia, so there shouldn't even be an article with that name here. But I see that your account has also edited on the Chinese-language Wikipedia. If your query is about content on the Chinese-language Wikipedia, you will have to ask on their noticeboards as the different language Wikipedias each set their own policy. — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 05:51, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your messaging me back. I am very confused, I thought there are the same... YuFeiMenCN (talk) 20:52, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Request for Review: Wikipedia Draft of Muhammad Ali Swati

Hello,

I’ve created a draft for Muhammad Ali Swati on Wikipedia: Draft:Muhammad Ali Swati. Could you please review it to check if it adheres to Wikipedia’s policies and standards? I would appreciate any suggestions or changes you might recommend.

Thank you! Imhussainkhan (talk) 08:43, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Please re-write this in a dry neutral tone and then submit it for review. Theroadislong (talk) 08:51, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

hey actually I'm a beginner but I will add more things. Imhussainkhan (talk) 08:53, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I have made the changes. Please check now, and I’ve submitted the draft. Imhussainkhan (talk) 09:07, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muhammad Ali Swati. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:15, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Confirming that a similarly worded article and references was deleted in September. You should not expect this effort to succeed. His involvement in the cable car rescue is not enough to make him notable, and all the content about his zipline creation and the flood event adds nothing notable. David notMD (talk) 12:43, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

https://www.app.com.pk/national/muhammad-ali-swati-a-legacy-of-heroism-and-service/ Imhussainkhan (talk) 12:57, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I deleted Naran flood content because I did not find English language news items about 600 people trapped or needing to be rescued, only bridge and some buildings destroyed. David notMD (talk) 16:26, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

for your info here is the paper link https://tribune.com.pk/epaper/news/Islamabad/2024-10-23/ZDg4ZTU1ZDdmM2M3MmQwODRkNmYwNTdhZTUyZTczMjguanBlZw Imhussainkhan (talk) 16:30, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thekhyberboypk. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:41, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Draft now deleted due to being creation of a sockpuppet account. David notMD (talk) 21:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Accessing a user sandbox through the WP app

I'm having a discussion with User:ImagineBeingAWikiMod64 about how to access their sandbox space through the WP app. I've never used the app to edit so I don't know how, or even if, this works. Are sandboxes accessible through the WP app? Joyous! Noise! 21:05, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Joyous!. I have posted at User talk:ImagineBeingAWikiMod64. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:30, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Joyous! Noise! 21:36, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

New Page

My recent submission for a student at the school I go to has been rejected. He has been involved with helping to try to end world hunger and wiki quick denied it and said that it is not notable enough. What other things should he do to be notable in this world. He has also helped thousands of children find transgender surgery centers and treatments. Woowoodopp (talk) 18:50, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

@Woowoodopp You used an AI chatbot to create a promotional draft with no sources. Please do not use AI chatbots to create drafts.

Only people who meet our strict notability requirements merit a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is not social media like LinkedIn or Facebook. There is no evidence that Jack merits an article at this time.

If you'd like to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please do start off by reading Help:Getting started. Qcne (talk) 20:01, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

That's crazy talk! I wrote it all by myself. Jack is my hero and I will never stop until Jack gets the credit he deserves. Woowoodopp (talk) 15:31, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Golden Rule. If you cannot find multiple sources that meet all three criteria of being reliable, independent, and providing significant coverage, then "Jack" doesn't merit an article here. Ask yourself are you here to build an encyclopedia or promote someone. One is welcome, the other will get you blocked. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:35, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Actually, Rejected, then Speedy deleted, the latter meaning unless an editor is an Administrator, cannot see the content now deleted from your Sandbox. What you know to be true counts for nothing unless all facts are verified by independent published articles. David notMD (talk) 22:12, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Consort

From HMS Discovery (1774);

"HMS Discovery was the consort ship of James Cook's third expedition to the Pacific Ocean"

Am I being particularly thick here, or is this a term that requires explanation for the average reader? It certainly stopped me in my tracks and interrupted my reading of this article. Those who live in countries with a monarchy of some description may well have come across the idea of a royal consort, but even so, its use as a shipping term was new to me. But even if it is merely for the benefit of the remainder of the planet, is there perhaps a better way of wording this opening sentence in the lead? Or linking to a dictionary definition of consort. WendlingCrusader (talk) 23:49, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I've added a link to the WP page that explains it. FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:19, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Unprofessionalism

[2]

Is this supposed to be humor? 2601:600:C882:9A90:C504:F2CF:E33F:37CA (talk) 13:08, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

They appear to be referenced. I would leave it up to someone familiar with the subjects to decide if the names are warranted. Knitsey (talk) 13:24, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I spend days to write and edit, but my effort has been deleted

I am new, I spend days to write and edit the Chinese band I love since I was a kid, in Chinese. but my effort has been deleted. The reason was that suspension of promoting a business. But I was fixing the error information and add writing to the page existing already. I don’t know how this makes me promoting a business. I am a bit overwhelmed by the functions of Wikipedia, but this should not be a reason for being excluded in this knowledge sharing platform. This is not very friendly to new user. Question, people spending time sharing what they know, yet also have to spend time on bargaining; who would share anything? I am so sorry, I must be OCD, on that page, the information is not correct, because it was quoting from a wrong article citation is correct, but the content of the article is not. I did an interview with the band members about it. So why I am being accused to promote a business? 2601:8C:4302:3850:ED50:3053:5D7F:77A8 (talk) 05:04, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Please provide a WP:DIFF to the edit or a link to the article. Your IP has made no other edits so we don't know what the problem is. Meters (talk) 05:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, IP user. I'm sorry you have had a disappointing experience, but I'm afraid that is a common experience for people who try the very challenging task of creating a new article before they have spent time learning how Wikipedia works. Would you expect to be able to build a house when you had never studied building? Or to enter Wimbledon when you only picked up a tennis racket for the first time last week? You might put a lot of effort into trying these things, but until you have learnt how to do it, much of that effort is likely to be wasted.

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. ColinFine (talk) 10:08, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

As noted, there is no history of this IP doing any editing in the English Wikipedia. What is the existing article you were editing? English? Chinese? Also, what you learned in an unpublished interview cannot be added to an article. David notMD (talk) 12:16, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for your experience, if you are referring to editing on English Wikipedia, there are rules to editing on Wikipedia ; writing in a neutral and non-bias tone as well as verificabiliy of the subject in independent sources. You must not copy and paste too, you can always check the editing guide , see this and this Tesleemah (talk) 14:02, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

How to add reference from a book?

How can I cite a Book? Rifat2005 (talk) 16:44, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

@Rifat2005 Welcome to the Teahouse. There is general guidance for citations at WP:REFB. For books, the best template is {{cite book}}. The template page shows examples of its use. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:54, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Question

Hello, what are some tips and tricks for new users on Wiki? Cafeconleche305 (talk) 15:47, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

@Cafeconleche305 In a moment, I'll add a set of links to your Talk Page. Not all of them are tips and tricks but they're ones I generally advise new users to read. I'm sure that other editors will add more suggestions either here or there. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:58, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

How to deal with someone responding to a warning by swearing at me on my talk page?

There's this user I warned for inserting information without a source (though in my opinion even a source wouldn't be enough since the text in question was relatively unimportant), and they promptly wrote this section over three edits. As per my understanding, doing this for the first time doesn't really warrant a block, but I'm not sure of what to do besides maybe writing a calm but blunt message explaining that such language is unacceptable on Wikipedia, especially towards people. Is that the most appropriate action here? (I haven't warned the user yet, will do once I understand if it is the best course of action) Tube·of·Light 16:07, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I issued a warning to the user. 331dot (talk) 16:10, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll go ahead and remove the section that user added to my talk page. Also, if this sort of stuff happens to me again, is it okay for me to directly issue a warning template like that or should I stick to a calmer/less assertive message? I'm not sure it would be right for me to issue a warning like that against whoever writes such stuff, since I would already be the target in such cases and I think that usually you shouldn't be that assertive in such scenarios if it directly involves you. Tube·of·Light 16:22, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Tagging @331dot since I realised that I wasn't notified of their response so they may not have been notified of mine. Tube·of·Light 16:46, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

You can certainly ask that others stop bad behavior towards you, if you're comfortable with doing so. You don't have to use the pre-written warnings. 331dot (talk) 17:43, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

La Chaux-de-Fonds

Why is the Swiss town La Chaux-de-Fonds so-called? 2A02:1210:7200:1800:D6B:5E92:7A21:1BA2 (talk) 19:43, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Presumably you've read La Chaux-de-Fonds#History, which gives earlier versions of the name dating back to 1350? We now need to figure out what "la Chaz de Fonz" meant back then. There is of course an article in French Wikipedia, whose section Toponymie reads:

"La signification et l'origine du nom de la ville ne font pas l'unanimité. Le mot « Chaux » vient de la racine pré-indo-européenne calmis dont le sens est « plateau aride, maigre pâturage ». Le mot « fonds » semble inspiré du mot latin fons, fontem signifiant « source, fontaine ». L'explication la plus probable établit un rapport avec Fontaines (Val de Ruz). À l'origine, La « Chaux de Fonds » aurait donc été un pâturage d'été utilisé par les habitants de Fontaines¹².

Vers 1350, le lieu-dit s'appelle la Chaz de Fonz (Chaz qui désigne en patois vaudois les pâturages où le calcaire jurassique affleure et qui sont impropres à la culture, puis vers 1378 Chault de Font¹³. Vers 1420 Chauz de fonds et vers 1438 Chaud de Fond.

On trouve également l'orthographe La Chaux de Fons (sans tiret et sans la lettre d)¹⁴.

La commune est familièrement désignée sous le nom de La Tchaux¹⁵.

Son ancien nom allemand est Schalu¹⁵."

Google Translate renders this as:

The meaning and origin of the city's name are not unanimous. The word “Lime” comes from the pre-Indo-European root calmis, the meaning of which is “arid plateau, meager pasture”. The word “fonds” seems inspired by the Latin word fons, fontem meaning “source, fountain”. The most probable explanation establishes a connection with Fontaines (Val de Ruz). Originally, “Chaux de Fonds” would have been a summer pasture used by the inhabitants of Fontaines.

Around 1350, the locality was called Chaz de Fonz (Chaz which designates in Vaudois dialect the pastures where the Jurassic limestone outcrops and which are unsuitable for cultivation, then around 1378 Chault de Font. Around 1420 Chauz de fond and around 1438 Hot Bottom.

We also find the spelling La Chaux de Fons (without a hyphen and without the letter d).

The commune is colloquially referred to as La Tchaux.

Its old German name is Schalu."

{The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.6.86.81 (talk) 21:00, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Why is the Wikidata link moved to the bottom?

Hello fellow editors, I suppose many Wikipedians frequently use the "Wikidata item" hyperlink, which has been on the right side near the top for a long while. I was disappointed today to see that has been moved, almost hidden away, closer to the bottom of the side bar. Now I have to scroll to see if there is an associated Wikidata item to an article. This is an essential tool for multilingual editing of Wikipedia. Is it possible to get it back near the top? Sauer202 (talk) 14:47, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

A related question: The "contributions" button is super-useful, but has also been hidden away in a sub-menu at the top of the page for a long time now. I miss it. However, the "user" page sits there big and shining, easy to click. I almost never visit my user page, but the contributions page however is super-useful for editors to be able to continue our work on refining articles, which I guess is why most of us are here. My hypothesis is that these two changes have made Wikipedia less productive. Is there any thought that goes into the placement of these buttons? Surely, looking at some usage metrics before moving buttons would be helpful to make the user interface more useful? Sauer202 (talk) 15:30, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Because appearances are so customizable, you may need to post a screenshot of what you're seeing. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 18:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I believe I run the stock thing and have not not customized anything. Anyway, I think the interface should be optimal for as many people as possible. The problem as I see it now is that the two most important buttons have been pushed far away in the stock menus: "My contributions", and "Wikidata item". Sauer202 (talk) 18:17, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi,@Sauer202, and welcome to the Teahouse. Most editors, (and in particular, most editors who frequent the Teahouse) have nothing to do with designing, implementing, or changing the user interface. I recommend posting this sort of question at WP:VPT. ColinFine (talk) 21:05, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Any suggestion or help with a false claim made by another editor

I find it frustrating that a random editor, @Gheus, repeatedly claims that my edits resemble those of a paid editor. This accusation is not only false but also disruptive, as they frequently move the pages I created to draft space at their discretion. Is this how Wikipedia operates? Am I expected to constantly move pages back and forth? I want to clarify that I have never accepted payment for my contributions, nor do I have any connections to the subjects in question. Yafetabera (talk) 13:47, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I left a note on both of your talk pages. Both of you have been disruptive. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:59, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

@Anachronist: On Yafetabera's talk page, you wrote "In spite of your claims to the contrary, the promotional language you used in the article does give the impression that you have some sort of association with iFly Pro. You really need to disclose how you're associated with it." after Yafetabera said "I do not have any conflict of interest in my Wikipedia edits". What evidence do you have to assert that such an association exists? The note you left on Gheus's talk page makes no mention of the accusations, also made without evidence, to which Yafetabera refers above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:10, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't know how I can be clearer than what you quoted. Promotional editing suggests an association. That's a simple fact. I have encountered many instances in the past where someone insists they have no conflict of interest due to not being paid, but later admit to an association. I want the editor to clarify exactly the situation. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:19, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Promotional or biased editing isn't always a conflict of interest. However. you can still warn/remind users for making promotional edits without a conflict of interest. نوح^{فث   Let's Chat!} 22:24, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

In this case the waters were muddied by the context of paid editing. That's why I wanted clarification. I've seen all too often in the past, cases where an editor insists there's no conflict of interest because there's no compensation, but turns out there's an association after all. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:06, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I thought my content is alright and never thought it is promotional, I just tried to put facts as I found from the major news sites by paraphrasing them and have no any intention to promote the site at all. And as I said earlier I do not have any association with the subject except using the app frequently for my personal use. Yafetabera (talk) 16:26, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. And yes, you used promotional language. See Wikipedia:Words to watch. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:13, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Do index articles require citations

So I came across this page just now, and saw that it had no citations. I also saw, however, that it is an "index article". Do index articles (or whatever they are called) require citations? RedactedHumanoid (talk) 21:01, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

@RedactedHumanoid No. Neither List articles or Index articles require citations, so long as the raison d’etre for them being listed there can be quickly discerned in the target pages (in this case: that they’re all called’Yews’. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:07, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I still dont have MOVE section to make my article live after 4 days and over 10 edits

Im not sure what is going on here. I have verified my email as well! help! CognitiveOP (talk) 23:54, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

As you are new to creating articles it's highly recommended to use the submission process. Ive added the appropriate information to allow you ro submit it. 331dot (talk) 00:19, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi CognitiveOP. As I write this, your account is still 46 minutes away from being 4×24 hours old.[3] PrimeHunter (talk) 01:57, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't move your sandbox to article space yet, if I were you. It would soon get put back to draft. It needs some significant cleanup. As 331dot said, it's best you submit it for review once you think it's ready, because a thorough review would lead to improvements. You are in no hurry, there is no deadline. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:00, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

thanks so much for such a speedy reply! It received a good score and I now have the ability to submit it for review (that option wasnt there before I read this comment). I may simply take your advice, will they assist with these improvements? What areas do you personally see for improvement? CognitiveOP (talk) 05:56, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

"Assist" in the sense of telling you what you need to fix, probably. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:28, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Correct, we don't get (much) involved in co-editing at AfC, we either accept a draft, or highlight the reasons why it cannot be accepted. The author can obviously then engage in discussion with the reviewer directly or at the AfC help desk, to learn more. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:32, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi @CognitiveOP: I had a quick look at your sandbox draft, and the first thing that jumps at me are the sources. User-generated ones (Twitter/X, YouTube, Scribd, Medium) are generally not considered reliable. And Amazon is just a retailer; if you're citing a book, don't cite it via Amazon, cite it directly and with sufficient bibliographical detail, using the {{cite book}} template. As it stands, approx ¼ of the sources get flagged up as unreliable, which looks bad.

I will slightly qualify my point about YouTube: a reliable broadcaster, such as BBC or CNN, streaming their own content on their own official channel is okay. I didn't look at what your sources are, only saw that they're hosted on YouTube. They may or may not be fine to use. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:30, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

thanks so much for your reply!! The youtube sources are academic presentations from top NATO generals and leading academics in the field at either NATO conferences or prestigious military academies. None of the sources which are from youtube are random opinions; is this still unreliable? and I will absolutely change those book sources, thanks so much for the input! CognitiveOP (talk) 19:19, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

@CognitiveOP: Those sources are most likely primary sources, which can be used in articles, but are limited in use and do not establish wikinotability unlike secondary sources. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:30, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I've had a quick look, and have some comments. The first sentence has a singular subject and a plural verb "Cognitive Warfare (CW) are ...". I'm unclear what the article is meant to be about - is CW a technique used in actual wars between countries, or is it another term for fake news? When a statement is followed by 14 references, it gives the impression that the writer is up to something dodgy. Maproom (talk) 06:48, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Subpages

So I have seen that some other uses have their own subpages. How do I make my own subpage(s)? RedactedHumanoid (talk) 06:03, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

@RedactedHumanoid Have a look at Wikipedia:User pages § Creating a subpage. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 06:51, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, RedactedHumanoid. You start by typing "User:RedactedHumanoid/" into the search box, being sure to add the slash. After the slash, you type in something that you can remember. Let's say you are working on developing a new paragraph to add to Saturn. You would type in "User:RedactedHumanoid/Saturn", and then search for it. You will get a message saying that page does not exist, and then a link that says "Start the User:RedactedHumanoid/Saturn page". Click that link and start writing about Saturn (or whatever), and when you publish your changes, that page will be created. You can have as many subpages as you want, as long as you are using them to improve the encyclopedia. You cannot host content unrelated to Wikipedia, or that otherwise violates policies. Cullen328 (talk) 06:52, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Alright, thank you. RedactedHumanoid (talk) 15:57, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Am I allowed to create subpages for showing my userboxes, listing what articles I have created, etc? RedactedHumanoid (talk) 00:18, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

RedactedHumanoid: Yes indeed, a lot of users do this, especially when they accumulate a lot of userboxes or awards. — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 00:26, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. RedactedHumanoid (talk) 00:26, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Formatting ok?

I recently made an edit on the Nick News article to include the recently created TikTok account and was wondering if my formatting was ok in this regard? Avienby (talk) 18:18, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Since the addition threw up an error message ("last= has generic name"), Avienby, it's safe to assume that no it wasn't OK. "News" and "Nickelodeon" aren't respectively the last and first names of any one person. (See this.) Just omit them. (Additionally, "www.instagram.com" isn't the name of a website; "Instagram" is.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:06, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

@Avienby can fix (|last= has generic name) example: Instagram. Thanks. (please  mention me on reply) TyphoonAmpil (💬 • 📝 • 🌀) 01:13, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I thought I made a simple edit but it seems there were other changes made as well

Here is the edit where it seems to have happened: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=AlphaFold&diff=prev&oldid=1253214672

I added in a comma where I thought I comma was needed, and then I hit publish on the edit. However, when I checked the edit history, I saw that the edit I made removed 7 bytes from the article. I was confused when I saw that, since adding a comma should in theory always add one byte and not subtract anything.

So I looked at the difference between the two revisions, and I saw that a bunch of spaces were also removed. 8 spaces seemed to have been removed in total, which explains why the edit removed 7 bytes rather than adding 1 byte. At a quick glance, those spaces seem to me as redundant and unnecessary spaces, but I did not actually remove any of those spaces.

Could something like this happen automatically? Or could there be a different reason why it could have happened? If you notice something like that happening, is it better to do something about it or just let it be? Anonymous Libertarian (talk) 02:58, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

If you were using the visual editor, it might have automatically compressed unnecessary spaces within tags. Even with the source editor, I've noticed it automatically truncating extra blank lines at the end of the section, if there were extra blank lines there to begin with.

Just let it be. Nothing to be concerned about. It looks like a "feature" to remove unnecessary bytes. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:10, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Any tips how to update a page without sounding like promotional purpose

Hi, I am trying to update a page and keep getting rejected. Any tips how to update a page without sounding like promotional purpose, and how to change the information that more accurately up to today. Dan H Barouch (talk) 16:28, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

You asked this at the Help Desk, please only use one forum at a time to avoid duplicating effort. Please also see your user talk page. 331dot (talk) 16:34, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

As explained on your Talk page, the article appears to be about you. You 'broke' the article by removing all references and adding a list of your publications. Wikipedia articles may have a section titled Select publications, with 5-10, but never everything. This is not a CV. Hence, reverted. Both of your efforts broke the neutral point of view rule. Given this is about you, per the guidance on your Talk page, you need to declare your COI on your User page, and then are limited to requesting article changes on the article Talk page. A non-connected editor will then evaluate your proposed changes. David notMD (talk) 06:59, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I added some of the content you wanted added to the Lead, as it was already in the body of the text - with references. And added NAM to the Societies, as the Wikilink to the list of members has your name for 2020. David notMD (talk) 07:26, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

adding references

I've already succeeded adding 3 using Visual Editor. Since then, when I try to add more and click on 'publish' they keep disappearing. I've looked on 2-3 different help pages, and they all say do a 'save changes' - but I cannot see anything on the edit page which says 'save'. I also tried CTRL+S but unsuccessfully

Any advice? Hidegkuti6 (talk) 09:52, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

You made an edit to Ottó Komoly where you added references, then you made another edit where you wrote in the edit summary that you added references, but it actually removed your prior edit- I assume this was done inadvertently. 331dot (talk) 10:08, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

the removal was accidental - I only tried to create more references. The original 3 remained, only the new citations disappeared entirely after clicking on 'publish' Hidegkuti6 (talk) 13:47, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

What 331dot said, does [4] help? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:11, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

What changes do I need to make to this edit to push it as a live update?

I made https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ivar_Jacobson&oldid=1249133658 to the Ivar Jacobson Wikipedia page, but was told by Jay8g that it was "filled with promotional content". Aside from the summary section, all of my other changes were to update factually incorrect information. Please could someone let me know what changes need to be made to my edit in order to push this to the page? Many thanks 82.41.180.4 (talk) 08:35, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

At Ivar Jacobson you added a Summary subsection within Work, with flawed references. I recommend you repeat the other changes to the article, but not the Summary content. You also removed notifications that citations were needed. David notMD (talk) 08:53, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

On your Talk page, you were asked what, if any, connection you have to Jacobson. Please reply there. David notMD (talk) 08:57, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

That link is broken – I think you meant this edit. jlwoodwa (talk) 15:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Confusing redirects

B/W redirects to a disambiguation page, but B/w redirects to A-side and B-side. Seems like an issue but maybe it doesn't matter? If it is, I'm not sure how to fix it. Seananony (talk) 02:38, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Seananony. That does look confusing. Maybe B/w should also redirect to B&W but it has 86 incoming links (written as b/w) from articles. They would all have to be retargeted if the redirect no longer goes to A-side and B-side#B/W. That's too much work for me when users can still reach B&W with the hatnote at A-side and B-side#B/W. There are probably few users who encounter both redirects and get confused by their difference. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:08, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

It could be an issue, but it might just be WP:DIFFCAPS. I notice that very few of the entries at B&W could be properly written in lowercase. jlwoodwa (talk) 15:35, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Redirect request not autoaccepted (as autoconfirmed)

It says that my redirect requests will be automatically accepted for autoconfirmed users, and I am an autoconfirmed user. Why is my redirect request not auto-accepted?

Thanks Dyssent (talk) 01:31, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Dyssent, welcome to the Teahouse. I think you misunderstood something. Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects has had problems with disruptive editing so edits to that page must be reviewed before being displayed on the page, unless the editor is autoconfirmed. It doesn't mean the redirect requests are auto-accepted for autoconfirmed users. It merely means the posting of the request is auto-accepted. I admit the wording is confusing for that page but the "auto-accept" message is the same for all pages with this type of protection, and almost none of those pages are for requests which have to be accepted or declined. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:12, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh alright thank you Dyssent (talk) 10:50, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Also note that autoconfirmed users can directly create redirects, without having to use Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects. jlwoodwa (talk) 15:37, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Permission to add something to the 2018 United States–Canada tornado outbreak page?

I noticed this, but both the Dunrobin-Gatineau and The Arlington Woods tornadoes were probably significant enough to get the "see section on this tornado" for this page: 2018 United States–Canada tornado outbreak. just wondering if i have permission to add it. SillyNerdo (talk) 20:26, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Also, I'm not sure how to add the link part lol since I'm basically a newcomer. SillyNerdo (talk) 20:27, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

@SillyNerdo The "Cite" or "Add reference" button in Wikipedia's VisualEditor appears as a small icon resembling quotation marks. Here’s a description

• It is located in the editing toolbar at the top of the page when editing an article.
• The icon typically shows a quotation mark symbol and may be labeled as "Cite" or "Citations."
• Clicking it opens a drop-down menu with options for adding references, including manually or using templates like "Cite web," "Cite book," or automatic citation generation using a URL. Please ensure that any links you add come from reliable sources. Familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's guidelines on reliable sources eg WP:RS and WP:IS

Afro 📢Talk! 16:23, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

You don't need permission from anyone to edit (unless a page is protected or other special circumstances apply), and in fact you're encouraged to be bold. I'm not sure I can from your description judge whether you should make this edit, but worst thing that can happen is someone undoes it and you discuss how best to improve the article. As for how to add links, see either Help:Wikitext or Help:VisualEditor, depending on which editor you use. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 20:30, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

ok thank you! SillyNerdo (talk) 20:30, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia can be edited by everyone so feel free to positively @SillyNerdo.you can follow guide highlighted above. Tesleemah (talk) 14:06, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I found out how to add links to headers, just saying! SillyNerdo (talk) 17:53, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

UCLA Summer Econ Programs Draft Declined

Hi everyone,

First time creator of a wiki so please bear with me I am working on this page and would liek to get it up to wiki standards. Id appreciate any input thank youb in advance: Draft:University of California Los Angeles - Economics Summer Programs RJG11 (talk) 16:12, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

@RJG11 You have already had feedback on your draft when it was declined. I'm not a reviewer but the thing that immediately strikes me is that the draft says almost nothing about the topic of the title but instead focuses on the individuals (all of whom have Wikipedia biographies) who present the course. What little sourcing you have that meets the golden rules and is on-topic could easily be incorporated into a subsection at UCLA College of Letters and Science. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:36, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Accepted references

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1253351222&oldid=1253348994&title=BAAD Ilitazoulay (talk) 16:53, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

@Ilitazoulay: I recommend submitting a new article through Articles for Creation rather than overwriting an existing redirect, as you did to BAAD. The latter borders on hijacking, and will likely be reverted unless your version clearly meets Wikipedia's standards for articles. On the other hand, an insufficient draft won't be reverted – it'll remain in draftspace where you can gradually improve it to meet those standards. jlwoodwa (talk) 17:18, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Korea-related articles has an RfC

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Korea-related articles has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you.

I posted a notice about this previously, but would like more participation. I'd like to hear from people who know little about Korea or the romanization of Korean if possible. Thanks. seefooddiet (talk) 19:08, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Add photo from Arabic Wiki

Hi. Can someone help me add this photo to this page, as I noted in this talk page? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wahbah_al-Zuhayli#Photo The Arabic version has a profile photo, but the English one does not. That is all, thanks! DivineReality (talk) 03:13, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I replied on that talk page. Without the proper licensing, the answer is no. The source for that image is https://islamicsham.org/nashrah/3712 and as such we need to assume it isn't releasable under an acceptable free license and isn't in public domain. In fact, there is a copyright notice at the bottom of that page. It shouldn't be on the Arabic Wikipedia either. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:22, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Verifying my content

Hi folks -- I just entered a whole page of information about my low-power FM radio station. I entered all the valid information about it and published it. But, it was immediately removed and switched "back" to the original information that was there - a simple redirect to our content provider organization. This doesn't really tell the story of the station, which, of course I know the most about since I helped start the station six years ago. So, how do I get the information that I'm entered validated so that it can take the place of the non-information "redirect" that is there now? 68.84.134.180 (talk) 18:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Can you provide the link or title of the page? Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 18:13, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

WSJF-LP DannyGallagherJr (talk) 18:17, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello. Please read conflict of interest. It would be best if you used the Article Wizard to create and submit a draft. Then, if accepted, the reviewer will replace the redirect with it. 331dot (talk) 18:16, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! I spent about two hours entering the details about the station and used a template to enter all the FCC details also. All of that is GONE. Is there anywhere that my entry is "saved" off in Wiki or do I have to re-enter all of that information? DannyGallagherJr (talk) 18:19, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

It's stored in the edit history: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WSJF-LP&action=history

Note that Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about something, and is not a place for organizations to tell about themselves. A Wikipedia article about your station must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about it, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. It should also be written with a neutral point of view, and matter of factly(i.e. not telling how its "story" began). Articles are typically written by independent editors wholly unconnected with the subject, but you may submit a draft if you have independent sources to summarize. 331dot (talk) 18:27, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

OK! I had the wrong idea about Wikipedia!! But, I'm trying to figure out how other radio stations got their Wiki pages. For instance, take a look at "WBMD" (another radio station in Baltimore, Maryland) -- who started that page? It must have been someone who had an interest in providing the information so searchers for it would find something. That's what I was trying to do. Anyway, I'll take your suggestion and try the Article Wizard to create and submit a draft and maybe it will be accepted. Thanks again for the help! DannyGallagherJr (talk) 19:05, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I read the "Conflict of Interest" pages - I did not realize that the only person that would have the basic information about the station and its history would have a conflict of interest in the authorship. But, I agree that I certainly do! The reason I started to write up this information is because I saw another page about another radio station in Baltimore and was intrigued that we should have one also for reference by anyone looking for information about our station. Thanks for pointing me to that information. DannyGallagherJr (talk) 19:02, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

DannyGallagherJr So if you are "the only person" with information about your station, it would not merit a Wikipedia article at this time. An article will need to summarize what others unaffiliated with your station say about it. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of things that exist; an article is typically written when an independent editor takes note of a topic in independent sources and chooses to write about it, summarizing those sources. No sources, no article.

It's possible that this other article you saw is not appropriate either, and just has not beem dealt with yet; see other stuff exists. If you want to use other articles as a model or example, use those that are classified as good articles. 331dot (talk) 19:13, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

OK! I think I get it! Of course, there are a few other people who would be able to write up the information, but they are all members of the volunteer team that support the radio station. Since we're the only parish-based radio station in the Archdiocese of Baltimore maybe that's a way to get the station information on Wikipedia. I'll think about what you said about "sources" and see if there is a reason to have the information about the station on Wiki, other than to just have the information available to Wiki users. Again, thanks very much for the information and help! I understand a lot better now. DG DannyGallagherJr (talk) 19:22, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Here is a simple overview of what we require for sources: Wikipedia:Golden Rule. If you cannot find multiple sources that meet each of those three criteria, then the subject cannot have a Wikipedia article. Merely existing and being unique isn't sufficient. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:34, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Question about pinging

Hi, quick question, does linking to an user's talk page (not userpage) in discussions ping that user? Thanks. — ‎‎‎hhypeboyh 💬 • ✏️ 00:33, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

According to Help:Notifications#Mentions, it doesn't:

To mention another editor and trigger this notification for them, you need to:

• Create a new comment; modifying an earlier comment does not work.
• Link to their username
  • either directly as in [[User:Username]]
  • or using templates that link a user's name like {{u}} if they exist on your wiki (many use the {{ping}} or {{reply to}} templates).
• Sign your comment with ~~~ or ~~~~. Notifications will not be sent if your signature is embedded in a template, or has no link to your user page or user talk page.
• Not alter any text outside your own comment.
• Not exceed 50 mentions.

So only an userpage link works, or a template that links the userpage. – 2804:F1...DE:554A (talk) 03:07, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I see, thank you for the answer! Best, — ‎‎‎hhypeboyh 💬 • ✏️ 06:15, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Adding iNaturalist image

Hello there!

I was wondering what the protocol is for adding images from iNaturalist specifically in regards to the copyright? I've reached out to the creator of the specific image I wanted to use, but wanted to check in and make sure that I am able to do so without it being copyright infringement (while following the tutorial from wikiedu on how to add images properly).

Page being edited: Midvalley fairy shrimp

Photo in question: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/147506541 Erinkmarkham (talk) 05:14, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

There's an admirably clear link from that page to this one, which essentially says that yes you may use it, as long as this satisfies various requirements. -- Hoary (talk) 05:40, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

@Erinkmarkham Just adding to what @Hoary has said... yes, you can upload a photo from a site like Flickr that has been released for commercial re-use, as this one clearly has.

You don't need to reach out to the original photographer to seek their permission, but I think it really helps if you reach out afterwards and thank them for releasing the image under the right licence, and linking to the article you've added it to. People like to see and know that their images are proving useful and being appreciated by others. And it encourages them to continue doing so, I believe.

There's an interesting page about the relationship between iNaturalist and Wikip0edia here. It's really useful to send people to ask them to reconsider the licencing they've given to a particular image, and includes a link to a 'how to' video for changing attribution in iNaturalist. https://www.inaturalist.org/posts/76329-using-inaturalist-images-on-wikipedia

Just remember to ensure when you upload it to Commons that you don't accidentally claim the image as your own, and include a link back to the image on the photosite so our volunteer response team can check the licencing if necessary.

I have found people are mostly happy to change licencing for individual photos (or even upload an alternative lower res image under the right licence) that they've put on Flickr if you explain the use that you would like to put it to. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 12:09, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

@Erinkmarkham: There is more info, and links to useful tools, at c:Com:INaturalist. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:47, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

@Erinkmarkham @Hoary I think you're misinterpreting the copyright notices -- the image is clearly listed as "all rights reserved" but the observation is listed as "CCBY4.0". That means the author does not give permission for people to use the image, as far as I can tell, but does give permission to use the metadata/information associated with it. See this help page -- if the symbol on the bottom of the photo is "C" and not "CC" (as here) that means that the image has not been released under CCBY4.0. The default license is actually Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial license, which Wikipedia can't use. Mrfoogles (talk) 00:32, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Erinkmarkham (and Nick Moyes and Andy Mabbett): Mrfoogles is right and I was wrong. I apologize. As displayed on that page, the image is marked "©". Click on that, and we read "©ivanparr, all rights reserved". This very clearly conflicts with reproduction at Wikimedia Commons (or Wikipedia). -- Hoary (talk) 08:11, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Request for Review of Edits to Big Brothers Big Sisters of America Page

Hello Wikipedia Editors,

I recently made several updates to the Big Brothers Big Sisters of America (BBBSA) Wikipedia page to reflect current information and improve clarity. I aimed to ensure that all changes are supported by reliable sources and adhere to Wikipedia’s standards for neutrality and verifiability.

Would an editor be available to review these edits for accuracy and compliance with Wikipedia guidelines? I’d appreciate any feedback or recommendations for further improvement. Thank you very much for your time and assistance.

Thanks, Smonie12345 (talk) 05:12, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Smonie12345: I had to think how to reply to your request, which is a bit unusual, as we don't normally conduct ongoing review of each other's edits.

In a way, reviewing is left to the community at large: someone who comes across the article(s) you refer to will read the text, and if they feel like they can improve on it, they may edit it, including editing your earlier edits. If they really object to something you wrote, they may even revert your edits. At that point, you can then discuss this on the article talk page.

That said, we do also have a formal(ish) peer review process, and if you wish, you may request a review by going to Peer review.

Finally, if you have a specific question about a particular aspect of your edit, you can of course ask that here at the Teahouse. 'Small' questions tend to be easier to answer, and are likely to elicit swifter replies (than the few hours that you had to wait for this).

HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:43, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Smonie12345, I have reverted your edits which are largely unreferenced, highly promotional and are indicative of a possible undisclosed paid editing relationship. Compliance with WP:PAID is mandatory, as is compliance with the three core content policies, Verifiability, the Neutral point of view and No original research. You should be summarizing published reliable sources that are independent of this organization, rather than parroting their own self-descriptions or winging it on your own. Cullen328 (talk) 09:13, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Guidance on whether pages on a given name should feature lists of people with that name

Is there any existing policy, consensus, or guidance on whether Wikipedia pages for a name (e.g Robert) should feature a list of all people (and fictional characters, etc.) with that name, indiscriminately? Brusquedandelion (talk) 00:03, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Is it an indiscriminate list or is it a directory of bluelinks to articles? The latter is an example of content typically found on a disambiguation page. But a DAB page would not have substantial content other than that directory (see MOS:DABPEOPLE). I think if there is content to be written about the name itself, that would be its own page, apart from a DAB of people with that name. But that leaves no place for non-bluelinked people of that name (but that also hints maybe they either shouldn't be listed or their articles should be written). DMacks (talk) 08:57, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

This is looking like a disembiguiation page which has been been analysed already above. Tesleemah (talk) 12:58, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

how to create page for this website IAC News

I have crited the page many times but it has been removed this Website Name IAC News URL https://iacnews.com Samiul2.0 (talk) 13:32, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

That does not have any of the hallmarks of a reliable source, rather it mostly just seems to be non-expert summaries of press release content. I'm wouldn't say it's definitely LLM generated, but it's certainly not written by a skilled writer. Interestly, the 'about us' page claims that it includes 'local news' but doesn't say local to where.

Seperately to that, I can't see any indication of why it might be notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article in it's own right. -- D'n'B-t -- 15:11, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

(OP blocked as a sock.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:00, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

can't this be misused by individual ideology and further mislead other allegedly

I do not understand the whole point of this make me understand something 103.186.199.91 (talk) 19:00, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, not understanding what you're asking. Are you asking whether Wikipedia could be misused? Valereee (talk) 19:11, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Sfn error

I had blissfully forgotten how to use the Sfn and Harvnb systems and then I had to update an article that uses them. Could anyone please help me troubleshoot ref 118 in Sustainable energy? It is producing "Harv error: link from CITEREFIPCC2022 doesn't point to any citation." Many thanks in advance. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 20:57, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Clayoquot, the IPCC 2022 reference had a custom |ref= value defined. I updated the {{sfn}} template call to use the custom value here, which resolved the error. Folly Mox (talk) 19:31, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Amazing. Thank you so much, Folly Mox! Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 20:38, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Broken interlanguage link?

Hi. I just accessed Europe and I noticed that the languages are missing. I tried adding the interlanguage links and it returned the message that it is already linked on this page, which seems really weird to me: Turai

Is it the same for everyone? Wikiminds34 (talk) 14:32, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

It was an erroneous edit in Wikidata, which I have undone. (I don't think it was vandalism, but I'm investigating) ColinFine (talk) 14:51, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Okay, thank you! (hopefully it won't happen again :) - I just noticed it when I was translating an article to another language) Wikiminds34 (talk) 14:53, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

What seems to have happened is that "Turai" is both the Hausa for Europe and a Nigerian personal name. An editor partly hijacked the article ha:Turai so that it is now about the name instead of the continent (though they left the infobox alone).

Having done that, they linked it to the English article Turai, which edited the Wikidata item on Europe d:Q46 to point to that article instead of Europe, and Europe became unattached.

I've undone the change in Wikidata, and explained on the user's Wikidata User Talk and on d:WD:Interwiki Conflicts; but if I read the Hausa help page ha:Wikipedia:Kofan al'umma correctly, that Wikipedia has just been made read-only, so it may not be possible to correct or even report the original error. ColinFine (talk) 15:21, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it's read-only – that message was for September 25, not October 25. jlwoodwa (talk) 15:28, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I just realised that. I will attempt to notify the user on their User talk page in hawiki. --ColinFine (talk) 15:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

And User:Gwanki has now correct this in hawiki, restoring ha:Turai to be about Europe, and creating a new article ha:Turai (suna)for the name, and linking it through a new Wikidata item to Turai (name). Thank you Gwanki. --ColinFine (talk) 21:36, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

OXILOCOPIOS EPOCA VIETNAM

OXILOCOPIOS  EPOCA  VIETNAM US NAVY ! ( AN/USM-339 ) . 2001:818:E778:3A00:C5C7:4BFB:2441:856F (talk) 22:58, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I am not sure what your question is but, Weapons of the Vietnam War may have an answer. Ca ^{talk to me!} 23:30, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

deletion

Hello, I spent a lot of time on a page Billy Cowie with lots (over thirty) references to books and websites. It was initially rejected and I worked on it some more and now it has simply been deleted without any discussion. why? Dancematters (talk) 15:36, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Dancematters. It looks like the draft your talking about was deleted as promotional of an unnotable subject and possible created by an editor with a conflict of interest. If you do have a conflict of interest, it is in advisable to create the article yourself, and if you do create it, it has to be disclosed with the proper template listed here. I see you have already asked for a WP:REFUND here, but if you do get it, understand that articles here have to be neutral and sourced with reliable sources. cyberdog958^Talk 15:54, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I am trying to increase the woeful lack of choreographers on wikipedia and had planned a whole series on major figures who are not represented. the page in its second form was completely neutral and only relied on third party sources (over thirty) including five published books and 25 reputable websites. the subject is one of the most notable dance artists with performances spanning forty years in over thirty countires. my suspicion is that wikipedia editors have no experience of dance and its importance. I would be grateful if you could request to see the page and give a second opinion. Dancematters (talk) 15:58, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Editors do NOT have to have any experience of dance in order to review and decline a draft article on the topic. Theroadislong (talk) 16:12, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I was the editor who declined (not rejected) the original article and have already proffered advice to the editor on my talk page both in regard to their next steps as well as being WP:HOSTILE and WP:RIGHTINGGREATWRONGS. I see from the editor's talk page that I did note it was promotional in my declination reasoning, but I am not sure who originally tagged it for deletion. Given WP:REFUND often does not return {{g11}}ed drafts, I have advised the editor on the best way to write an article in the future. With that said, no I am not an expert in dance or it's importance but I like to think I have a good grasp on WP:N and WP:NOT. Bobby Cohn (talk) 16:24, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

it would seem that they can delete an article on a whim without a shred of evidence that it is not notable or promotional. it would be one thing to decline the article but allow further work on it but to delete it out of hand is pure arrogance. Dancematters (talk) 16:27, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

We can't prove a negative, it's up to you to prove they are notable. 331dot (talk) 16:58, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

And please be aware, Dancematters, that "notable" does not mean *important": in the context of Wikipedia, WP:Notable only means "has been written about at some length in several different pieces published by Reliable sources that are independent of the subject. You may have included sources that met all these criteria (only an admin can see them now), but the deletion suggests not, and the deleter has over 20 years' experience on Wikipedia. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.6.86.81 (talk) 17:13, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

well I suggest you ask to take a look. "has been written about at some length in several different pieces published by Reliable sources that are independent of the subject" is exactly what I included!!!! why is the evidence hidden away even from you??? Dancematters (talk) 17:19, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Because if the 'evidence' is currently visible to anyone, it's only to WP:Admins (of which there are only a few hundred, as opposed to the 100,000-plus different people who make edits on Wikipedia every month). I am not an Admin; I don't even have a User account (although I have been editing here for over 20 years) because I don't need one for what I want to do (copyedit and offer advice).

As for looking myself, I choose not to get involved in disputes like this, and it has all the hallmarks of you not understanding Wikipedia's principles, rules and procedures, trying to do something outside them, and getting argumentative and hostile when it's not permitted. Bobby Cohn has offered you sincere advice on his Talk page; you might get somewhere if you follow it. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.6.86.81 (talk) 20:18, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

dear 94.6.86.81 if you choose not to get involved in disputes like this then why are you posting this??? I think if any action is hostile it is the taking down of a page without discussion or communication which surprisingly 'seems to be permitted'. Dancematters (talk) 22:56, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I think I did prove notable. Does discussion of the work in five major published academic books not sound notable. What about hundreds of performances in over thirty countries with extensive documented reviews and involving major dance performers (although you wouldn't know that if you don't need any knowledge of the subject matter). Also I wasn't even started on the references but I can't add those to a deleted page can I??? Dancematters (talk) 17:15, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

@Dancematters: please don't ask the same question in multiple fora (here and at the AfC help desk), it replicates the efforts and creates unnecessary discussion forks. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:59, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Dancematters, take a look at Category:Choreographers and its subcategories, which show that Wikipedia has hundreds of biographies of choreographers. Are you Billy Cowie? If not, what is your relationship with him? The biggest problem with your draft is that it did not include references to reliable sources completely independent of Cowie that devote significant coverage to Cowie. Cullen328 (talk) 20:37, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I am a dance academic from the midlands. I have a list of over twenty UK choreographers who should be on wikipedia. I can see why now they are not with the obstacles that are put in the way. Have you seen the draft Cullen 238? If not what gives you the right to comment on the sources and if you have please let me know which of the thirty sources were not independent??? For example the first source reference on the page was to a book about Cowie published by Routledge with chapters by Carol Brown, Marion Kant, Donald Hutera, Claudia Kappenberg, Ian Bramley, Sondra Frahleigh, Valerie Briginshaw and Sherill Dodds. Anyone interested in dance would know that these are eight of the top dance academics and writers in the UK dance scene. Dancematters (talk) 22:43, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Dancematters, you say "I wasn't even started on the references". Then you were working on the draft backwards; no wonder it went badly. You should gather the references first, references to reliable independent sources that discuss the subject. Then write the draft basing it on what those sources saying. Writing what you like and then searching for references that support what you've written is so much harder. Maproom (talk) 21:57, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

In the page there were over thirty independent references already. When I say I wasn't even started I am meaning that I have many more to add which I would have carried on doing if the page had not been deleted! Dancematters (talk) 22:06, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Dancematters, I am an adminstrator and yes I read your draft and the references available online. You clearly do not yet understand what "independent" means or what "significant coverage" means when it comes to acceptable sources for establishing notability on Wikipedia. Books written by Cowie and interviews of Cowie are not independent of Cowie. Passing mentions of Cowie and event listings that include his name do not constitute significant coverage. Like many new editors, you seem to have the misconception that adding more and more mediocre sources is a good thing. The fact is that having three excellent sources is vastly better than having 34 mediocre sources. When a reviewer is weeding through your sources and rightly concludes "This one is no good. That one is no good. This one is even worse" over and over, then the conclusion is that the author of the draft has failed to make a convincing case that the person is notable. Possibly he is notable but your draft did not show it. Cullen328 (talk) 23:14, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

two points. many of the textbook references are entirely independent and by significant authors. indeed the very first source reference on the page was to a book about Cowie published by Routledge with chapters by Carol Brown, Marion Kant, Donald Hutera, Claudia Kappenberg, Ian Bramley, Sondra Frahleigh, Valerie Briginshaw, Sherill Dodds. Anyone interested in dance would know that these are eight of the top dance academics and writers in the UK dance scene. secondly if it is felt that some of the references were inappropriate then surely the reasonable thing to do would be to point these out and to allow for the more acceptable references to be fleshed out. If wikipedia is serious about encouraging new contributors then summarily deleting pages with no discussion would seem to be entirely the wrong way to go about it. Dancematters (talk) 23:29, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Dancematters, you do not seem to realize that experienced Wikipedia editors know how to look things up. This page from Google Books shows that the book was copyrighted in 2006 by Liz Aggiss and Billy Cowie. The publisher says Liz Aggiss and Billy Cowie, known collectively as Divas Dance Theatre, are renowned for their highly visual, interdisciplinary brand of dance performance that incorporates elements of theatre, film, opera, poetry and vaudevillian humour. Anarchic Dance, consisting of a book and downloadable resources, is a visual and textual record of their boundary-shattering performance work. For you to try to claim that this book is somehow independent of Cowie is, frankly, ludicrous. Cullen328 (talk) 23:58, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

The book was commissioned by Routledge who asked the academics I mentioned to write eight chapters which I imagine from reading them that they did so entirely independantly of Cowie's influence. These are serious independent major figures in the dance world and Routledge is one of the main academic publishers in the UK - not some vanity publisher!!!! as Routledge says a visual and textual record of their boundary-shattering performance work. This sounds like notability to me! Dancematters (talk) 00:09, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

You also failed to address my second (and in a way more important) point Dancematters (talk) 00:10, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

If you have acceptable references, it's time to put them up. Please tell your three absolute best sources that you have. Only three, please.

I'll add that the awards in the draft(I'm an admin) are meaningless towards notability as they lack articles themselves (like Nobel Peace Prize or Academy Award).. 331dot (talk) 00:17, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Dancematters, I'm not an administrator and so cannot see your draft and don't know what your references are like. I poked around a bit and found a couple of reviews of his books, and these would be independent sources:

• Shaw, Norah Zuniga. "Anarchic Dance, edited by Liz Aggiss and Billy Cowie with Ian Bramley. 2006. Dance Research Journal 41.2 (2009): 110-113
• Carr, Jane. "Billy Cowie, Poetic Dance: A Choreographic Handbook." Dance Research 41.1 (2023): 144-145.

Ditto if you can find significant published reviews of performances.

Cullen328, Cowie is one of the editors of Anarchic Dance and wrote a couple of chapters, as did his co-editor/collaborator, Liz Aggiss, so those chapters certainly aren't independent of him. But what is the policy on chapters written by others? Are they also considered non-independent, simply by virtue of being in a volume edited by the article's subject? Thanks, FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:22, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Dancematters, that book is not independent of Cowie, period, end of story. He and his partner hold the copyright, for heaven's sake. As for your second point, the onus is on you not on any other editor to write the draft properly. You have several highly experienced editors and administrators trying to explain our policies and guidelines, and you do not seem to be getting the message. Unless you internalize what we are telling you, you cannot possibly be successful on Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 00:26, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

FactOrOpinion, those two references you suggested look promising. As for the chapters of the book written by others, I have my deep doubts. Cowie is the co-author and copyright holder, and must be assumed to have a major role in recruiting and selecting the chapter editors. Cullen328 (talk) 00:35, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Cullen328, thank you for taking time to answer my question. Dancematters, these look like a couple of significant performance reviews of his work in Cuba: 1, 2 It's acceptable to use references in other languages. I tried looking up whether those news sources are reliable sources by WP's standards, but there's no information about them in the RSN archives. I found those by starting with reviews on Cowie's website and then looking for the originals, as citations to Cowie's website are not independent of him. It looks like he quotes from many reviews on his website, and quotes from those can help you find additional significant reviews elsewhere. FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:26, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Are these vandals the same person?

I noticed a weird pattern of editors claiming Khmer topics as Thai.

Kromla

2001:FB1:D5:8EF0:92A2:CAA2:62A4:29FC

I remember seeing more but I can't find them. TansoShoshen (talk) 00:13, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi!

We have something here on Wikipedia called CheckUser to investigate if two editors are the same, but for privacy reasons CheckUsers (the people who do this) won't link an editor to an IP address.

Unfortunately, it is common for people to abuse multiple accounts (or an account + an IP) to appear as multiple people, but (even if it is true that those users are the same) they might just have forgotten to log in.

If the information they are adding is unsourced and incorrect, feel free to revert it, and you might like to open up a discussion on their talk page or the talk page of a relevant article. MolecularPilot 02:45, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

If you believe they're the same for whatever reason, go to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations and open a case. Don't assume they'll figure it out. You'll need to make a clear case why you think they're the same person. You won't get a confirmation connecting IP to user names. That's one of those things that's protected and not given out to users. Graywalls (talk) 06:14, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

best place for sharing data on wiki

I have several EndNote (and potentially, Zotero) libraries on different topics (one is about Wikipedia itself and it has everything, that has been published about Wikipedia in peer-reviewed journals). I only included in these libraries full-texts, which have their copyright expired in the USA or are open-access-licensed under appropriate terms. I would like to share these libraries with other Wikipedians, but I cannot figure out what the proper mechanism for such sharing is. Any ideas? Walter Tau (talk) 17:46, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Walter Tau, if you'd like to share full texts of public domain and freely licensed documents, wikisource is probably the best place, you can see Wikipedia:Wikisource or s:Wikisource:What is Wikisource? for more details about the sister project. Alpha3031 (t • c) 23:45, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

@Walter Tau On the other hand, if you are asking about sharing the bibliographic data itself, I know Zotero groups is one way to do this. I just searched for publicly accessible Zotero groups mentioning Wikipedia and found Wikipedia Research, so it might be worth joining that group (or searching for others) and sharing your data that way rather than duplicating efforts. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 01:41, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

@User:ClaudineChionh thank you all for your replies. My problem with Zotero is, that I can easily transfer the biblio-data from EndNote to Zotero, but I have not been able to figure out, if it possible to transfer attached pdfs/epubs from Endnote to Zotero. Any suggestions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walter Tau (talk • contribs) 01:54, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't help you there – I haven't touched Endnote in over twenty years. I would also be extremely cautious about making pdfs or epubs easily available in downloadable form if you are not the author. However, many of us do participate in the Resource Exchange where those of us with access to research resources can provide them to other editors for supporting their work on specific Wikipedia articles. Is that the kind of use case that you have in mind? ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 04:10, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

@User:ClaudineChionh thank you again for your help. I will try Resource Exchange. I am well aware of Wiki's copyright policy. I tuned the pdf download function in EndNote to limit it to publications, that either have their copyrights expired in the USA or are published under wiki-compatible attribution-only OA licenses.Walter Tau (talk) 10:14, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Question about harassment

If you were in my situation, how would you respond to harassment and false charges on this talk page, as well as the cyberbullying in the video's comment section? I tried ignoring this for a while but the harassment has become too much. Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 06:10, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

@Wolverine X-eye:, I'm not really seeing harassment? That looks like it was started by a legitimate content dispute turned turf war. Something about failed verification on how whales signal or communicate asking how the existing sources directly verify whatever claims under question. See WP:BURDEN. As for the dive-depth, the first paragraph in WP:V explains how to handle when reliable sources disagree. If there's a disagreement over which sources are reliable and which ones are not, WP:RSN is the place to discuss that. What goes in and what doesn't is ultimately based on consensus, but an article would never pass FA if it has verifiability failure. Not every one of it might be noticed, but if someone actually go through the source, and say they can't verify it, those wanting to include it must prove it.

You can't really stop someone from saying things you don't like in YouTube comments anymore than you can stop people from talking about topics you don't like out in the public. Graywalls (talk) 12:24, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Logo not changing

I recently updated a logo on Wikimidia Commons for the Kehot Publication Society logo and on the page for Kehot Publication Society when you click on the logo it still shows the original non updated one. will this fix by itself or am I missing something? YisroelB501 (talk) 09:36, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

@YisroelB501 By "original", do you mean File:Kehotlogo.jpg? If so, since I see File:Kehot Logo.png as leadimage at Kehot Publication Society, I wonder if your problem is WP:BYPASS related. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:00, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

The problem is now fixed but before you saw it as the leading image but when you click it it went to the original image by original I mean the logo that was uploaded a few days ago (10/20/24) that I updated on (10/27/24) it showed the image from (10/20/24) and not the one I just updated YisroelB501 (talk) 12:53, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

How to add quotes to a source

Hey, I'm still new to this whole Wikipedia thing, but I came across a reference with a quote on it and am wondering if I can do the same thing myself. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you :D ThePainkiller90 (talk) 12:45, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

@ThePainkiller90 Specifically WP:FOOTQUOTE. We have a saying that "quotes require citations but citations do not require quotations". In other words, if you place a quotation into the text of an article, you must provide a citation for it. However, if you paraphrase a source (as you will mainly be doing when writing articles), you should add a citation but don't need to quote in that footnote the exact text you paraphrased. If the source is in a foreign language, be aware that templates such as {{cite news}} include both parameters |quote= and |trans-quote= which can help readers see a translation. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:23, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Help

Can you please help me Blake Hale (talk) 07:03, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

What help are you seeking? 331dot (talk) 07:07, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

How to create with Sandbox Blake Hale (talk) 07:08, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Create an article draft? Which subject? Sam Sailor 07:12, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

About myself Blake Hale (talk) 07:13, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Your account is less than 24 hours old, it's not advisable you start creating articles right away talk more of creating about yourself. You can read the guidelines to Help:editing then start gradually. Tesleemah (talk) 16:50, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

If you're attempting to create a draft article, it's often better to use the Article Wizard. Be advised that creating a new article is the most difficult task to attempt on Wikipedia; it is highly recommended that you first gain experience and knowledge by editing existing articles in areas that interest you, to get a feel for how Wikipedia operates and what is expected of article content. I would also suggest using the new user tutorial. 331dot (talk) 07:13, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

It is inadvisable and highly discouraged to attempt to write about yourself, please read the autobiography policy. To be successful, you would need to forget everything you know about yourself and only write summarizing what independent reliable sources choose on their own to say about you and what makes you a notable person as defined by Wikipedia. Most people have great difficulty doing that. 331dot (talk) 07:14, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Page for Art Studio

Hello, I would like to create a page for an art studio in Boise Idaho. It houses international artists through it's artist residency program and one of them Rory Pilgrim Rory Pilgrim won the honorary Prix de Rome (Netherlands), for his work The Undercurrent which was developed during an artist residency at MING Studios in Boise, Idaho. Additionally, MING was awarded the Cultural Ambassador award by the Mayor of Boise. ([5]https://idahonews.com/news/local/ming-studios-named-as-boises-next-cultural-ambassador)

I mentioned these things in my article write up and was quickly shut down because it is deemed as self-promoting. That was not my intention at all, I don't even work there, just know people that are involved with the organization and thought to bring their work to Wikipedia.

If you could please advise or guide me on the best way to create an article or even have someone else to create one, I would greatly appreciate it. Tymelyne (talk) 20:52, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @Tymelyne, and welcome to the Teahouse.

First, it will help you if you drop the social media idea of "a page for", and instead think in terms of "an article about".

Secondly, you probably won't want to hear this, but: My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft..

Thirdly, absolutely the first task in creating an article is to find several sources each of which is all three of reliably, independent, and containing significant coverage of the subject (see WP:42). Nothing written, published, commissions, or based on the words of the the subject or their associates is relevant.

If you cannot find at least three such sources, you should give up at that point, because the subject is probably not notable in Wikipedia's sense, and you will be wasting all effort you spend on it thereafter. ColinFine (talk) 21:26, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Tymelyne (talk) 03:52, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

"If you could please advise or guide me on the best way to create an article or even have someone else to create one...." Tymelyne, you have unwittingly invited people to fleece you. Before they offer to do so, see Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Scam warning. -- Hoary (talk) 22:15, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

A few red flags I saw:

1. Is there any reliable sources on the art studio.
2. Are they paying you/telling you what to say.
3. It sounds like you may have a COI

With the last one in mind, do you have any connection with the art studio? If you even have a friend at the art studio, that could be a COI.

Also if this art studio is notable then someone else may write about it. And it may not be a in the art studio's best interest to have an article about them. As not so nice things may end up there if the is references to back it up. Once things are there with reliable sources to back it up, it will be hard to remove. As they do not "own" the article. User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 00:20, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. I am not being paid by them, but I do know them so looks like I might not be the best person for this.

Can you please confirm if the below is considered a reliable source? https://idahonews.com/amp/news/local/ming-studios-named-as-boises-next-cultural-ambassador - there are more articles like this from newspapers.

There is also a chapter dedicated to them in the book “100 things to do in Boise” https://a.co/d/dwWqayD Tymelyne (talk) 03:50, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

So according to WP:RS it would be reliable. The book would not be reliable though as that is more of the Authors opinion.

You are not the best one to write it, not because of your time spent here or anything else then, you will have a hard time sounding unbiased. Just cause you know them, you will know thinks that are not needed, there for sounding like an ad. Which will cause the article to be deleted.

I would not be against you making the article, but I think you need to learn some things first, and that will take time, lots of time. I am still learning myself, and though I have been on for a week, I am still learning new things by the day. I have heard that it can take months to learn enough about WP to write a good article, and I agree. Think about it have you read even all the rules here? I have not that is for sure.

So just as a suggestion: Make a sandbox of it to play around in as you learn. Once you have been here for a few months and you think it is fairly good. Have a unrelated editor read it, someone that has been here a few years. Take what they say and add what they suggest. Repeat this until one of them says that you should add it. Don't push to much though as that can get you trouble.

Anyways if you have not fallen asleep, thank you for reading me lengthy answer. User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 05:33, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Nope, still awake :D, thank you for the time and all the feedback, it helped a lot and I really appreciate it! Tymelyne (talk) 05:40, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello again, @Tymelyne. Sheriff U3 has supported my very strong suggestion that you get a significant amount of experience before you try to create an article - any article. When you do so, your Conflict of Interest may make the task harder for you, but you are not forbidden from trying it, as long as you use the articles for creation mechanism - but I would advise any editor to do this anyway, until they have successfully created several articles, right through to being accepted into the main article space and surviving New pages patrol.

If you are convinced that the studio meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability, then you are free to create a draft - to be frank, your chances of enrolling somebody else to do so are small, so you might as well - but you will need to remember that not one thing that you know, think, or believe about the studio will be relevant to the article unless you can find it in a reliable published source, and almost nothing that the people associated with the studio say or want to say will be relevant to the article unless you can find it in a reliable published source wholly unconnected with the studio. (Do you see why knowing them may make it harder for you?) ColinFine (talk) 17:54, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

A question about a page that I have created

Hello, I hope you are doing well. I have created a page ( Ario Nahavandi ) and I followed Wikipedia guidelines carefully ( I hope so) . however I am not sure if there are any issues with this page or not and if this page it is fully published?

Any advice and tips will be appreciated, Mant thanks xx Lanak20 (talk) 19:55, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

It is poorly sourced IMDb for instance is not a reliable source, the article has been sent to WP:AFD. Theroadislong (talk) 19:59, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Paywalls on newspaper articles

Draft:John James (businessman and philanthropist)

I'm aware that a lot of the newspaper articles I have referenced (and which I have physical copies of so I know they exist) are essentially behind paywalls - how does that work with reviewers/readers being able to verify these articles exist? Jjarchivist (talk) 19:57, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

That is not a problem but Wikipedia should not be used to memorialise someone. Featuring in Who's who confers zero notability and you have not shown that they pass WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 20:10, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

See WP:PAYWALL. Sources do not need to be free or easy to access. 331dot (talk) 20:18, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Millatry

where can I find the list of medics in the Korean war in the U.S.A. air force? Rryyttoorr (talk) 21:36, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Probably not in an encyclopedia; so, as the question is one of history, you'd be better off asking it at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities. (If you do so, you might reword it more clearly. I'd guess that you mean "United States Air Force medics during the Korean war", but I'm not at all sure.) -- Hoary (talk) 21:57, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Moving a page back to previous naming? (minor naming change -capitalization)

This page List of members of the National Academy of Sciences (computer and information sciences) was previously moved from List of members of the National Academy of Sciences (Computer and information sciences) per capitalization. However, all others List of members of the National Academy of Sciences do not follow this, and instead have the first word of the parenthetical capitalized. It's minor and doesn't matter much, but I'd like them all to be the same. The 1st move was in 2010 and I don't expect it to be controversial. I think I know how to move it and I have the permissions I think - but since the original page still exists as a redirect, I don't know if just moving it back to the old name would cause an issue. Can I go ahead and do it or are there extra steps I should take because the page I'd be moving to already exists? Cyanochic (talk) 21:38, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I suppose that standardizing the (non-) capitalization here would be a good idea. But why standardize to the capitalized version and not away from it? (The reason for capital-C-"Computer", etc, isn't clear to me.) -- Hoary (talk) 22:02, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I would lean to standardizing to the capitalized version is because the other 30 lists do capitalize the first letter. The subfield category in parentheses is titled by the National Academy of Sciences (i.e. not a wikipedian decided category), so the capitalization does make sense to me too. But I don't really have a preference either way, I'd just like it to be consistent. Cyanochic (talk) 22:28, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Basically it seems a standard is already in place, this one was just moved away to a non-standard for some reason. Cyanochic (talk) 22:29, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I've capitalized it. -- Hoary (talk) 22:55, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Draft assessment

The submitted draft "Draft:Global Capacity Building Coalition" at xtools is shown as "N/A" instead of "Draft". is it concerning.? —𝐏𝐞𝐫𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨(𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔) 03:15, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

No it isn't, Perfectodefecto. (But a suggestion: Read up on using a source more than once.) -- Hoary (talk) 03:47, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Alright. Many Thanks. —𝐏𝐞𝐫𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨(𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔) 04:42, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Is there a place where people can be paid to create articles?

I really want there to be an article about my school, Brisbane South State Secondary College, but it doesn't exist yet. I want to know if there's a way you can pay someone to make an article. Does anyone know where? Zion @InformZion (talk) 02:59, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

@InformZion Link: Draft:Brisbane South State Secondary College. Ampil ^{(Ταικ • Cοnτribυτιοns)} 03:17, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

You cannot pay someone to make an article, and if anyone claims to be able to do so, it's a scam. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 03:27, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Really, LilianaUwU? Where did you read this? -- Hoary (talk) 03:44, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I mean, you could pay someone to make an article. But it's highly likely to be a scam. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 03:50, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

There are fully disclosed paid editors here in good standing. Most are just company representatives who make suggestions on talk pages, but I have run across a few good editors who do accept payment and are up front about it. Public relations agencies who are signatories to WP:PRCOM edit for pay and abide by policies. The ones who advertise their services with cold emails, however, are typically scammers. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:00, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Your expression of interest in paying somebody to write about the school is very likely to arouse the interest of people who are scammers, incompetent, or both. Congratulate yourself on not having enabled email. -- Hoary (talk) 03:38, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

@InformZion: Welcome to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1239. Even if you do find someone willing to improve the existing draft, you're already complicating the process.

• By announcing you're offering compensation for edits, anyone who's aware of this (especially Articles for Creation reviewers) is going to look at any new editors working on the draft with suspicion, as unpaid disclosed editing is something Wikipedia veterans take very seriously.
• Anyone editing the draft for monetary compensation must, as the aforementioned point mentions, declare their paid relationship to you (or a related party) and will be limited in what can be done if the draft is accepted and moved into mainspace.
• Please be aware that the article, should it be accepted into the encyclopedia, is not guaranteed to last forever. It may meet criteria for deletion and be deleted.

—Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:07, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Worse, if there's ever any especially bad news which involves the institution (incident, crime, scandal, finances, sub-optimal leadership), you can bet folks will look at the Wikipedia page, expect it to be up-to-date, and add links and speculation. You'll never be able to quash it, no matter how many sources you find to refute the facts. It gets out of control of administration, which often ends badly at an institution. BusterD (talk) 04:26, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I'll add one more point, seeing as I was the one who declined Draft:Brisbane South State Secondary College. I declined it because the draft cites only the school's own website as a source, and therefore offers no evidence that the subject is notable per WP:ORG. This is the first and most fundamental hurdle anyone attempting an article must overcome. Unless sources can be found which demonstrate notability, the draft cannot be accepted, no matter who is working on it; no amount of editing can fathom notability out of thin air. This may be what LilianaUwU was also alluding to, when they said that if someone claims to be able to produce a viable article before even researching its sources they are either leading you down the proverbial garden path, or don't know what they're talking about; possibly both. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:29, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Help me revert Clock to last best version

I sometimes review recent changes for possible vandal using Wikipedia:Twinkle and i noticed unexplained content removal on Clock under revision , am however unable to revert using TW there's about [dot] com link that keeps getting triggered for possible blacklist. Can some kind wikipedian with enough permission kindly restore the page to last good version.

Thanks in advance! Nisingh.8 (talk) 19:04, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the alert, Nisingh.8. Alith Anar has kindly sorted out the mess and left the conventional warning on the perpetrator's talk page. -- Hoary (talk) 21:51, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you ! Nisingh.8 (talk) 07:10, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Request for Feedback on Sandbox Drafts

Hello everyone,

I'm currently working on two articles in my sandbox that I’d like to submit for review, but I’d appreciate some feedback from experienced editors before taking the next step. I want to ensure the articles meet Wikipedia’s standards and guidelines for neutrality, verifiability, and reliable sourcing.

I’d be grateful if anyone could take a moment to review these articles and provide constructive feedback on how to improve them. Specifically, I’m looking for advice on content clarity, neutrality, and whether my sources are adequately reliable.

Thank you so much for your time and assistance!

Боки ☎ ✎ 08:28, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello. The best way to get feedback is to submit for a review, instead of asking for a pre-review review which just duplicates effort(different reviewers may see different things, too); I can say looking at the first line the word "leading" needs to be removed as that is not a neutral point of view. 331dot (talk) 08:32, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

@331dot Thank you for the advice. I’ve submitted articles for review before, but multiple requests have been denied without clear explanations on specific improvements needed. That’s why I’m seeking feedback first this time. I appreciate the suggestion regarding the use of “leading” in the first line, and I’ll make the necessary edits to maintain a neutral tone. Any additional feedback would be greatly appreciated! Боки ☎ ✎ 08:36, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

If you find what the reviewer says unclear, you should ask them directly on their user talk page about it. 331dot (talk) 09:29, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

You have two drafts in your one Sandbox User:Боки/sandbox. Create a Sandbox2 and move the second to that. David notMD (talk) 08:38, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

The first draft is just blatant advertising, do you have a conflict of interest by any chance? Theroadislong (talk) 08:43, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Nekretnine.rs sounds to me like a website. But maybe it's a company and/with both a database and a website. I doubt that it's necessary to call it both a "portal" and a "platform". -- Hoary (talk) 09:29, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Religious

Should people be religious? 199.7.157.41 (talk) 15:30, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1239. Did you have a question regarding how to edit or use Wikipedia? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:33, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

strange e-mail

If this is the wrong place for my question please redirect me.

I received an email from user "Izmirrexha1992" with a straight forward question. The issue is that I can not find this user (on enwiki AND meta). They provided a link to WP that was dead. Could well be that I searched "wrong", but it leaves me puzzled. Does this user exist somewhere? And if not; What is or could be going on here? I.E. Why would somebody claim to be a user when they are not? Dutchy45 (talk) 03:25, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

There's a user with that name who has made one edit and the account was created in September. [6]. Hard to say more without knowing the context of the email. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 04:16, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, your link has me confused as to why I couldn't find it. He asked me to start an article about a city in a small-language wiki. I only have a few edits on that wiki, and I don't even speak that language. Now I'm wondering if he mass e-mailed everyone who has ever made an edit there. Thoughts? Dutchy45 (talk) 05:03, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Dutchy45, it would be helpful if you told us more about the contents of the email. Did the email come through the Wikipedia email facility? If so, I recommend not responding to the email as that discloses your email address to someone who may be up to no good. This may be a variation of WP:SCAM. Be cautious. Cullen328 (talk) 06:45, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Dutchy45, the editor has contributed to five other language versions of Wikipedia and seems to be interested in Albania. Another possibility is that they are confused. Cullen328 (talk) 06:54, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Cullen328, It did come through the WP email. I've had a few mails from other editors in the past. My email adress is disclosed somewhere in my settings. I'm not worried about scamming. Thanks for the warning though. I saw his global edits already (the 5 other languages). He asked if I wanted to start an article about Tirana (Albania's capital) in Surinamese (a former Dutch colony). So, confused? Maybe. But what puzzles me is; why mail me? Dutchy45 (talk) 09:02, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Presumably because you have contributed to the Dutch and Afrikaans Wikipedia? Don't know.

By the way: your email is not disclosed unless you have chosen to do so. Other editors can email you, but they do not see your email unless you reply to them. ColinFine (talk) 10:03, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

@Dutchy45: Maybe you searched for a user page and saw a message saying there is no page. It's optional for users to make a user page. Special:CentralAuth/Izmirrexha1992 shows their acounts. Wikipedia mail is sent via Wikipedia's servers without revealing the address of the recipient to the sender. If you reply, whether directly or by Wikipedia mail, then they get your email address. I suggest you don't do that. If you post to their talk page then your mail address remains hidden from them. We don't have access to the email activity of users so I don't know how many mails the user has sent. We have 48 million registered users. There is no "Surinamese" at meta:List of Wikipedias and Surinamese language can apparently refer to several things but I guess you mean Sranan Tongo at srn: where you have four edits. srn:Special:Statistics says they only have 12 active editors (Users who have performed an action in the last 30 days). Izmirrexha1992 is one of them and two of them are not people. The only edit by Izmirrexha1992 is to srn:User talk:Artekimus which sounds similar to the mail you got. Special:CentralAuth/Izmirrexha1992 shows very few edits and several of them are similar requests to other languages to create an article about Tirana or Albania. Maybe they want their home to move up on Special:MostInterwikis. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:52, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

PrimeHunter, I have taken your advice and replied on his talkpage. Partly because of what you said but mainly because if he mailed others, they are now able to see that. Maybe I'm wrong but to me it just feels off. Why go through the trouble of sending an email when a talkpage message is much easier?! Unless you don't want a record of it on WP is my guess/thinking. Thanks for taking the time for a lengthy and informative reply. Dutchy45 (talk) 11:38, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

@Dutchy45: It is an odd approach but with 48 million accounts here at the English Wikipedia and millions more at other languages, some oddities will happen. If they made a lot of unsolicited talk page posts at the same language then they might be blocked. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:08, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

PrimeHunter, I just read your reply. Then checked his talkpage for a possible respons and saw somebody else already with a similar thing! see here Dutchy45 (talk) 03:25, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

What did this user email you? You could be being scammed, or just confused. Drdr150 (talk) 15:42, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Elen Smile

Please explain why the Elen Smile page was rejected again after revision? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Elen_Smile

I am thoroughly familiar with the guidelines and followed them carefully, double-checking all sources, which are reliable. What’s wrong? Please help. M.krakovets (talk) 21:59, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

You have asked the same question here Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk where it has been answered. Theroadislong (talk) 22:01, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Declined is less severe than Rejected. David notMD (talk) 15:31, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

The question of using YouTube links still needs clarification and discussion. Personally, I consider them a reliable source since they come from the official channels of TV networks and shows on YouTube. M.krakovets (talk) 17:37, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Adding categories or sections to living person bio such as "Early Life"

How does one add categories or sections? Is there a difference?

Thank you,

W Wenncesslas (talk) 08:26, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

If you're editing the source code, then in order to add a section titled "Early life" -- don't also capitalize the "L" -- write == Early life == at the far left of a new line, and start the text of this section on the next line. -- Hoary (talk) 09:19, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Sections are not categorized. Entire articles are categorized based on the defining characteristics of the topic. If a notable author and playwright also played chess as a hobby, and chess was occasionally and briefly mentioned as a sideline activity by reliable sources, then we categorize that person as an author and playwright, but not as a chess player. Cullen328 (talk) 09:27, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Dear Cullen388,

Thank you--obviously, I'm new and need all the help I can get.

Warmly,

W

```` Wenncesslas (talk) 17:49, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Section is like you adding a sub-topic to an article, you add it as described by @Hoarywhile Category is usually added at the end of an article, it's to show the class an article belong to.

Example in writing about an Article A, you can create a section Activities by adding ==Activities== using the source editing and to add a section, You can add one automatically using an automated tool, or you use this template [[Category:Food]]. See this article Ifeoluwa Ehindero for a perfect example of both, Example of a section is Political Career and example of a category added here is [[Category:Nigerian politicians]] you might need to change to source editing to see how they were utilised clearly. Tesleemah (talk) 16:46, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Dear Tesleemah,

Thank you for the advice. I would love any sort of mentorship you might be able to provide to this new editor; my recent article Marie Tomanova, or Draft: Marie Tomanova, was deleted and I am a tad confused by this action. I would love help to make it through the hoops.

Warmly,

W

```` Wenncesslas (talk) 17:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Editing on mobile is broken, please help roll back a mistake I made!

I was just trying to fix grammar on the Magic: The Gathering Wikipedia page and ended up inadvertently deleting a good portion of it, is there any way I can revert this mistake and avoid it in the future? Avienby (talk) 18:02, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

@Avienby: I have restored the deleted content. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:07, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: Thanks a lot! I wish editing on mobile wasn't as broken as it is currently so I could edit more without issue Avienby (talk) 18:42, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

@Avienby: You can check your edit before saving it with the Review your changes button. To revert a mistaken edit, first find the diff for your edit (either in your contributions or the page history), and then undo it. I'm not familiar with mobile editing, but I think you'll need to enable advanced mode to have this option. You might find the essay User:Cullen328/Smartphone editing to be helpful. jlwoodwa (talk) 18:44, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Portmanteau

Hey all - I'm trying to create a new wiki page with a portmaneau that doesn't exist and I keep getting flagged because I don't have references. I've tried to reference the roots of the portmaneau, but there are literally no references to the word itself, because I just made it up, so I feel I'm going in circles with the reviewers. Any help would be appreciated. I'm working with Theroadislong - hopefully we figure this out. Goobysnack (talk) 20:24, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Goobysnack, the major points you'lll need to be aware of are that Wikipedia is not a dictionary and it is not for things made up one day either. -- D'n'B-t -- 20:31, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Goobysnack. Unfortunately, if the concept hasn't been written about in reliable, published sources, then it's not suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia because it fails our notability requirements. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:33, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Huh. I didn't know we couldn't add new words like portmanteaus. Okey dokey. Goobysnack (talk) 20:34, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Goobysnack The proper thing to do when your draft has been Rejected is to ask that it be deleted. Put Db-author at the top, inside double curly brackets {{ }}. David notMD (talk) 22:30, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

list of blacklisted websites

where can i find a list of all sites that are blacklisted for using as referances on wikipidia YisroelB501 (talk) 05:16, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources provide the information that you're after, YisroelB501? (Note that there cannot be an exhaustive list of websites unsuitable for citing, as new examples of such websites can and do emerge at any time.) -- Hoary (talk) 05:56, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

how do I use that link you gave me. I hate navigating through wikipidia help articles. I want a list of some sort that I can search in a website and it will come up if its blocked. YisroelB501 (talk) 07:40, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

You can search the above page. You might also be interested in m:Spam blacklist. Shantavira|<sup>feed me</sup> 09:22, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

tysm @Shantavira| YisroelB501 (talk) 23:10, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

LaTasha Barnes article--DYK

I wrote a hook for the LaTasha Barnes article that was rejected, and I'd like to try again. I'm not sure how to submit again. I tried a new entry but it didn't save, since apparently I'm supposed to go back to my original page. How do I find that submission and try again? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LaTasha_Barnes Wroliver (talk) 20:14, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Wroliver, when I looked through the list of your contributions, I quickly found Template:Did you know nominations/LaTasha Barnes. -- Hoary (talk) 22:31, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

If Template:Did you know nominations/LaTasha Barnes is still open when you get there, you can comment to ask if you can have more time to work on it. Courtesy pinging @Sdkb, so they know @Wroliver's question on the latter's user talk has been answered here. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 22:30, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello,

Could I please have another day to submit an improved hook for the LaTasha Barnes article?

Wroliver (talk) 22:40, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

@Wroliver, you need to comment at the link Hoary and I provided above. If I may be blunt, commenting here at the Teahouse is useless. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 22:45, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

OK, thanks--good to know! Wroliver (talk) 23:13, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Checking a edit I made

I wanted to ask if an edit to the blast furnace I made was formated correctly and was good. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 01:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! You cited the source correctly, but it looks like you copied text from Britannica with only slight changes to the text. This is close paraphrasing, which is a copyright violation. You should use your own words when adding information to Wikipedia, instead of copying text from other sources. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 01:39, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Want to create a small essay; what should I do?

I've read WP:Essays, but I'm unsure where to start. Do I make a draft, make it on my userpage or something else?

hi (talk) 00:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

@NotABlanker: I think making a subpage of your userpage makes the most sense. You can look at Category:User essays to see how other editors have done it. jlwoodwa (talk) 01:54, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Who am I?

I sometimes edit Wikipedia on a tablet using the Wikipedia app, mostly as an IP. The app offers no visible way to log in, and if I use Special:userlogin it appears to make no difference. How can I tell "who I am" without making a nothing-edit somewhere, which I don't want to do? 194.223.39.3 (talk) 06:09, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I suggest skipping the app and instead using your browser, and (unless perhaps it's an unusually tiny tablet) going to the foot of any Wikipedia article and there opting for desktop mode. -- Hoary (talk) 07:12, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, the app is great for reading, not so great for editing IMO(though many do edit successfully with it) 331dot (talk) 09:29, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

The app is more readable on my device and is good enough for the small edits I do. I would still like to know some quick way of finding out if I have succeeded in logging in, ie: who I currently am (in the app). Isn't there some keyin? 194.223.39.3 (talk) 10:31, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Or something that goes to "my" Talk page, without having to know who "my" is? 194.223.39.3 (talk) 10:33, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

There are multiple apps. The official Wikipedia app for iOS has a user icon at the top right. If you are logged in it shows the username. If you are not logged in it gives a login option. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:45, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Special:MyTalk does exactly that – everyone who clicks on that link gets sent to their own talk page. jlwoodwa (talk) 18:48, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

The Android app on my tablet does not have those icons or links. But thanks, jlwoodwa, for the keyin which is just the sort of solution that I was hoping for. Unfortunately, Special:MyTalk fails in the app (just like Special:userlogin), but using this as a suggestion and keying in Special:my offers the dropdown Special:MyPage/sandbox (the ONLY "my" option) which also can't actually go to my (non-existent) sandbox, but it DOES tell me whose sandbox it can't go to. So that answers my question. Thanks everyone. 194.223.39.3 (talk) 08:42, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Request help and feedback

Hey there,

I'm quite new to Wikipedia. Started to write an article about an old good friend of mine, with whom I studied at university and then worked together for a long time in investments.

I recently bumped into him in Singapore. We had a pleasant conversation about the past, and he mentioned what he's been up to (electronics, relocating to Singapore etc.). I looked him up online and saw that he even has a Hungarian Wikipedia page (https://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Szab%C3%B3_Barnab%C3%A1s_Gy%C3%B6rgy_(k%C3%B6zgazd%C3%A1sz)) so, I thought I’d create an English page for him, as I’m currently learning journalism as a hobby, and I’ve never edited a Wiki page before.

Unfortunately, several of my attempts have failed and were rejected (Draft:Barnabas Szabo). Could you help me by perhaps editing it so that the article becomes visible?

Also, I’m looking for a way to reproduce the "info box" (with the photo and some key data) from the Hungarian entry in the English article.

Please help a disappointed beginner!

Thank you, Financer01 (Joseph) Financer01 (talk) 01:03, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Declined not as severe and effort-ending as Rejected. David notMD (talk) 03:00, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

You can add the infobox using the WP:template {{infobox person}}. Wikipedia are not considered reliable sources(even on Wikipedia), so I recommend removing them. (see Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source). In addition, I recommend declaring your conflict of interest, see Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. 👍 Ca <sup>talk to me!</sup> 03:59, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @Financer01, and welcome to the Teahouse, and to Wikipedia.

You probably won't want to hear this, but: My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft.

And having a possible conflict of interest makes it even harder. ColinFine (talk) 10:00, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

selling citations by pqasb.pqarchiver.com

Neve Campbell & no:Neve Campbell

https://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/newsday/access/516065561.html?dids=516065561:516065561&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Dec+29%2C+2003&author=Robert+Kahn.+STAFF+WRITER&pub=Newsday+(Combined+editions)&desc=Love+Matches+Up+2+Tennis+Couples&pqatl=google

https://web.archive.org/web/20121106160927/http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/newsday/access/516065561.html?dids=516065561:516065561&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Dec+29,+2003&author=Robert+Kahn.+STAFF+WRITER&pub=Newsday+(Combined+editions)&desc=Love+Matches+Up+2+Tennis+Couples&pqatl=google

https://web.archive.org/web/20070311071417/http://www.joonbug.com/Images/press/articles/newsday-12-29-03.htm

I see many of these

69.181.17.113 (talk) 02:43, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Do you have a question about using or editing Wikipedia? Shantavira|<sup>feed me</sup> 09:27, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, IP user, and welcome to the Teahouse. Neve Campbell has a severe case of WP:CITEKILL, and I'm not going to plough through 196 citations to see which of them you are talking about (or to see which of them are worth keeping, for that matter). ColinFine (talk) 10:03, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Editing another language

Hello, I have successfully edited a few pages in German and in English, however it seems to be more complicated if I want to edit something in Turkish. Would you mind helping me out? Is it because I’m still seen as a newbie in the Turkish version? I noticed a lot of information was missing in the Turkish version but one article I edited is still under review for a week now. If anyone has some knowledge about this or experience and would love to share it with me that would be great, thank you so much. Presse8 (talk) 05:42, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @Presse8, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid that it's unlikely anybody here can help you with the Turkish Wikipedia. Each language version is an entirely separate project, with its own rules, policies, procedures, and administrators.

You might be able to get some help at tr:VP:DM. ColinFine (talk) 10:06, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Source date, current Version or original Uploda

If i have a source ex.[7] And i want to cite it. Which source-date should i use, the most current one or when the article was originally published?

Thank you. Synonimany (talk) 08:22, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I suppose, you should use the most current date, for the source might not have been the same, by which I mean that newer information might have been added since when it was published, thus I say this. I'd also like to let you know that this is only what I think, and the others might say something else. Thank you, wishing you a wonderful day. Happy editing! Oleeveeya (talk) 09:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @Synonimany, and welcome to the Teahouse.

A citation consists of information which will allow a reader (or reviewer) to judge the likely value of a source, and, if required, to obtain a copy: things like title, author, date, publisher, journal/magazine/series, page. If a legal online version happens to be available, then it is good practice to link to it, but (unless it is a purely online source) that is not a core part of the citation.

Most articles, once published, remain unchanged, and so it is the original date which you should cite, even if your convenience link is to a much later copy. If you have reason to think that the content changed over time, you should cite the copy you have seen (SAYWHEREYOUREADIT), and you may want to add a note if its publishing history might confuse or mislead a reader. ColinFine (talk) 10:13, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Editorial error re Pacific Saury, fish

RE:Pacific saury

I'm hoping an editor will take the following item in hand.

In the section on Japanese consumption of sanma (saury) it is stated that in the Kii Peninsula region of Japan" the fish is known as "saira." I have lived on the Kii Peninsula for 35 years and I have never heard sanma referred to as saira. I am an avid fish eater, preparing and eating locally caught fish, including sanma in season, two or three times a week. The area in which I live is Kumano Nada, the Kumano Coast, residing in Kumano City in the middle of that coast. My close acquaintance with place and people extends all along the Pacific Coast of Mie Prefecture from Kii Nagashima in Kihokuchou lying to the northeast of here to Shingu City just over into Wakayama Prefecture and as far inland as the Kitayama Region of southern Nara Prefecture. I travel often as far as Kushimoto and Shio-no-Misaki and Ooshima at the southern tip of the peninsula. Perhaps the name saira is used along the Wakayama coast between Shio-no-Misaki and Wakayama City. But it is wrong to ascribe use of the name to the entire peninsula. In these parts it's sanma. 113.20.212.87 (talk) 06:19, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Anyone can edit Wikipedia. That includes you! In the article in question, that assertion is not verified by a reliable source, which means it may be challenged and removed at any time and by anyone as unverified. Now, don't replace that with another unreferenced fact based upon personal knowledge of yours—any other assertion of what it's called there should, too, be supported by a good source, and if such a source is unavailable, the article just shouldn't say anything about it at all. But if you run across an unreferenced fact, and you think it's dubious or inaccurate, you may challenge and remove it. So, go do that! (You should probably leave an edit summary stating something like "Removing unsourced material" so that no one mistakes your removal for vandalism; explaining any removal of material in the edit summary is always a good practice.) Seraphimblade <sup>Talk to me</sup> 09:23, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Done! It wasn't referenced, so I didn't have to worry about someone challenging! Cheers, Simon – SCHolar44 🇦🇺 💬 at 12:14, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Talk to the public community's market Jah Rastafari haile

Welcome greetings 24.44.167.98 (talk) 12:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello. What is your question about editing Wikipedia? ColinFine (talk) 13:02, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

How to remove the Expand Section box

I've responded to the Expand Section box under the Cast section of Escape from Germany (2024 film). I feel the request has been adequately completed, so how do I remove the box? This is specific to VisualEditor. Skidney1969 (talk) 11:36, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I have no idea how to do that in the visual editor, but I was so bold and removed the expand-section template. Cheers. Lectonar (talk) 11:40, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Lectonar! Skidney1969 (talk) 12:08, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

In the vidual editor, you can just click on a template and hit the delete key. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 14:08, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Where to report problematic pages

Hi, I'm a fairly new editor and have been helping out at the Task Center, which means I've been seeing a lot more random pages than I used to. What should I do when I come across a page which is clearly problematic (such as Shane Marshall or Badjiri language). Is there somewhere I can report pages like these so an admin can put a maintenance tag on them? Blackballnz (talk) 02:15, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

@Blackballnz: Thanks for pitching in! You should be able to tag articles yourself, unless they are protected. If they are stubs, like Badjiri language, it can be helpful to sort them into one or two stub categories to help interested editors find and perhaps expand them. For other maintenance issues, browse the Template index to find the most appropriate tags. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 02:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

@Blackballnz, a useful resource may be WP:TMV - it has lots and lots of tags you can use to draw attention to issues. Happy editing! StartGrammarTime (talk) 15:27, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

If an existing article title needs to be slightly modified?

There is a stub article Point Foundation (environment) that needs to be changed to POINT Foundation (environment). This is due to the fact that the Point Foundation always capitalized the letters in the forst portion of their name. This's noticeable in the usage in the numerous publications published by the Foundation, and also in how board members wrote the name when referring to the organization's activities, etc.

I've referenced the Foundation in a draft article I've been working on, and using the proper form of POINT will not wikify. I had to use the improper form "Point". Help, I don't know how to modify an article title. Thanks.Joel Russ (talk) 15:24, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

@Joel Russ Do you mean that you tried to WP:MOVE it, but that didn't work? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:30, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. No, I didn't know that option. But I will try it amd, that works, then I've learned somethng new.Joel Russ (talk) 16:23, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes it did work, so thanks once again.Joel Russ (talk) 16:33, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken, per WP:MOSTM we should follow standard capitalisation rules in article titles, and ignore what trademark owners etc. might prefer. So this should be 'Point Foundation' in the title (unless POINT is an acronym, of course?). In the lead section the stylised version can then be mentioned. Happy to be proven wrong, though! -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:43, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:TITLETM it seems to be the usual COMMONNAME reasoning that applies. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:38, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Article titling when the subject has made a name change

I'm editing the article on French singer Sarasara, and I have two questions.

The first: Sarasara is what I see referred to as the "stage name" for Sarah Filleurs. Is there any Wiki guidance on whether the title of an article on someone known by two different names should show both a birth name and a stage name (in parentheses)?

Augnablik (talk) 11:14, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

See WP:STAGENAME. Lectonar (talk) 11:27, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

According to WP:STAGENAME, someone with a stage name is generally referred to throughout the article by that name. So, then, the title of the article, Sarasara, is correct without further additions. Thank you, @Lectonar. Augnablik (talk) 17:42, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Lowercase Sigmabot III help

Hi guys. A while back I assisted another editor in setting up auto archiving at their talk page. However, the archiver bot keeps missing the top two entries. I fixed the date sigs as best I could according to the bot documentation but it still is ignoring them. Does anyone know what is wrong there? Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 15:00, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Iggy pop goes the weasel. The archive instructions say algo = old(360d) and minthreadstoarchive = 3. There are currently only 2 threads older than 360 days so no archiving is allowed by the instructions. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Right, but if you view the history it was archiving things much newer than those two entries. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 15:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

That was when it was archiving threads that are older than 7 days, Smallchief changed it to 360 days right after. – 2804:F1...88:7F3B (talk) 15:56, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Ah, ok. Got it and thank you. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 18:50, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Time zone stamping

Which time zone are our Wiki edits and messages stamped with? Augnablik (talk) 11:12, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Augnablik, (i) post a message somewhere, signing it with four consecutive "~"; (ii) note the time stamped on the message; (iii) note the time that your computer or phone gives you; (iv) examine File:World_Time_Zones_Map.svg and figure it out. -- Hoary (talk) 11:31, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

or read the abbreviation in parentheses in the timestamp! 176.0.159.0 (talk) 11:59, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

No, really? Never thought of that! -- Hoary (talk) 12:19, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

— Okay, @Hoary, I'm testing out your idea here, writing a message to see what time is stamped on it. "Testing, testing" ... "this is only a test" ... Augnablik (talk) 12:33, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

— Seems to be London time. Augnablik (talk) 12:37, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

— Incidentally, I used timeanddate.com to look up the time zone, as I occasionally do to set up Zoom meetings. Since I could have done that experiment without asking the question that I did, I guess I was a little lazy — but I was doing something else at the same time the question came to mind and I figured someone knowledgeable would quickly swoop in with the answer. Augnablik (talk) 12:46, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

@Augnablik You can set your time zone preference at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering. Shantavira|<sup>feed me</sup> 13:21, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Fantastic! Thank you, @Shantavira. Augnablik (talk) 14:51, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

By default Wikipedia, being a global encyclopaedia, uses Coordinated Universal Time (UTC), which is "London time" when the UK is not using British Summer Time.

I believe it's possible to change a setting to show your local time instead, but I've no idea how as I've never wanted to do so. [Aaand Shantavira told you how while I was typing!] {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.6.86.81 (talk) 13:22, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks to you too for replying, @Tesleemah — if that’s your correct Wiki handle. That’s what came up for you instead of 94.6.86.81. Augnablik (talk) 14:54, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Tesleemah is my username but I'm not 94.6.86.81 Tesleemah (talk) 14:56, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Augnablik, I'm on a dynamic IP (not by choice) which is currently 94.6.86.81: doubtless Tesleemah may have had it previously, and likely someone else will next week; that's why I use the identifier you see in curly brackets. (And yes, I know I could create a User account, but for the last 20-odd years I have chosen not to.) {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.6.86.81 (talk) 02:32, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

The default time zone is (UTC) Tesleemah (talk) 14:50, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

@Augnablik: English is global so the English Wikipedia uses UTC but a wiki can change it with mw:Manual:$wgLocaltimezone. Many other Wikipedia languages use the time zone of the main area where the language is spoken. The time zone of Wikimedia wikis is set with wgLocaltimezone in https://noc.wikimedia.org/conf/highlight.php?file=InitialiseSettings.php. enwiki is not listed since we use the Wikimedia default UTC. A MediaWiki setting at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering can change the displayed time in log entries like page histories and user contributions. It doesn't affect time stamps in signatures which just become part of the normal page content when the edit is saved. The English Wikipedia has made a gadget at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets: "Change UTC-based times and dates, such as those used in signatures, to be relative to local time". It runs JavaScript in your browser to change the time after the page has loaded. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:04, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Timezones are a little complicated across the breadth of Wikimedia installations. According to https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Timezone, each wikimedia instance can establish its own timezone default. Still looking for documentation of the English Wikipedia default setting (documentation vs. inference from observation). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:52, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

@Ceyockey: I'm not sure what you would accept as documentation. The actual setting of the time zone is in https://noc.wikimedia.org/conf/highlight.php?file=InitialiseSettings.php. It says 'wgLocaltimezone' => [ 'default' => 'UTC', and then sets another value for many wikis but not enwiki. The first time zone option at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering says "Use wiki default (UTC)". Help:Log#Using a log says: "The date and time of the logged action. The time is UTC by default on Wikipedia; registered users can change this in their preferences." It's an unprotected page so anybody could change it but it may be a hetter fit to "documentation" than other options. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:03, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

This is perfect. Thanks. The UTC timestamp is based on the absence of the EN wikipedia in the custom/local list. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:50, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Help regarding a Draft

Hello, I have created a draft article on Draft:Ankit Baiyanpuria but I am not seeing the option to submit it for Articles for Creation (AfC) review. Could someone guide me on how to enable or access the AfC submission option? Thank you! AstuteFlicker (talk) 16:29, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I've added the necessary template now. Use {{subst:AfC draft}} if you have this issue in the future. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 16:32, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deleted by an Administrator. "Unambiguous advertising or promotion" David notMD (talk) 02:19, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia have a left-leaning bias?

I don't know if this has been brought up before, but I'm interested in knowing whether Wikipedia inadvertently has a particular bias. I know that everything has to be written in a neutral point of view and is not supposed to take sides on anything. I found the article on this topic here, Ideological bias on Wikipedia, but I found the article too confusing. I'm assuming that many of the sources that Wikipedia cites, mostly mainstream media, seem to have a left-leaning bias which may contribute to its bias since almost all of Wikipedia's info comes from mainstream media. I am hoping that I can get a quick summary on whether Wikipedia has a bias or not or if it leans a certain way. I hope to hear from you soon. Interstellarity (talk) 22:12, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that theme has come up. Search for "bias" in the archive. 176.0.164.84 (talk) 01:50, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

There is an article on this topic which relates academic and public commentary. See Ideological bias on Wikipedia. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:17, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

@Ceyockey, you perhaps didn't notice that @Interstellarity has already cited that article. ColinFine (talk) 13:50, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Interstellarity, bear in mind that political "left/centre/right" are subjective perceptions, unless everyone agrees to use a particular scheme that has measurable parameters. They are also culturally specific, and their meanings in one country rarely exactly correspond to their meanings in another: this makes assessing the 'lean' in a global encyclopaedia rather problematic. "Centres" also shift over time – see Overton window and Left–right political spectrum.

For example, as I am British and you are (I will presume) American, my perceived political "centre" will probably be a good deal leftward of your "centre". I would consider my position in a British context to be mildly left of centre on some (more social and environmental) issues and mildly right on other (more economic) issues: you would probably consider me fairly left-wing from your point of view, and I would probably (given your query) consider you fairly right wing. How then can we agree on "bias in Wikipedia"?

It may well be that the Left-right political spectrum model is oversimplified, outdated and inadequate. Others are available, see Political spectrum. Two axes models are generally more insightful, and I suspect one with three axes would be even better. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.6.86.81 (talk) 20:30, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for replying. I will confirm that I am an American. There doesn't appear to be any way to ping you, but I'm sure you watch this page a lot. I've been trying to educate myself on this issue and I read your comments. It appears that determining any type of bias on Wikipedia is difficult since the political systems in each country are different from one another. I was reading Donald Trump's article on Wikipedia and I thought to myself that the article is biased against him just by reading the article, but I have learned that Wikipedia gets its facts from the sources which is usually mainstream media that is critical of him. That's probably why I thought Wikipedia had a left-leaning bias. Interstellarity (talk) 22:48, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

"American" is not actually the same thing as "Citizen of the U.S.A.," by the way.

There are 35 states in America;

Brazil, Argentina, Venezuela, Chile, Peru, Ecuador, Suriname, Bolivia, Colombia, Panama, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Belize, Nicaragua, Honduras, Guatemala, Mexico, USA, Canada, Bahamas, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Cuba, Trinidad and Tobago, St Kitts and Nevis, St Lucia, St Vincent and the Grenadines, Dominca, Dominican Republic, Haiti, Jamaica

Anyone from any of these states is an American.

Anyone who reads and writes in English , around the entire world, can create a wikipedia account.

In most of these countries, "left" and "right" don't mean anything. Even in Europe, they have different meanings than they do in the USA. Guylaen (talk) 07:10, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Are we biased against him or does he just do and say a lot of horrible things? --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:24, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I like your answer a lot sir. If I may add: If you leave the Western world, other country's parties and "left/right" can be totally different. For example, in America, a "liberal/leftist" may be very pro-immigration etc., whereas in Turkiye the "liberal/leftist" parties are vehemently anti-immigration and very pro-"Turkish" and desire to see "Turkish" language and culture supersede all others in the country. Whereas the Islamists and "conservatives" AKA muhafaza parties are actually pro-immigration, pro-diversity, and pro-multicultural and multi-lingual (actually this is a typical norm among Islamists in many countries, because Islam itself denounces racism and promotes multiculturalism in its sources and from the sirah nabawiyah). So on that note, I find the English Wikipedia to be quite lacking in diversity of thought! It needs more Islamic views. DivineReality (talk) 03:11, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I really don't wanna be that guy. But Wikipedia calls national socialism "far right" to make right-wingers look bad, or at least that's what I think. Flying disc 1 (talk) 03:26, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not be expected to exclude relevant factual information on þe basis þat it makes certain people or groups "look bad". Þat would be an egregious example of bias. GenderBiohazard (talk) 15:31, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

National Socialism is, objectively, a far-right movement. No bias there. Drdr150 (talk) 16:31, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

National Socialism/Nazism is, objectively, a far-right movement. There's no ulterior motive behind calling a spade a spade, or in this case, the far-right far-right. Beedlejoos (talk) 07:27, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh bugger, almost identical to the comment above. Beedlejoos (talk) 07:28, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4fdZu2vb_I&pp=ygUkd2VyZSB0aGUgbmF6aXMgZmFyIHJpZ2h0IG9yIGZhciBsZWZ0 Guylaen (talk) 07:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is used for informative purposes. As users come to edit, they may change the facts and alter the article. Various factors may be included in their changes. Bias may be shown in their changes, highlighting different facts inside their edits. There possibly could be some excessively biased articles that show changes of users. Gooners Fan in North London (talk) 19:42, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Good observation I saw a church rewriting a wiki post to be more in line with the tone of wikipedia and less biased and they blocked them and deleted the edits. It’s not even in the log, luckily I have copied it to show openminded people like you. IamNeutrality (talk) 20:19, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Sounds like WP:COI. GenderBiohazard (talk) 21:57, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Is it not possible that The conservative people work while the left poor masses on welfare have lots of free time to spend on drugs, editing articles etc? Let’s gather the facts and see who is the majority of people with liberal free time for editing!

I don’t know yet only a guess! IamNeutrality (talk) 09:06, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

First, a church should not be editing Wikipedia as accounts represent individuals and plus, it was your sockpuppet account and it got blocked so I can see why it might upset you. I don't see how you can justify the edit it made though. But since you are blocked as well for being NOTHERE, I won't expect a response. By the way, I think I know a lot of editors on this platform after 11 years and they are neither on welfare or on drugs. Random assumption on your point. Liz <sup>Read! Talk!</sup> 06:45, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

As pointed out before me Fact's have a left leaning bias, it's like the comic that's gone around of the rich guy with a mountain of cookies making two other guys fight over the 1 between them, right wing policies favour the few and as such require lies so right-wing politics are just less factual. Galdrack (talk) 00:11, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

The fact that you're here, and allowed to ask this question, means that it doesn't have any bias other than to the truth.

When you are confronted with an article that presents information that is contrary to your worldview, please take a moment to wonder if your worldview is incorrect. In writing my series of articles on Cuba, as a citizen of the U.S.A., I have had to confront my worldview almost daily.

What I've formulated going forward is the notion that history and reality are neither conservative, nor liberal, neither right, nor left - but COMPLICATED. This is a complex ball of wax. Facts are stubborn things. Guylaen (talk) 07:02, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

In the united states, facts have a liberal bias because conservative media will push any lie they want to get more money. We recently got two back-to-back hurricanes and a certain politician said that all the emergency aid is going to immigrants, and that caused a literal armed militia in tennessee to confront FEMA workers (Associated Press link, no paywall) because conservative media (especially alternative or low quality sources) picked up on the story and spread it. Unfortunately the U.S. has no standards for bias and accuracy in journalism and it shows given that MSNBC and FOX are some of the top "news" sources in the country. Politicians and influencers sow distrust and hatred towards "the other side" and easily manipulated and unintelligent people fall for it. I say that facts have a liberal bias because if you tally up all the lies sources from both sides of the aisle say, an overwhelming amount of them will be from conservative outlets. ApteryxRainWing (talk) 12:05, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm assuming that many of the sources that Wikipedia cites, mostly mainstream media, seem to have a left-leaning bias

Most mainstream media outlets have a liberal bias, broadly construed, somewhat closer to the classical, non-USAian sense of the term, not a leftist bias per se. As for Wikipedia policy, sources with an illiberal bias are typically regarded as generally unreliable, deprecated, or blacklisted, whether they have socialist (e.g. WP:TELESUR), communist (WP:GLOBALTIMES), reactionary/extreme traditionalist (WP:BREITBART, WP:QUILLETTE) standpoints, or simply have views favorable to states regarded as illiberal by the reliable sources (WP:ADLPIA, WP:DAILYSABAH, WP:GLOBALTIMES, WP:OCB, WP:PRESSTV, WP:RT.COM). This understanding of Wikipedia's policies on sourcing and innate ideological biases is much more parsimonious and has greater predictive and explanatory power than assuming it is biased towards liberalism and against conservativism in the narrow, largely modern, largely American sense. Brusquedandelion (talk) 07:37, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Let me invite you to reading any page about islam that isn't a top priority for the Islam:Portal wikiproject....

And then let me invite you to the American commentary by Roy Casagranda (youtube, amazing story teller), Chris Hedges and the Jewish Commentary on Islam by Albert Einstein, Noam Chomsky, ilan Pappe, and Gabor Matte, which paints a world different world.

Islam on english wiki is unrecognisable and divorced from actual history and lived Muslim experience. Edward Said addresses this in one of his biggest books "Orientalism", 1978. Since, there has been mounting academic self-reflection that addresses and acknowledges a systemic pattern and multiple century old history unique to western discourse to smear not only non-europeans, but MENA, muslims, and islam.

For example, the byzantine empire called itself romans but european revisionism changed its historic label to an inaccurate and non-relevant name of byzantium to divorce anatolians from the white european identity. Bro The Man (talk) 16:24, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Paul Krugman has observed, "Facts Have a Well-Known Liberal Bias." Maurice Magnus (talk) 00:40, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia is not leftist. I'm a neoliberal and do just fine here. But to fill in the details, see https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-07942-8 tgeorgescu (talk) 19:55, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

This wasn't the first time the observation was made: Stephen Colbert notably said reality has a liberal bias at the at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Dinner. LilianaUwU <sup>(talk / contributions)</sup> 08:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I lean towards the left but I am not a true believer in any activist group although I agree with their goals but not their methods and I know I am probably going to get banned , muted, ostracized , or put on some kind of list for this but some articles such as Gamergate (harassment campaign) show a clear political bias towards progressive politics with political jargon and snarl words , making it very clear from its tone that activists wrote the article , and regularly police it to ensure that it is not altered to have a more NPOV tone. And finally to make it clear for the record I am not now nor have I ever been a member of any activist group Washusama (talk) 04:52, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

That's one of the most corrupted pages on all of Wikipedia, IMHO.

As for the general topic, albeit still tangentially related, I'd like to quote another discussion in response to a new user concerned that everything within the Reception section of the page on conservative site DailyWire was criticism and that there wasn't even any coverage of their growth or popularity:

I don't particularly like DW but you're right. The problem is that the list of "reliable sources" (known as WP:RS) doesn't include conservative or right-leaning sources that would be willing to discuss a site like DW in a positive light, or seemingly even in a plain factual light regarding their growth and popularity.

WP:RS is the main means of controlling the discourse and editing process on WP to ensure it stays biased in favour of whatever viewpoint predominates among WP editors (which, for almost all of its existence, has been a sort of default progressivism). WP:RS is (and always has been) regularly culled to keep pace with the Overton window, whereby increasingly gentle right-leaning sources are hacked off until there's nothing left.

I'm aware of several pages on Wikipedia that illustrate that it doesn't matter what standard of proof you have - you can have direct evidence of a group colluding to engage in wrongdoing in a private chat and firsthand admissions from the participants - because WP will simply remove the sources that refer to that proof from the list, thus making them uncitable and offering those with power over WP:RS policy complete control over the worldview that WP reflects. It doesn't matter even if a pool of experts in a peer-reviewed study from a WP:RS journal declare that the only news source reporting accurately on their field is conservative/right-wing (which has literally happened before) because that source will never be added to WP:RS, even for the very subject (intelligence research) in which it trounced every single source of highest preference on the Approved™ list (which were all judged with negative-to-very-negative scores).

The idea that WP is neutral is laughable. It's highly debatable whether it's possible to have a truly neutral encyclopaedia -- but that gets into deep epistemology far outside the scope of the discussion. Frankly, in my own research, I don't consider WP any more intrinsically reliable than ProleWiki (communist), Conservapedia (neoconservative), or Metapedia (dissident) -- at least those sites make their ideology clear up front. In my own quest for knowledge, I treat WP as "Wikipedia (progressive)" in a mere longlist of summarising sources.

I tend to agree with Robert Conquest and John O'Sullivan: "All organizations that are not [explicitly] right-wing will over time become left-wing." Certainly, this is what happened to WP. A similar point has been repeatedly raised alongside solid examples by WP's co-founder, Larry Sanger, who has composed a trilogy of articles on the subject of WP's bias. Perhaps most valuably, they expound upon the closest practicable approximation to a "neutral" or "objective" encyclopaedia (those words, which we oft-interchangeably associate with honesty and integrity, all mean subtly different things and have been exploited and manipulated). Needless to say, his isn't WP's model, despite him drafting the original, obsoleted NPOV policy.

Elliott-AtomicInfinity (talk) 04:45, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Question

Hello, I’m not new to Wikipedia, but I have a question. Currently, I’m the only active editor for the Myanmar project, as Myanmar has banned all versions of Wikipedia. I’ve created many articles without issues since I fully understand the notability guidelines. However, problems arose when I submitted one of my articles to the DYK process. An editor tagged {{Religious text primary}} on Pabhāvatī, even though there are secondary sources. The editor didn’t explain what they needed or try to resolve the issue with me, and they ignored the references I provided.

As a native, if someone clarified the reason for the tag, I could easily address it. Unfortunately, no one seems interested in explaining or resolving the issue; they only seem to be causing problems. Wikipedia is a community where things can be resolved collaboratively. What is the community’s stance on such inappropriate behavior? Hteiktinhein (talk) 14:56, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Hteiktinhein: the tag was added by AirshipJungleman29. If anyone can explain why he added the tag, he can. Maproom (talk) 16:23, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Hteiktinhein I now see that you sent this helpful message at WT:DYK; however, please note that adding pings without a signature, as you did there, does not work. You have said that the sources provide significant coverage and an explanation of the epic: if you could include the explanation in the article, rather than the narrative description currently found there, then the tag can be removed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:28, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Hteiktinhein. Your article says in Wikipedia's voice that Pabhāvatī possessed unparalleled beauty in the world, with rays of light as if from the risen sun, so profound that it could illuminate seven chambers without the need for any lamp light without qualifications. You are discussing a mythical or legendary person as if she actually existed, which is ludicrous. Also, she seems to be a character in in a religious work called the Kusa Jātaka that has no English Wikipedia article. It is as if you wrote an article about a character in a novel without writing the article about the novel first. The entire article is written from a Fictional universe perspective, which is not appropriate for an encyclopedia article. WP:INUNIVERSE is the section of the Manual of Style that gives guidance for how to write about such topics. Cullen328 (talk) 17:37, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328 your answer is really helpful to me, and I’ll give it a try. I really appreciate receiving such helpful answers from other editors. I'm glad you provided a clear explanation. Thanks! Hteiktinhein (talk) 06:42, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29 Thank you. This is exactly the kind of clear answer I was looking for—finally, I got it.! Hteiktinhein (talk) 06:43, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

That link is broken – I think you meant {{religious text primary}}. (I'm using the handy {{template link}} to link to it.) jlwoodwa (talk) 15:33, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Man Mandir Palace

Hello, I have created a page on a historic monument. But it was declined. Can anyone help me finding the reason for deletion and improvisation. Thanks Donchocolate (talk) 05:31, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Donchocolate. Your submission was blank. It had no content whatsoever. Why would you think that a content-free submission would be accepted? Cullen328 (talk) 05:38, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Okay, well I was researching on the topic and at the same time was thinking to add the content. Donchocolate (talk) 05:51, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

@Donchocolate This is why we have WP:DRAFT and WP:Article wizard. See also WP:BACKWARD. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:27, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Help with disambiguation please

My new article Carol A. Carter is similar in name to Carol Ann Carter, would appreciate help. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 01:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

This article appears to have only two independent sources, and has quite a few MoS issues (“brought with her a trick”, references in headings, etc). I would not have accepted this at AfC, and considering it was only published a few days ago, I wonder if it should be draftified? 02:16, 30 October 2024 (UTC) -- NotCharizard <sup>🗨</sup> 02:16, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

@Allthemilescombined1, what you're looking for is Template:For. Use this at the top of each page so that they link to each other. -- asilvering (talk) 04:56, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 10:04, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

How to suggest an editorial need within an article

Also in the Sarasara article, I'd like to point out an editorial need for something to be done but I've never done that before. I'd like to find out how. Here's why:

The version of the article I've been working on keeps switching the way it refers to the singer. Sometimes it's Sarah, other times Sarasara. This has gone on long enough in the discussion of the singer's life that I think her two names must be used out of sequence to refer to her. But then too, readers would be curious why and when she made the name change.

I'd have added this information myself, but I spent about 15 minutes doing a search to find this information and turned up nothing directly related. Unwilling to spend more time on this project in an already busy day, I thought to suggest the need for that information to be added, hoping another editor — perhaps the original writer — would pick up on it.

Please, then, would someone knowledgeable dispense the "how-to's"? In so doing, you'll probably help some other editors who may wonder how to do the same thing.

Augnablik (talk) 11:24, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

You could post and ask on the article talk-page, but as we are all volunteers, it's not sure when, or if, someone will pick this up or react on it. Most articles remain in a state of being unfinished in one way or the other. Lectonar (talk) 11:29, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but I’m sure I’ve seen this done within articles too — sort of like those ubiquitous “Citation needed” notices. Augnablik (talk) 13:02, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Hmmm...Template:Clarify, or perhaps even better Template:Explain, but there's oodles of others. Lectonar (talk) 15:15, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

She should't be referred to as "Sarah": we don't refer to article subjects by their first names. She should be either "Filleur" or "Sarasara", depending on whether the context is her as a person or as a performer. ColinFine (talk) 12:06, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I seem to have forgotten about no first-naming in Wiki articles. But the distinction you make between her as a person and her as a performer is a little tricky except as far as before or after she made the name change — which at the moment we don’t know. Augnablik (talk) 13:06, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

@Augnablik, we would ordinarily use the most common name that the sources use. So if you skim through the citations in the article, are people discussing Sarasara or Filleur? That should tell you which name to use for her. StartGrammarTime (talk) 15:59, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

@StartGrammarTime, the singer is referred to as BOTH Sarah and Sarasara in the article with no consistent pattern of usage that I can determine. Filleur, however, is never used to refer to her. Augnablik (talk) 17:32, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

@Augnablik What's important is not what the article currently says but what the sources say. If they never use the name "Filleur" then you have a relatively easy task to convert most of the Sarahs to Sarasara, per MOS:SURNAME. The Wikipedia editors have a search-and-replace function, which may help. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:22, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

@Augnablik, as Mike Turnbull says, the citations in the article (the sources) are our guide. Just looking at the titles of the sources, if a name is used then it's 'Sarasara' - or frequently stylized 's a r a s a r a' - so we should use Sarasara as her name in the article, but mention the stylized version and ensure we have a redirect from both 's a r a s a r a' and 'Sarah Filleur' for any readers looking for her with those names. StartGrammarTime (talk) 05:18, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

@Mike Turnbull, I’d like to hear more about your comment that there’s a search-and-replace function for Wiki work. That would definitely help.

In fact, I’d already wondered if there were such a tool for exactly that purpose, as I’m now convinced it would be perfectly fine to change all the Sarah references to Sarasara in this article. But (confession time), I got thinking that because I’m now a toddler rather than a complete newbie, I should know where to go to check for that sort of thing — and I myself would get a little exasperated with someone who “should know by now.” So, I held back asking for help even though I just can’t recall (if I ever did know). Augnablik (talk) 06:49, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

@Augnablik Your ping didn't work for some reason, so I'm a bit late back here. I'll take this to your Talk Page as the search-and-replace functionality is worth discussing. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:04, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Missing Wiki updating of user contributions

After a gap of several months since my last editing, I made a number of edits about 12 hours ago. Yet they’re not shown at my user page. I don’t recall such time gaps before — or am I wrong and it takes much longer? Augnablik (talk) 08:46, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I see edits made a couple of days ago, e.g. this one. (Are these really "grammatical"? I'd call them "orthographic".) -- Hoary (talk) 09:23, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

If it was in fact a couple of days ago rather than last night, my question about how long it takes to update our number of edits would be even more relevant.

Yes, I’d call those edits grammatical … Augnablik (talk) 10:53, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @Augnablik. The only circumstance I can think of where an edit you have made does not appear in your contributions list is if the article you edited has since been deleted. Is that possible? ColinFine (talk) 17:59, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Augnablik, I see one recent contribution at Commons, which is not tracked at English Wikipedia. Your xtools reports show zero deleted edits both here and at Commons. Your global contribs show only those two projects. Are you certain you were logged in when you made the edits? Folly Mox (talk) 20:24, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

OP removed this thread after the first three posts (restored next diff by 31.96, who added their reply), so this is probably  Done somehow. As far as I'm aware, edit count updates immediately at both Special:Contributions and Special:Impact, and is unaffected by REPLAG. Folly Mox (talk) 20:42, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I think I found the solution to the problem I was having, so I'll be happy if his thread is archived now. Thanks to all who helped by writing messages. Augnablik (talk) 15:48, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Help in sources

I'm trying to make my first Wikipedia page. The only problem here, is that the only sources that I know that have this person information (age, country, name), is on the list of Reliable sources/Perennial sources. The sources are from fandom wiki. The person that I want to make a page is Gooseworx. I tried to get some sources from different sites that do not are on the list, but the informations are literally the same and these other sites have even less information. TheunnamedBR (talk) 23:24, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

TheunnamedBR, what you write suggests that this person is not notable. An article about a non-notable person cannot be created. -- Hoary (talk) 23:44, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

ok ;) TheunnamedBR (talk) 01:36, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @TheunnamedBR My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. ColinFine (talk) 16:17, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Did I Handle this correctly?

I came across an article that was originally about the "Andhra Pradesh State Board of Technical Education & Industrial Training." However, it seems that over time, some editors changed the entire content to be about the "Punjab State Board of Technical Education & Industrial Training" instead. I looked at Wikipedia:ORG and noted that neither of these organizations really seems to meet notability guidelines and neither of pages have sources other than primary.

So, I went ahead and marked the article with a deletion tag, thinking that might be the best course of action.

Here is the Page Punjab State Board of Technical Education and Industrial Training.

Just wanted to check—does that seem like the right approach here? I’d appreciate any guidance or feedback on whether I handled this correctly, or if there’s something else I should consider doing. Thanks so much! VeritasVanguard (talk) 14:42, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

The early versions of this article have all been RevDel-ed. I have failed to find out why or by whom. Evidence of notability is indeed lacking, so deletion seems the best solution, regardless of its strange history. Maproom (talk) 15:11, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

@VeritasVanguard, I'm glad you asked. I don't think it's appropriate to tag these as WP:A7, which is why I haven't accepted the CSD requests. I think a more appropriate deletion method would have been WP:PROD. But I'm curious to see what another admin will do, so I've left the deletion tags on for now. -- asilvering (talk) 15:20, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I tag it under Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion because According to Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion states

"applies to any article about a real person, individual animal, commercial or non-commercial organization, web content, or organized event that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant"

& No Reliable Third Party Reference is cited in the article.

@DoubleGrazing Can you please look at this? VeritasVanguard (talk) 16:03, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I understand why you tagged it, but I don't think that's correct. If the issue is a lack of reliable sources, that isn't a problem for WP:CSD. The notability claim here seems self-evident to me: it's a government body that oversees schools. Whether or not that is a notable topic, in the sense that it passes the guidelines listed at WP:GNG, is the question. But it was borderline enough to me that I left the tag on instead of removing it. -- asilvering (talk) 16:29, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

@Asilvering, Thanks for your reply, the Deletion tag has been changed to Wikipedia:Proposed deletion. VeritasVanguard (talk) 16:31, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Hm, but not changed by an admin, who could have done the deleting. Alas. -- asilvering (talk) 16:33, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Help me get my first article get accepted!

Hi experienced ediotors, pls help me understand this situation! I can’t understand!

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Dan arndt were:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

• in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
• reliable
• secondary
• independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Fails WP:GNG - noting Wikis are not acceptable or reliable sources.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Melon Sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Nanb500001 (talk) 11:30, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Just what are you asking for/about here, Nanb500001? In the meantime, please note that for people who don't understand certain key terms (e.g. "reliable sources"), links are provided from those terms to explanations. -- Hoary (talk) 11:41, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @Nanb500001, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia.

I'm afraid that your experience is common for people who try the challenging task of creating a new article before they have spent time learning about Wikipedia. My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft..

If you had never built anything before, and you tried to build a house, do you think that you would even understand that feedback that you got when you tried at that level? ColinFine (talk) 12:09, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I already did some edits to other and my account is a few weeks old Nanb500001 (talk) 13:36, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

We understand that, but it may even take months, weeks if you were getting in-depth.

My suggestion is if you still want to make the article, make it a sandbox and work on it for a long time. Adding things as you go along, then ask an unrelated older editor to look at it and give you feedback. If they think it is good summit it.

The point is that it could take months to get the article ready for resubmitting. User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 15:38, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

How can I give experienced editors my example article? Nanb500001 (talk) 07:52, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Just talk to one on they're talk page with a link to the Sandbox/Draft. User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 07:56, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Nanb500001 (talk) 07:57, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi,

I’m a starter editor. I understand what a reliable source is but the game I write on my article does not have an official website. The only way I can get references is through user generated content like a fandom wiki article. How can I get a reliable source without an official website. Nanb500001 (talk) 08:14, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

You can't "get a reliable source" as you are describing. Reliable sources have to take note of the game on their own and decide to write about it. If you influence a source to write about the game, it is not an independent source that can be used to establish notability. If you don't have appropriate sources for the game, it would not merit a Wikipedia article. A Fandom wiki is probably a better forum in which to write about the game. 331dot (talk) 08:18, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Well it have an official youtube channel Nanb500001 (talk) 08:23, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

That's meaningless in terms of notability, I'm afraid. You need independent reliable sources. I'm sorry to say that if you don't have appropriate sources to summarize that no amount of editing can confer notability on the game. 331dot (talk) 08:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

So can I have an official youtube channel as a source? Nanb500001 (talk) 08:31, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Plus there is only an official website of the peoples who made it https://playducky.com Nanb500001 (talk) 08:36, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, we're telling you these things aren't appropriate to establish notability. It doesn't look like the game merits a Wikipedia article. Again, a Fandom wiki is likely a better place to write about it, as it will likely have less stringent requirements. 331dot (talk) 08:42, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Both the Youtube channel and the website would be made by the Dev of the game.

They are not Independent of the Game, Devs, and those who work for them.

User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 16:29, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

@Nanb500001: It sounds like it's too soon for this game to have an article if there aren't sources that fit the golden rule to establish wikinotability. If it gains traction you might have some luck in managing to create an article in the future. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:27, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia Draft Submission for the Department of Technical Education & Industrial Training, Punjab

Draft:Department of Technical Education & Industrial Training, Punjab, India

I recently submitted my first article about the Department of Technical Education & Industrial Training, Punjab, India, but it was not accepted due to concerns over notability under WP:ORG guidelines. While similar articles on Wikipedia feature limited citations, I believe this Department warrants recognition on the platform.

As a key government agency under the Government of Punjab, established in 1977, third-party online sources are understandably scarce. However, the Department’s impact is clear through its associated institutions, such as I.K. Gujral Punjab Technical University, Maharaja Ranjit Singh Punjab Technical University, and the Punjab State Board of Technical Education and Industrial Training—all of which have Wikipedia pages. VeritasVanguard (talk) 10:27, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello @VeritasVanguard,

Please disregard whatever other articles there may exist on Wikipedia; that is the so-called WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. This draft will need to demonstrate notability and generally make its case on its own merits.

As you may have seen in the WP:ORG notability guideline (and I quote), "No company or organization is considered inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is". The ORG guideline requires significant coverage in multiple secondary sources that are reliable and independent of the subject. Your draft cites only primary sources, in most cases ones close to the subject (ie. not independent).

I would think that for an institution which has been in existence for nearly half a century there must be something published that meets the ORG criteria? Note that sources do not have to be online, nor do they have to be in the English language, as long as they otherwise meet our required reliability etc. standards.

Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:47, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Can any other admin review?

I recently submitted an article about the Department of Technical Education & Industrial Training, Punjab, but it was rejected under WP:ORG guidelines for notability concerns. Despite its role as a key government body (est. 1977) and connections to notable institutions like I.K. Gujral Punjab Technical University, limited third-party sources make it challenging to meet the criteria. Any guidance on addressing these concerns or re-evaluation from another perspective would be appreciated. Thank you.

— VeritasVanguard (talk) 16:14, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @VeritasVanguard. If there are not adequate independent published sources, then the department does not meet English Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and no article is possible, period. See No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability ColinFine (talk) 16:21, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @ColinFine Thanks for your response. Given the limited availability of independent, reliable sources about the Department, I’ll hold off on resubmitting the article for now. I appreciate your guidance and feedback! VeritasVanguard (talk) 16:26, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

If a draft has no edits for five months a notice is sent to the active editor that it will be deleted at the end of the sixth month. Edits to the draft reset the clock. David notMD (talk) 17:56, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Article creation

can any editir review my rejected article? Ibrahimmusa4 (talk) 17:02, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

@Ibrahimmusa4: Welcome to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1239. You have already asked for help at the AfC help desk. Please don't post in multiple venues so that volunteer effort isn't duplicated. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Ibrahimmusa4 Your sandbox draft User:Ibrahimmusa4/sandbox makes a statement that in non-Wikipedia publications about two people, some of those publications in error have images of the wrong person. This is not a valid topic for a Wikipedia article. It has been Rejected. Do not submit it again. Instead, deleted the content from your Sandbox. David notMD (talk) 18:07, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Wording of sentence

I was editing Deva Premal due to peacock terms being used within the article. I came across the following sentence in the first paragraph of the Music and information section: She says that, for her, removing her ego from her understanding of the mantra allows the creative process to express the true meaning of the mantra.

The preceding is not a quotation yet it still reads - to me - somewhat awkward, and possible editorializing. Am I right in my suspicions? If so how would one go about re-writing the sentence? Bronzeman2342 (talk) 11:36, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

The reference is an interview. Is it a quote from the interview? David notMD (talk) 12:13, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Re-reading the interview, it's not a quotation, closest to it is "it's all about being sensitive to the actual meaning of the particular mantra, tuning into how it feels, and getting out the way on an egotistical level...once that happens, the music arises.". Bronzeman2342 (talk) 13:22, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

The sentence should be removed if not from the ref, bacause as written if begins 'She says that...'. David notMD (talk) 17:58, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Likely a case of repeated information in the section, I'll attempt a rewrite without the 'She says that...' Regardless, thank you, for the attention. Bronzeman2342 (talk) 18:22, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

{ {Short description| blah blah } }

I do not know how to edit the { {Short description| blah blah example example} that appears near the very top of an article in source editor for every article, in visual editor? I really prefer using visual editor whenever possible, and I only switch over when I cannot figure out how to use the visual editor for something, though often I find the source editor less intuitive to use, at least I can eventually figure it out. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

@Iljhgtn, there's a gadget that makes this even easier than using Visual Editor. Preferences --> Gadgets --> check the box next to "shortdesc helper". -- asilvering (talk) 20:09, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I will look into that now. Iljhgtn (talk) 20:37, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

This is a handy tool. Thank you @Asilvering. Iljhgtn (talk) 20:40, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Applying the instructions at Help:VisualEditor#Editing Templates, you would scroll up to the top of the page, click the greyed out "🧩 Short description", click the edit icon ✏️, change the text in the box that appears as appropriate, click the check mark ✅, and save your edit as usual. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 20:12, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I did not see that present until after adding the gadget that @Asilvering just recommended. I should be ok now. Thank you both. Iljhgtn (talk) 20:42, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Welcome home

Can you please add welcome home by Ronald Dorelaine? 2605:59C8:2899:8F10:8D4C:E273:611:AF4B (talk) 20:25, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi, could you be a bit clearer as to what you are referencing? We have nearly 7 million articles and it's hard to know which one you are talking about. 331dot (talk) 20:35, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia avoids discussing things from an in-universe POV, so this would be Clown Illustrations' horror ARG Welcome Home. You need an independent reliable secondary source to add it to an article, OP. Then you might be able to add it to the Welcome Home disambiguation page. Cheers, Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 22:41, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

2 titles

I am citing a book and I need to cite both titles to paragraphs and they are both on the same page (it would not at all make sense to have only one title), should I make 2 spereate citations, or should I make one? and if so how should I format it? YisroelB501 (talk) 07:29, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I would follow what Cite Page and Help:Citation Templates says. User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 07:56, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, YisroelB501. The vast majority of books only have one title, although the exception that comes to mind is Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus by Mary Shelley. Occasionally, editions published in different countries or at different points in time will have different titles, but I suspect that is not what you are asking about. I am confused when you say titles to paragraphs. Chapters sometimes have titles but I am unaware that individual paragraphs ever do. So, please provide additional context or a more detailed explanation of what you are asking. Cullen328 (talk) 08:00, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

sorry I said the question wrong by "title" I meant to say quote. there are two quotes on the page one on the top and one on the bottom what should I do? sorry for the missunderstanding Cullen328. YisroelB501 (talk) 09:03, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

YisroelB501, direct quotations require a reference to the source. If both quotations appear on the same page of a book, then just use the same reference twice. See WP:NAMEDREF for the details of the coding. Follow those instructions carefully. A slight typographical error will mess things up. Cullen328 (talk) 10:03, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Contributions acknowledgement

Hello Team, I started donating to Wikipedia recently. However, my profile does not reflect any contributions. How do I link my contributions with my profile page?  Smokinjoe1952 (talk) 18:13, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

@Smokinjoe1952: Welcome to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1239. Donations aren't tied to accounts or articles. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

The contributions that you are seeing is for when you edit Wikipedia. User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 20:22, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

@Smokinjoe1952: "Contributions" in the interface means edits to Wikipedia, not donations. Special:Contributions/Smokinjoe1952 now shows your question here. Your donations cannot be seen in your account. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:24, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your replies - all.

of course Smokinjoe1152 (talk) 13:08, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm confused

Why no one mentioned in articles about Google being fined by Russia with 2.5 decillion dollars? it's a large fine. I added the information about this from Google's article by the way. Bakhos2010 (talk) 09:32, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

@Bakhos2010 Wikipedia is created by volunteers like you. If you see something that needs fixing, feel free to fix it or propose it on the talk page. The matter of the "fine" is somewhat academic of course. A sum like that could never be paid. Shantavira|<sup>feed me</sup> 10:43, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

@Bakhos2010 If you need a reliable source (and comment) see this BBC news article. The fine doubles every day it is not paid, apparently, which is why it is now so large. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:22, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

How to report users?

I have experienced an uncalled for argument where I feel I have been treated with disrespect by a fellow Wikipedian. How and to whom can I report the incident? I am not seeking any disciplinary action; a warning would suffice. Benzekre (talk) 17:44, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @Benzekre. That's really not how Wikipedia works. Chronic, intractable behaviour problems can be reported at WP:ANI, but generally editors are expected to work to resolve differences themselves.

I'm guessing this is about the exchange at User talk:TylerBurden? Yes, TylerBurden could have been more polite, but they were pointing you (indirectly) at Q4 of the FAQ at the top of Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Honestly, if you're going to get upset about that level of disrespect, you may have a hard time interacting at Wikipedia. I suggest you just move on to something else. ColinFine (talk) 18:32, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Correct. Yes, he could have been more polite; especially to a newcomer like me. I know it wasn't a terrible incident; that is why I am not seeking any bans or disciplinary action. Benzekre (talk) 18:53, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

@Benzekre Take a look at WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE and see if you think that applies to your situation. Note that if you proceed with reporting to a noticeboard, your conduct is very likely to be under scrutiny as well. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:33, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

In the first instance, you should address them directly on their talk page. If that doesn't produce a satisfactory outcome then WP:RUCD has further suggestions. -- D'n'B-t -- 18:34, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Benzekre, you are simply not allowed to engage in any substantive discussion or debate about articles pertaining to the war between Russia and Ukraine anywhere on Wikipedia, and that includes that user's talk page. You must wait until you have made 500 productive edits in other topic areas. So, please drop this because you are otherwise at high risk of being blocked. Cullen328 (talk) 18:41, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Cullen328. Since I am a newcomer, I am not sure I understand your point. While I know that the war between Russian and Ukraine is a sensitive topic; not even on the talk page of the war, am I not allowed to debate this? If that is the case, there are many users who are discussing it on the talk page in question. Lastly, since I am a newcomer, please forgive any mistakes done from my end. Benzekre (talk) 18:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Benzekre, please carefully read the warnings at the top of Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine, especially the statement However, non-extended-confirmed editors may not make edits to internal project discussions related to the topic area, even on article talk pages. Internal project discussions include, but are not limited to, Articles for deletion nominations, WikiProjects, requests for comment, requested moves, and noticeboard discussions. You are not allowed to debate this topic anywhere on Wikipedia until your account becomes extended confirmed. Being a newcomer is not a defense because it is a restriction specifically applied to newcomers. Please drop this so that you don't get blocked. Cullen328 (talk) 19:11, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

The notice on the article talk page is confusing. It says "Only extended-confirmed editors may make edits related to the topic area, though editors who are not extended-confirmed may post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area on article talk pages." But then later in the same paragraph says "However, non-extended-confirmed editors may not make edits to internal project discussions related to the topic area, even on article talk pages." So which is it? Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 20:01, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Edit requests and "internal project discussions" are not the same thing. A pre-extended-confirmed editor can make edit requests but not participate in things like RfCs, etc. -- asilvering (talk) 04:58, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming, then what Cullen328 was telling Benzerke was mistaken. @Benzekre: what you were doing by initiating discussion on the article talk page was completely in line with the editing policy. Please be careful and work slowly in this topic area as it is highly political and controversial. Feel free to make constructive suggestions on the article talk page and engage in discussion there. I suggest keeping discussion there rather than carrying it to individual user talk pages. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 15:38, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

@Iggy pop goes the weasel Thanks for letting me know. I will make sure to follow your advice. Benzekre (talk) 15:52, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

No, @Benzekre, please don't - you were given appropriate advice the first time. @Iggy pop goes the weasel, if you look at the context on that talk page, you will clearly see that this is an ongoing content debate. -- asilvering (talk) 16:10, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

@Asilvering now i'm totally confused..... I will now follow your advice. I strongly suggest that this anomaly is clarified for better understanding. Benzekre (talk) 16:17, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

@Benzekre, see how the person below you on the talk page used that edit request template? That's how non-extended-confirmed editors are supposed to suggest changes to the article. In this case, the specific topic of North Korean soldiers in the war is being discussed further up on the page, so you don't have to worry about this one - other editors are already aware and are talking it out. For now, I suggest that you keep doing the kinds of useful and non-contentious edits you've been doing for a while. You'll become extended confirmed soon enough like that, and you won't run the risk of being blocked from editing. -- asilvering (talk) 16:22, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I think my confusion lies with the original response "you are simply not allowed to engage in any substantive discussion or debate about articles pertaining to the war between Russia and Ukraine anywhere on Wikipedia", which is not correct. The template doesn't say that. Helpful advice is one thing, but that sentence didn't sound like advice to me. Regardless, thanks for the additional information that helps clear this up for new editors and even myself. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 14:30, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Bug with notices

When I click on notices, there's a gray 4, which means I should have 4 notices, but it says there are no notifications.

Here's a screenshot of my issue.

File:Annoying notification bug.png

BombCraft8 <sup>(talk) (contributions)</sup> 13:30, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

@BombCraft8 That's a new problem to me but probably related to recent reports now at WP:VPT#Notices not working. Please post your image/details there. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:17, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

ok BombCraft8 <sup>(talk) (contributions)</sup> 15:01, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

How to see list of files?

I want to see (newly) uploaded files but I don't know where to find the page for it. It's not in Special:Upload too. Riod456 (talk) 11:01, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

@Riod456, have you tried Special:ListFiles? --Habst (talk) 12:41, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

No, but thanks, now I can see list of files. Riod456 (talk) 16:03, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the creation of Module:Sandbox/பொதுஉதவி

Please help me in creating a page Module:Sandbox/பொதுஉதவி பொதுஉதவி (talk) 06:05, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @பொதுஉதவி, and welcome to the Teahouse. I know almost nothing about Lua, but I see that WP:Lua#Request a script says Visit Wikipedia talk:Lua to request help in writing a Lua script to perform a specific task on Wikipedia or another Wikimedia Foundation project, so I suggest you follow that advice. I further suggest that you give some indication of what exactly you want the module to do, as it may help responders know how to answer you. ColinFine (talk) 16:58, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

how to link cities that changed names?

I am writing an article and in it there is Leningrad, USSR in 1927. but Leningrad changed its name to St Petersburg. so would I write it like this "Leningrad, USSR (now St. Petersburg, Russia)" both Leningrad and St. Petersburg with redirect links (both of them redirect to the same page, they are the same city just with different names) or should I only put redirect links for one? YisroelB501 (talk) 09:53, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

You should only use the same wikilink once. It would make sense to use it for the name that corresponds to the title of the article linked to, so "Leningrad, USSR (now St. Petersburg, Russia). Maproom (talk) 10:10, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @YisroelB501. This is a difficult area. WP:MPN may help. ColinFine (talk) 17:04, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Plant/Fungus names in Articles

Hello,

I would like to know what the policy is on plant/fungi names in article. Should one only use the scientific name, throughout the article, or should one alternate between the common names and scientific name? When mentioning other species in the same article, should one stick to their scientific names or their common ones?

Thank you

~~~ Зэгс ус (talk) 22:17, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Зэгс ус, as far as I know, there is no consistent policy. The general principle seems to be that if a commonly discussed species has a common name that is widely accepted and used among most variations of English, then the common name should prevail. Wheat is an example of this. Lesser known species that are not the subject of everyday discussion are usually titled to their scientific names. Urtica dioica is an example because this plant is discussed far less in casual, unscientific discourse than wheat, and it has at least five common names. An intermediate and controversial example is maize which is called "corn" by the majority of native English speakers who live in the United States, but that word corn means something else in many other English speaking counties. So, the often challenged consensus is that "maize" is better than "corn" even though 335 million Americans and many of their Canadian and Australian friends call it "corn". For the truly obscure species, the scientific "genus-species" formulation is almost universally accepted for titles, although common names should be stated in the first sentence or two. So, when in doubt, engage in discussion to reach consensus, instead of trying to force your preferred terminology through. Cullen328 (talk) 09:02, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

As for fungi, consider our article Chanterelle which describes a culinary mushroom concept enshrined in French cuisine, as well as four genera of somewhat related mushrooms, each of which also has its own article. And the article about the best known (as far as I know) genera Craterellus links to articles about three distinct species of that genera. The answer is that there are no easy answers, and that such decisions must be made by good editorial judgment informed by knowledge of the topic area. Cullen328 (talk) 09:24, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply! It has cleared some things up for me, and I have decided to stick to the scientific name in the article I'm writing, as it is not the most well-known fungus.

~~~ Зэгс ус (talk) 19:28, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I need help from someone who speaks Spanish

Hello. I need a little bit help. I cannot use google translate for this. There's a copy-paste problem. Could anyone add information to Egyptian goalscorer minutes and French goalscorer names and minutes with that source into this page? I think if anyone know Spanish, it'll take 10 minutes. I hope someone will help me.-- Sabri76'<sup>talk</sup> 11:32, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Sabri76: Click the red 'DESCARGAR PÁGINA EN PDF' link, then zoom in (click the plus sign) till you can read it, then re-type the part you are interested in into a note or text file, manually fix up any optical character recognition failures, and then paste that into Google translate. (DeepL is usually better.) If you still need help after that, please ask for help again with specifics of what is not working for you. Mathglot (talk) 19:51, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Mathglot: but your message isn't helpful. The problem is bigger than optical chrachter failure. When I scan a row, all rows are automatically scanned and when I paste it into the translation tool, three different columns in the same row come together and form a meaningless whole. This is example translation:

The area where he was already practically nothing in physical. Egypt -. it is the work with .tQcla tc*ly eUmlnado to ontçupe- One thing to praise about loeaegu?lda4 of the man who the . counter attacking play... Gauls this time. Knowing how to per1er eCUrite cje ¡a vo1utad and pc?det- of .lo. In these plays the extreme all correctness and deportvldad. And . ashxz1lation of !Os 3 ugadores -, lzquterd ‘Played’ 8iznbollcamen- only one thing to regret.

If no one helps me, I need to spend 2 hours because I have to write every word manually into the translation tool. There's no direct information. Complex and narrative language is used in the relevant section. I think the article (Egipto 6 - Francia 2) doesn't mention name of the goalscorers it alludes to the shirt number and the names of the goal scorers in the last three paragraphs, but I'm not sure is there an info about goal minutes.--Sabri76'<sup>talk</sup> 20:18, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Sabri76, I am aware that it picks up multiple columns if you select and copy, and that is why I wrote "retype" and not "copy and paste". Just type the letters you see into a text file from the area of the article you are interested in. Fix up the mistakes or your random guesses of what the bad OCR is supposed to be as best you can, and then try DeepL or Google translate, which can tolerate a low level of mistakes. If you don't get the results you expect, ask again. Mathglot (talk) 20:24, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

De Selby - please don't remove this page!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Selby This page has a warning on it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Maintenance_template_removal I am not clever enough to edit Wikipedia pages, I am finding it a struggle to figure out how to write this here, but really want to appeal to you not to remove the above page, for the following reasons:

1) This character, de Selby, is of importance to readers of Robert Anton Wilson(RAW), and without this page those (like me) who want to find out his origins will be unable to do so. 2) There are "quotes" from the fictional book "Golden Hours" in RAW's book "The Widow's Son" which are seriously worth thinking about:

   a. "An expert is an idiot who has found people more ignorant than himself and knows how to bewitch them."
   b. "Government is organized violence, a fact which all know when they wish to turn its guns on their enemies and that all regret when its guns are turned against themselves. The only sane attitudes toward this contraption (sane in the sense of consistent) are those of the sadomasochist, who enjoys the violence whether the target be others or himself, and the anarchist, who rejects it entirely on moral grounds."

And many more. It is useful for the reader to be aware of this character's origins in Flann O'Brian's "The Third Policeman", in which he is (quoting from the Wikipedia article) " a savant who theorizes, among other things, that the earth is actually shaped like a sausage."

Another quote from "The Widow's Son": "He was pushed to the front of the line, and somebody said near his ear, "'The first shall be last and the last first.'" This is followed by a footnote: "A text often cited by de Selby in defence of his strange doctrine of plenumary time."

RAW also has satirical theories of de Selby's, such as "the accumulation in the atmosphere of teratological molecules" - a sort of forerunner of the kinds of conspiracy theories which are prevalent today.

it may seem that the comic nature of these references implies a certain shallowness about RAW's book, but this could not be further from the truth. RAW hides profound truths and other stuff in his writings.

Rather than remove this page, maybe someone could include RAW's development of this character as an eccentric and inventive author, of dubious character and great verbosity. Sheenabetts (talk) 14:05, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi, the issue isn't really due to lack of character development but a lack of secondary sources., as the maintenance template states. The article needs reliable secondary sources (books, news/magazine articles, journals, etc) independent of the subject that cover the subject in detail. An example could be a literary criticism textbook discussing the character... that's just one example. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 15:06, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for responding so quickly. Does this help? It suggests how the character came about:

http://www.conankennedy.com/images/EXTRACTS/De%20Selby.pdf

Or there is this quote from a lengthier section in this scholarly article:

https://parishreview.openlibhums.org/article/3118/galley/3566/view/

"Rather than establishing stable and coherent points of reference, these

footnoted citations repeatedly sabotage the terms of this critical debate by challenging

the authenticity and sincerity of almost all texts canonical to the de Selby archive:

‘Hatchjaw has put forward the suggestion that the entire Atlas is spurious and the

work of “another hand,” raising issues of no less piquancy than those of the Bacon-

Shakespeare controversy.’"

This quote is from a Master's thesis, and I'm not sure if that counts:

" In the narrator’s pursuit of the study of de Selby

he steals, murders, spends his savings, loses his leg, reads thousands of pages of de Selby

and his commentators, learns French and German, lives an unhappy life with Divney for

years only to be blown up before he can publish his book. But other than the originality

of de Selby’s thoughts, the reader is left to question why there is such devotion among his

acolytes."

https://digitalcommons.montclair.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1144&context=etd (page 36) Sheenabetts (talk) 20:26, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

There is no deletion tag or warning on the article – maintenance templates are flags that tell other editors about weaknesses that need to be adressed, and if an article languishes for too long with a "The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline" template, it can eventually be nominated for deletion. However, de Selby is definitely notable (judging by a quick source check) and I'll add some references and other content to the article so the template can be deleted. It was de Selby, wasn't it, who argued that all diseases originate in the teeth? --bonadea contributions talk 13:11, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Misspelling in URL/title: 8B0

Regarding Steven A. Bean Municipal Airport - Wikipedia

Correct spelling is "Stephen". This is reflected in the article content. I can't figure out how to edit the title. 198.160.5.13 (talk) 21:58, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out. I've taken care of the article name fix. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 22:04, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Cool, thanks! 198.160.5.13 (talk) 22:05, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

How to use h-index for sociology

I'm evaluating the article Jennifer Pan. The subject of the article has an h-index of 27 according to Google Scholar. Is this high? ☆ Bri (talk) 20:38, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't go by h-index to deternine notability. It varies widely across fields. The current appearance of that article doesn't seem to satisfy any of the WP:NPROF criteria, though her book might. Reconrabbit 21:43, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I've made the nomination at WP:Articles for deletion/Jennifer Pan (political scientist). ☆ Bri (talk) 21:56, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I also missed that her work was extenisvely cited. This is not obvious at all from the text of the article but it also points to the need to always check Wp:BEFORE when considering deletion. Reconrabbit 22:08, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Why isn't Fandom Wikis a Sister project?

Because Fandom WIKIs 1numberblock (talk) 07:56, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Because the two were not started by the same Foundation. There are other "Wikis" out there that are not related at all. User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 08:03, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Please read Fandom (website). Fandom is a profit making business supported by advertising that has far lower editorial standards than Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation, which are non-profit educational ventures relying on donations. Their business model is incompatible with ours. Both use MediaWiki software, but so do many other websites. Cullen328 (talk) 08:10, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

A wiki is just a kind of collaboratively-edited website. Wikipedia isn't even the first wiki – that was WikiWikiWeb. What sets Wikipedia apart from other wikis is that it is an encyclopedia. jlwoodwa (talk) 22:37, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Date of birth privacy concerns?

Hello, on this edit, a potential "office of privacy at MD Judiciary" user removed the date of birth and replaced with a year of birth (citing some MD law/statute) for Dale R. Cathell. The date of birth is cited from a Maryland legislature website. Is this information legally protected for a BLP? I know BLP has certain rules, but as far as I know, if the date of birth is cited by a formal source, it is appropriate to keep up? --Engineerchange (talk) 17:38, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

This is probably better suited for the general Help Desk, but the username is inappropriate so I'm blocking. 331dot (talk) 17:50, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Generally, I've observed that if an article subject requests their full date of birth to be trimmed down to a year of birth, we usually honor it per WP:DOB, regardless of the sourcing. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 18:12, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

It does depend on how publicly available the date is, but that's generally true. This isn't the article subjects requesting it, though, but the Maryland judiciary, citing Maryland law in doing so. In the case of Judge Cathell, the date is cited to the Maryland State Archives- so the right hand of Maryland government publishes it but the left hand wants it removed? I have advised Wikimedia Legal. 331dot (talk) 18:15, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining and doing the remediation here. I'll make sure to use Help Desk next time. Cheers, --Engineerchange (talk) 18:33, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I did some digging and apparently Maryland passed a law October 1 that covers this. [8],[9]

I make no claim of legal knowledge about any of this and am not a lawyer, but there seems to be something to it. Sending it to Legal is the right choice. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 22:02, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

If "sending" it to legal means a board or Talk page somewhere, can you link it, and if it means an email, can you follow up with a second one asking legal to respond either here, or perhaps better at an appropriate venue like WT:BLP, and link their response here? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 22:49, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Can I edit this Wikipedia?

The admincabal ruling the Hungarian Wikipedia permabanned me, they provoked me with vulgar and offensive texts to violate some guidline, then they used it as a casus belli to permaban me without real chance to resolve this. HuWiki ArbCom is suspended (probably never will be restored) so there is no control over the admin decisions. The real reason of my banning was probably I was an advocate for deadmination of a user who generated personal conflicts, used uncivilised language and once edited the Wiki on the pressure of a government agency and also was an advocate on restoring ArbCom. Hope this Wikipedia is really the free encyclopedia and the Hungarian cabal are not able to globally block me. Hörgő (talk) 18:03, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

@Hörgő Afaik, yes, you can edit en-WP. However, we have rules like WP:CIVIL, WP:EW and WP:BLP, including a number of WP:Contentious topics. You can get blocked here too, so try to avoid that happening. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:25, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

You would have to be seriously disruptive to earn a global block. There's nothing preventing you from editing constructively on any wiki which hasn't already blocked you. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 20:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Hörgő, a global ban is only applied when an editor is involved in cross-wiki abuse *and* is already blocked at multiple Wikipedias. You can safely ignore the Hungarian admins and just edit here in peace; they cannot do anything to you here, nor can they global ban you. Mathglot (talk) 00:45, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Image license

Why can many Wikipedia pages such as Coat of arms of Edmonton, Coat of arms of Canada, Coat of arms of Calgary and more can use fair use coat of arms images but, the Coat of arms of Edson, Alberta can't do that? WikiPhil012 (talk) 01:59, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

@WikiPhil012, a bot reverted you. Looking at File:Coat of arms of Edson, Alberta.jpg, the only article listed for fair use of the image is Edson, Alberta. The bot accordingly removed the image from Coat of arms of Edson, Alberta since it wasn't listed on the file page.

I changed it on the file page, and you should be able to add the image now. win8x (talking | spying) 02:21, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. WikiPhil012 (talk) 02:23, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

First time making a page

I am trying to create a page for the playwright Leslie Kimbell. I have modeled my information after other playwrights that are published by the same publisher and have Wikipedia pages. I must be formatting wrong. Can someone help me? AnnMitchell1964 (talk) 20:37, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I have been rejected six times AnnMitchell1964 (talk) 20:39, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Is there someone that I can send my information to that might perhaps know how to format it better...that could submit it for me? AnnMitchell1964 (talk) 20:41, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

AnnMitchell1964 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I assume this is about Draft:Leslie Kimbell. You have made an understandable- yet poor- decision to use another article as a model- an article that itself may be inappropriate and you would be unaware of that as a new user. We call this other stuff exists. Each article or draft is judged on its own merits. There are many ways for inapprpriate content to exist on Wikipedia and go undetected- this can't justify the addition of more inappropriate content. If you want to use other articles as a model, make sure to use one that is classified as a good article- these have received community vetting.

I might suggest that you read Referencing for Beginners to learn more about how to format references. You will need to show that this playwright meets the definition of a notable creative professional, with significant coverage in independent reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 20:43, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Am I not formatting properly? I don't understand what you mean. I read the information about referencing. AnnMitchell1964 (talk) 20:49, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Your references are bunched at the end and some are bare urls. References need to be in-line next to the text that they are supporting(especially when writing about a living person). 331dot (talk) 20:52, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you I will work on that now AnnMitchell1964 (talk) 20:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I would also note that the names of children(especially minors) are not included in an article unless the children themselves merit articles. 331dot (talk) 20:57, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you AnnMitchell1964 (talk) 21:01, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @AnnMitchell1964, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid that your experience is common for people who try to create a new article before spending time learning how Wikipedia works. My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. ColinFine (talk) 21:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I am trying to post this for someone who should have this page. Is there someone I can go to that can do this for me...I have all the information. AnnMitchell1964 (talk) 01:30, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Are you in any way related to this person? (Family, friend, coworker, boss/employee) If you are then you may have a COI. Please read that page, also read the Terms of Use.

User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 07:32, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Also see Paid Editing.

User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 07:38, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello again , @AnnMitchell1964. It sounds as if you have several wrong ideas about Wikipedia - as I said, this is commonly a problem for people who have not yet done much editing, and particularly for people who come to Wikipedia intent on creating a "page for" something or somebody in particular.

A Wikipedia article is not for the benefit of its subject, except incidentally.

Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely 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. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.

If the information you have is citations to sources which meet 42, then you (or anybody) can create an article based on what those sources say. If most of the information you have is itself verifiable from such sources, you can use it - but you would be well-advised to forget what you know and write based only on those sources. Any information you have which is not verifiable from a reliable published source - and, preferably, a secondary source - is irrelevant to Wikipedia.

The question of whether somebody "should have a page" is moot because nobody "has a page" (I recognise that people do use that phrase, but I think it is worth being nit-picking to explain this). If Kimbell meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability (either WP:NACTOR or the more general WP:GNG) then Wikipedia would like to have a neutral, well-sourced article about him. If not, then Wikipedia will not have an article about him.

And as for getting somebody to write an article for you: the approved method is to post the subject at RA, and in theory a volunteer editor will at some time pick up your suggestion. In practice, that is not likely to happen (though you can make it slightly more likely by citing several solid sources, as mentioned above). Otherwise you need to fall back on either trying to interest a volunteer editor in the project, or writing it yourself. I very strongly recommend you do not pay anybody to do so: while there are occasionally good-faith paid editors, those who tout for business are mostly scammers.

And finally, to repeat the advice I gave above: I suggest you put Kimbell aside for a few months, and learn about Wikipedia by improving existing articles. ColinFine (talk) 16:53, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia has articles, not pages. Your Draft:Leslie Kimbell has been Declined three times (not Rejected, which is more severe, meaning stop trying). It is still an unacceptable mess for wrong formating (fixed) and wrong references (nmot fixed), and separate from that Leslie may not qualify for Wikipedia's concept of notability. There no "someone who should have this page." at Wikipedia. It is on you to either improve the draft or give up. David notMD (talk) 14:40, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you all for your replies. I am not tech savvy enough to continue trying to do this. Leslie Kimbell seems to be notable as she has four top selling published works which began in New York and are now licensed with Concord Theatricals. Concord Theatricals is the most prestigious theatrical publishing company in the world. Her plays are performing across the world and selling out theatres and are currently playing or upcoming in over 40 theaters. I thought she was notable. Apparently not. Rather than helping, it seems you all more so enjoy picking people apart and making them feel ignorant. Thank you. AnnMitchell1964 (talk) 19:03, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

AnnMitchell1964, I am sorry you are feeling that way, and I will try to help you learn what to do if you are still interested in developing this draft. The key thing to note here, is that Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, and just like Britannica or World Book or any encyclopedia would do, one has to decide as question #1 whether Ms. So-and-so deserves an article in the first place. This is called Notability at Wikipedia, and is not the same thing as the general sense of the English word, and someone selling out crowds world-wide might or might not be notable in the Wikipedia sense of the word. (Click here to read about Notability.) If you decide you want to carry on, please follow the Notability link, then read Help:Your first article, then contact me on my Talk page by clicking the word 'talk' in my signature after this message, and leaving me a message there. Good luck, Mathglot (talk) 19:39, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

[Edit Conflict] AnnMitchell1964, I'm sorry you feel you have not been fairly treated, but in a vast, crowdsourced academic project (approaching 7 million articles) which tries to maintain high standards, procedures here have to be kept fairly strict, and because it is all supervised by (too few) volunteers, also have to be applied in a streamlined fashion. Many of the messages you have received have not been formulated specifically for you, but are selected from a menu of pre-composed responses.

It is quite possible that your subject is notable in Wikipedia's sense (please click through that link and read), but your Draft, to be accepted, has to demonstrate this with correctly formatted citations to Reliable sources so that readers can verify what has been written.

Being complex, and having been formulated by consensual evolution over years, Wikipedia's policies and conventions unfortunately have quite a sizeable learning curve: it's often recommended that newcomers spend weeks or months studying how it all works and making more minor copyedits, etc., before plunging in to try to create a new article, one of the most difficult things to achieve here. Wikipedia is not social media, so is not specifically designed to be as easy as possible to use, nor does it want articles on all subjects, no matter how obscure. (Many High School students try to post their 'autobiographies, and professional people their CVs, for example: that's not what Wikipedia is for.)

It's quite usual for Drafts to go through several rounds of Submission and Decline (meaning "not good enough yet, please improve" – 'Rejection' means "no prospect of being a suitable subject, please stop") before eventual acceptance. Drafts (such as yours) are only removed (unless by their creator's request, if no others have done much work on them) after six months of zero activity, so you are more than welcome to sit back, learn more about Wikipedia, and resume improving your Draft after a few months, and I hope you decide to do so. 94.6.86.81 (talk) 20:01, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

You wrote here that her plays are playing in many theaters "across the world" but have not written that in the draft (with references). What is essential to succeed is to add content about her that is verified in published sources. And to reference per Wikipedia requirements (Help:Referencing for beginners). David notMD (talk) 02:33, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Correction within an article

I noticed in the article on Stacy Abrams an error. She was noted to be the Democratic Nominee for Governor of Georgia. Thar should read "the Democrat nominee for Governor: for editor./ Hope that is helpful.

Stan Alexander, M.D., MS, FACP/FACR Arcacia, CA 104.33.86.61 (talk) 03:10, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Stacey Abrams See Democratic Party (United States) for why referring to her as the Democratic nominee is correct. David notMD (talk) 03:49, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Can you guys please check my new article about HOME and LOVE

its my new article and I would really appreciate if you check it. Sheherbano.12 (talk) 03:56, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

User:Sheherbano.12/sandbox is an unreferenced essay that should be deleted by an Administrator. General advice is to put in time improving existing articles before attempting to create an article. David notMD (talk) 04:30, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

It wasn't an article about home, love, or anything else. It was an essay. ("Was", because I deleted it.) Wikipedia is not a collection of essays; it's an encyclopedia. Regrettably, a lot of Wikipedia's articles are defective or even feeble; but the articles listed here are good. Please read (or at least skim-read) several of the latter: doing so should help explain what an encyclopedia is. -- Hoary (talk) 05:07, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Visual esitor

what is this and I didn't give any consent 2600:1700:8B90:8020:41C7:DB:1A:138D (talk) 05:15, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

The "visual editor" is described in Help:VisualEditor. -- Hoary (talk) 05:19, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Hey, spelling mistakes happen. One time my mobile editor glitched bad enough I accidentally changed an article name to "Academic snalysis" and published it, it's become a small inside joke for me at this point Avienby (talk) 05:24, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Korean Public Alert Service

Expand it please Star Jaguar (talk) 23:55, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I am sure some editors are happy to help, but Teahouse isn't for asking editors for general improvement. Ca <sup>talk to me!</sup> 00:10, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

It is a stub Star Jaguar (talk) 03:06, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Ca <sup>talk to me!</sup> 03:26, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

The article's history shows that this is your creation, Star Jaguar. It's largely unreferenced. Do references exist for the unreferenced material? If so, provide them. If not, remove the material. -- Hoary (talk) 05:16, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I added a source and some additional info, noticed after some Googling a bit of info your page was lacking. Avienby (talk) 05:31, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I need help I don’t get it

so I have multiple questions how do u make a good article a good article like or reassessment to make good article have ga tag do u to talk to admin or someone else or nomination a article to made good article or featured or dealte articles or bring articles that were delated I just need help I don’t get I don’t know who do this stuff Qubacubazamniauser (talk) 00:29, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

@Qubacubazamniauser Good articles are nominated at Wikipedia:Good article nominations. If the meet the Good article criteria, they will be promoted. This is incredibly hard to achieve. Nominations for featured articles are handled at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates, and this is even harder to achieve.

Articles are not normally restored after deletion, with some exceptions. Old drafts, for example, can be restored at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. For Draft:Omega nugget, if this is what you are talking about, you can request for undeletion here. win8x (talking | spying) 02:31, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Typically, before nominating an existing article for Good Article status, the editor will make dozens to scores of improvements to the article, check all existing refs for being valid and functional, copyediting, etc., before nominating. In time, a GA reviewer will ask for dozens to scores of improvements to be completed before making a decision to approve or not. David notMD (talk) 02:59, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Can't wait for that draft to show up on WP:DAWFT Avienby (talk) 05:34, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

@Avienby: Please refrain from adding nonessential commentary if you have nothing productive to add to the discussion. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:49, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Longest Edit-a-thon official Guinness World Record attempt on Wikipedia

Dear Administrators of Wikipedia, I am about to embark on a marathon editing on Wikipedia articles for 180 hours to break the current Guinness World Record Longest Edit-a-thon. The application has been approved by Guinness World Records and the attempt is to take place from November 2024. I'm using this to inform and take permission from the community if I'll be allowed to go ahead. The major thing I'll be doing is to help improve written articles on Wikipedia, and not to create. Please, I'd like to know if this would be approved by the community. I look forward to your kind response. Thank you very much. Danielehisaiguokhian (talk) 16:45, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

As long as you're improving articles I don't think you need anyone's permission or approval to do this. 331dot (talk) 16:48, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I needed to be sure I'm not violating Wikipedia's policies. Danielehisaiguokhian (talk) 16:50, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Good luck! :) MemeGod <sub>chat</sub> 16:49, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Hopefully you will not be making further edits like this one [10]. Theroadislong (talk) 16:50, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh... I didn't see that. Well, I hope they conform to the guidelines, nothing's stopping them from doing it. MemeGod <sub>chat</sub> 16:52, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

and good to hear you won't be creating new articles, as all yours have been sent to WP:AFD. Theroadislong (talk) 16:54, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I can't see any value in "editing on Wikipedia articles for 180 hours" if you don't understand the basic Wikipedia guidelines, I fear it will not end well, we require good quality edits, not quantity. Theroadislong (talk) 16:58, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

@Danielehisaiguokhian Note that the Wikipedia guidelines for edit-a-thons imply that they involve multiple editors all working at one venue and that they be advertised in advance to the community. Is that what you propose? If not, then I doubt that your efforts will be accepted as any sort of record. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:02, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I propose. I was sent the guidelines and I decided to advertise it to the community to receive guidance. Danielehisaiguokhian (talk) 17:06, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm actually learning to improve on the platform, and with experienced editors like you helping to guide me, I believe I'll improve more and do better. Thank you so much. I'm learning to use the platform every day. Danielehisaiguokhian (talk) 17:00, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be wise to have the understanding first before attempting your task. 331dot (talk) 17:04, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Danielehisaiguokhian 180 hours worth of edits like these [11]], [12], [13], will be a nightmare for other editors to put right! Theroadislong (talk) 17:26, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I only asked a question to receive guidance. I think you're in a better position to help someone who is barely less than a year on this platform to get directions. Danielehisaiguokhian (talk) 17:36, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not perfect. I'm only trying to make a change in the most possible way I can. Someone like me needs someone like you to assist, and not to ridicule. Danielehisaiguokhian (talk) 17:37, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Just as you've been assisting others, you can assist me too. I'm open to learning. Danielehisaiguokhian (talk) 17:41, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Then I would strongly suggest you forget about the Edit-a-thon and get a few thousand edits under your belt first. Theroadislong (talk) 17:51, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your suggestion. Danielehisaiguokhian (talk) 17:54, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Please don't. Your contributions to date show a lack of understanding of Wikipedia guidelines, including inserting hyperlinks into text, and - I am guessing - claiming images downloaded from internet source, likely copyright protected - as your own work. David notMD (talk) 02:51, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm really grateful to editors here, for helping me. Your suggestions are great and are helpful. Danielehisaiguokhian (talk) 06:19, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Mark Karpeles: Extended confirmed protection - Article issue

In the "Career" section, it states that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security seized an account due to "allegedly lying on bank documents." However, the cited sources do not mention any allegations of lying on bank documents. This discrepancy was raised on the talk page, but no edits have been made to address the issue. Could a confirmed extended user review this and make the necessary improvements to ensure the information is accurate and properly cited or deleted. 86.98.213.4 (talk) 07:57, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

If you make an edit request, it will be placed into a list of requests and someone will review it eventually. Please see Wikipedia:Edit requests § Making requests, or you can use the edit request wizard (Wikipedia:Edit Request Wizard/Protected) which will fill some things out for you. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:06, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

(I have removed it just now though, just noting for future reference) Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:08, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks man, just did it. Actually saw the book section in the edit history. It was added and then deleted without proper reason. I dont think a book section is promotional though. 86.98.213.4 (talk) 10:25, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Newbie seeking guidance: 'not enough content'

My proposed article has been turned down for not enough content, and the reviewer made a suggestion that would work (moving the content to a page about geography; but see the second point below):

– the subject is geology of an English county in which the geology is not very notable (but a lot of people live there) and in which major 'unconformities' are found (layers that either were never laid down in this county, or have since been eroded away)

– the page 'Geology of the English counties' includes this county among others for which articles would be liked (i.e. they're shown in red); while I don't kid myself that I'm the only person for the job, I do wonder how 'more content' could be added without explaining things that are well covered on other pages (I've included loads of links) or repeatedly saying things like 'no [period/rock type] strata have been found in [county name]' and

– I also think that others might be more inclined to improve an existing page than create a new one (i.e. that once a page is up it may develop and improve, but waiting for 'the right page' may be a long wait).

How do other contributors deal with subjects about which there is not much interesting to say? John C Firth (talk) 15:48, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

@John C Firth, take that reviewer's advice! They're telling you how to get your content onto wikipedia right away, rather than having to wait a long time in the WP:AFC queue for your article to be approved. If it ends up that the "parent article" gets too big because of the kinds of additions you're making, then we can always spin it out (see WP:SPINOUT) into a separate article. Thanks for writing for Wikipedia! -- asilvering (talk) 16:25, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, asilvering. I'm going to sleep on it: while I'd love to see my words up on Wikipedia (so may well take the original reviewer's advice, and yours), it may be that tomorrow I'll see ways that I could add content to the article. (And sorry for not signing my first post properly.) John C Firth (talk) 18:49, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

John C Firth, in response to:

How do other contributors deal with subjects about which there is not much interesting to say?

they say something brief at a parent article topic instead. As far as avoiding

saying things like 'no [period/rock type] strata have been found in [county name]'

be careful: there are an infinite number of "negative facts" about any area, but you can only mention the ones that are mentioned in reliable sources. Maybe that county has no large concentration of lunar ejecta meteorites, but you cannot say that, unless some source does. Make sense? Mathglot (talk) 23:00, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Mathglot. The parent article sounds like it may be the way to go here (as I can link from there to places like the [county] geography page).

Your note about 'negative facts' is helpful, thank you. I have reviewed all the [county] boreholes that (a) go down more than 30 metres and (b) are available for public researchers to study on the British Geological Survey website (492 of them). So I can say things like 'ten boreholes reached the Jurassic and four reached older layers. All four of the latter found Carboniferous strata and two (in the west of the county) found Triassic layers, but none found Permian strata' and cite my book summarising these data [a poor source, I know], the BGS online tool where article readers can find the raw data and the names of the boreholes they need to look for (unfortunately, grid references are not always helpful on the BGS site). John C Firth (talk) 10:42, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Newly released single album, can I make a wiki for it?

STAYC's new single album ...I just released. Can I make a Wikipedia page on it or maybe a Fandom page? Jacketpedia (talk) 10:46, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

@Jacketpedia You can make an article for it here as long as it's notable. As to whether you can make a page on Fandom, as far as we're concerned have at it. Fandom is separate from Wikipedia. CommissarDoggo<sup>Talk?</sup> 10:53, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

While there are articles about STAYC and earlier single albums, given that "...I" was just released 30 October, too soon. David notMD (talk) 11:43, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Need help of Article move to draft

The article Draft:Blossom Academy was said to look promotional and advertising but I have re-edited it. Can someone please assist to look at it if it is ok now in contents and if not, help to highlight grey areas or adjust where necessary.Chisomvincent (talk) 10:02, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Chisomvincent Hello. I fixed your link, the whole url is unnecessary. The best way to get feedback is to submit it for a review by clicking the "Submit for review" button on the screen. Looking at it, though, it just summarizes the activities of the school, and not significant coverage of the subject, that describes what makes the school a notable organization as Wikipedia defines it.

If you are associated with this school, that must be disclosed, see WP:COI and WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 10:23, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I am not associated with the school but thank you for the insight. I will try to re-edit as you advised and submit it for review. Thank you. Chisomvincent (talk) 13:16, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Stumble Guys

Considering the official collaborations the game has been involved in and its comparison to Fall Guys, surely the article warrants moving to a full article right? Unless there's something I'm missing Avienby (talk) 05:21, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

If you believe that the draft qualifies as an article, Avienby, you're free to add Template:AfC submission/submit to it. -- Hoary (talk) 06:19, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

done, plus added some more info Avienby (talk) 07:36, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

It may do. But whether it does or not has absolutely nothing to do with either of the points in the first part of your question. Notability is mostly about whether enough independent reliable material exists to base an article on. Things like popularity, fame, importance, influence, partnerships may influence whether or not those conditions are met, but on their own they are completely irrelevant. ColinFine (talk) 14:09, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Fraud

In pakistan your payment company made fraud with everyone and also with me .they do not transfer amount in my wallet and amount also deducted from my bank Your company name publish ex put Ltd . 3 Reject messages are shown in wallet 182.191.153.47 (talk) 13:02, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia. We are not, and do not have, a "payment company". You need to address your complaint somwehere else. ColinFine (talk) 14:13, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

The OP might be referring to a paid editing company, in which case,

'''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 14:18, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

How to qualify for notability of people

I have tried to make an article and it got rejected. I understand that it is probably true. I have seen some articles where some more general information about the evens those people got involved with make a big portion of the articles. Would it help adding more context to the events? Or maybe adding references "in popular culture"? TomuKdoNasMaRad (talk) 10:20, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

This is about Draft:Edward Little (Royal Navy officer). By the way, Declined is not the same as Rejected, the latter meaning stop trying. David notMD (talk) 11:32, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion, Little's career does not warrant a separate article, but some of the information could be added to Franklin's lost expedition, upon which he was an officer, and lost at sea (ice-bound in the Artic and died walking away from the ships) with everyone else. David notMD (talk) 11:38, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I understand where you are coming from. I think that adding the information about walking away from the ships is just a speculation since he could have died before the Victory point note. The original idea was to add his wiki because all the other lieutenants have it but from my research It's very clear that the info is scarce. TomuKdoNasMaRad (talk) 14:29, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Acknowledged that "walking away" may not have ref validation for any specific individual. You mention "all the other lieutenants". I see that at Personnel of Franklin's lost expedition, evidence for such articles. David notMD (talk) 15:22, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Significant Coverage

Just wanted to know, how many reliable, independent sources is required to consider my article as significant coverage Pareekshamitra (talk) 09:52, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi Pareekshamitra, please see WP:SIGCOV. Significant coverage is not about the number of articles but the quality. "Significant" coverage needs to be direct coverage about the subject of an article, and it needs enough detail that you will be able to write a well-rounded Wikipedia article, without any major gaps, with just a few of them. Three or four really good sources would meet the criteria, whereas even if you had dozens or even hundreds of articles references, if they only briefly mention the subject they won't help at all. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:01, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Struck "articles" and replaced with "references" David notMD (talk) 11:30, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Pareekshamitra. Of your three references, two are to IMDb, which is not a reliable source. Please read WP:IMDB. Your third source shows no signs of reliability. It appears to be a show biz promotion site. The quality of references is vastly more important than their quantity. Cullen328 (talk) 17:22, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Page Protection?

Hi! I don't know a lot about the backend of this site but there's been repeated negative edits to Art Torres by an IP, is there anything that could be done about that? Thanks! Sock-the-guy (talk) 16:48, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @Sock-the-guy, and welcome to the Teahouse. WP:RFPP is the place to request protection. ColinFine (talk) 17:01, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Sock-the-guy (talk) 17:03, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I reverted another BLP violation and made the report to RFPP. The periodic vandalism goes back to 2007! No idea why this page isn't permanently under extended confirmed protection. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 17:17, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I semi-protected the article for a month. Iggy pop goes the weasel, extended confirmed protection is used only when there has been repeated disruption by autoconfirmed accounts. Permanent extended confirmed protection should be used very sparingly. Cullen328 (talk) 17:30, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Policy on page protection if linked on main page?

Hi there! I've done a couple of things which I'm no questioning, mainly requesting the protection of Slime (monster) on the noticeboards, due to vandalism and it being linked on the Did You Know? Section on the main page. What is the policy for this? Did I do something incorrectly?

Sorry and thanks in advance, Realtent (talk) 16:31, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

@Realtent Per Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Increase#Slime_(monster) (will be archived fairly soon) you did fine, you asked in the right place, and you had reason, as in there was vandalism. The first protection will be short, often vandals get bored quickly, but if necessary, future protections can be longer. The policy is WP:PROTECTION. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:45, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Cool, thank you! Realtent (talk) 18:25, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

TRAC website

We used to have a Wikipedia page but can no longer find it. Our website is www.trackingterrorism.org and we are an open-source intelligence website. We go by TRAC but it looks like another company is there. Is it possible it has been taken down? RlizarsTRAC (talk) 14:23, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

@RlizarsTRAC this might not be the article you're looking for, but Terrorism Research & Analysis Consortium was deleted in 2021 following an AfD discussion. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 14:30, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that's definitely them. DS (talk) 18:44, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello. Please read about conflict of interest before proceeding further.

I would caution you that Wikipedia has articles about topics, not "pages for" the subject. Articles are not for the benefit of the subject in any way. 331dot (talk) 14:31, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I need help!

I accidentally annoyed a user named @Manifestation, this was not intended to be on purpose since it was about one user's gaffe discussion and now I need ask for forgiveness from him. How do I apologize to him? Please, help. 50.91.26.176 (talk) 22:54, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I mean, you didn't say anything that was the end of the world. You already apologized, you don't need to do anything more and it would probably just annoy them if you continue. Don't agonize over it, you did the right thing. win8x (talking | spying) 23:05, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, you can tell @Manifestation about this. I have learned my mistakes and vowed to never do it again. I would still take a short break from Wikipedia. 50.91.26.176 (talk) 23:07, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to do so, but remember that you are always welcome to contribute here. You pinged him, I won't tell him since it's likely he saw our conversation. win8x (talking | spying) 02:14, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I relate to this so hard, every time I make a mistake on here I have to resist the urge to apologize, I just annoy everyone. Avienby (talk) 05:25, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

@Avienby: Well, the polar opposite would be psychopathy, so don't feel too bad about yourself. 😉

@50.91.26.176: Apologies accepted.

@everyone else: For the background, see this thread. - Manifestation (talk) 16:31, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

We can now move on, I promise to never do this again, deal @Manifestation? This can be a life lesson for everyone: Even if you have online friends on either Fandom, Wikipedia, Reddit, etc. and there is that person who just randomily add stuff (like adding deceased template), don't expect them to know THAT person.

Also, thank you @Manifestation for accepting my apologies. 50.91.26.176 (talk) 22:42, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Move from Sandbox to Review

I started working on a page in my sandbox as the tutorial advised, but now I'm not sure what to do with it... MichaelChaosTheory (talk) 18:29, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

You can submit it by adding {{subst:submit}} to the top of the sandbox. However you should probably first review the general notability guideline as your sandbox doesn't indicate the person in question is notable. —Matrix(!) <sub>ping one</sub><sup>when replying</sup> {u - t? - <sub>useless</sub>c} 18:52, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

it is now Draft:Brian Nguyen, submitted, awaiting review. My opinion is that he is a lawyer doing lawyer stuff, hence not Wikipedia-notable, but you will get a Reviewer to evaluate. David notMD (talk) 02:19, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Article Quality

I really love the game Factorio, and want its page on Wikipedia to be as good as possible! What can I do to improve it from the current state? CharmanderTheDev (talk) 02:13, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

If there are reliable secondary sources, then you can add those.

If there is a section that you would like to add that is supported by reliable sources, then it can be added.

One question though are you in anyway connected to the game? The reason for my asking is you have the Dev in your name. If you are related in anyway then you need to disclose that connection on the talk page, should you make any edits. Also if you are paid to edit then please follow what wp:paid says.

User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 02:30, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

No worries here, I am not affiliated with Factorio, the dev is just because i like coding :) CharmanderTheDev (talk) 04:44, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Ok great to hear! Just had to ask. :) User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 05:38, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice, I will try to improve it more CharmanderTheDev (talk) 04:45, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

correct flag of the First Republic of Venezuela?

i was in the First Republic of Venezuela article, and I saw that the flag was changed from the last time. I thought nothing of it so i click on the historical flags of Venezuela and I go too the First Republic of Venezuela flag and it's different, also I went too the Second Republic of Venezuela article. which was changed from the original, and is different in the Flag of Venezuela historical section. please clarify Average USA patriot (talk) 05:10, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Please ask, or make a request, at the foot of Talk:First Republic of Venezuela. -- Hoary (talk) 06:15, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Oakland Athletics proposal

The Oakland Athletics are currently on a relocation phase. The team prefers to be called just the "Athletics" or the "A's" but for continuity and organization sake, shall we propose naming the page as "Sacramento Athletics"? Like with the New York Knicks ("officially" the New York Knickerbockers) and certain teams in European football leagues and teams in the French rugby union league Top 14 who go by 'unofficial but popular' names, the Oakland Athletics shouldn't be exempt from these situations, too. 9mm.trilla (talk) 05:30, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

There is already a discussion taking place at Talk:Oakland_Athletics. You are free to join this discussion. -- Hoary (talk) 06:14, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi 9mm.trilla. This kind of thing is definitely better off discussed at Talk:Oakland Athletics than here at the Teahouse. There are, in fact, several discussion threads related to this already on the article's talk page, and you're free to participate in them if you want. You already know this though because you started one of them yourself, right? Just to add on to the answer you received in that discussion, Wikipedia is not here for you or other fans of the team to use as a some sort of way to get back at the owner of the A's. Wikipedia's role is to only reflect how reliable sources cover the team after it relocates or during the process of its relocation. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:16, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Notability question

My recent proposal was a railroad Superintendent biography with a newsworthy death. If a superintendent is not notable, is a railroad president notable? That should depend also on the notability of the railroad itself; eg C&NW vs Albany & Buffalo nobody heard of. Railroad Engineer vs Chief Engineer.? General Supt. vs General Manager.? Politicians -- US senator vs State legislator? MarkWHowe (talk) 18:32, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi, MarkWHowe! Wikipedia:Notability doesn't refer to someone's rank or prominence: it refers to the amount that has been independently (of the subject and each other) published about that person in WP:Reliable sources. If there are at least three such sources of substantial length (or two really good ones, even, like lengthy journal articles or books published by reputable publishers who fact-check and edit rather than just reprinting whatever they receive), that should be sufficient basis for an acceptable Wikipedia article and the subject is 'notable' in Wikijargon. (It's a pity that this slightly misleading term was adopted early in Wikipedia's history, and now we're stuck with it.)

Please note, however, that all sources cited in an article to verify all the statements in it must have been published, so that others can in principle access them (using the bibliographical information the citatons are required to contain). I see from your Userpage that you have copious private documents about what I'm guessing is your intended subject. Such unpublished material cannot be used to demonstrate a subject's notability, or to corroborate individual facts in an article.

Creating a Wikipedia article is difficult for the inexperienced (and I speak as a former professional non-fiction editor), and often takes several rounds of draft submissions, declines for improvement, and resubmissions before succeeding. I hope this helps and doesn't discourage you. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.6.86.81 (talk) 19:53, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

MarkWHowe, there is a very strong presumption that any elected member of a national, state, or provincial legislature is notable. But an editor who wants to write such a biography is still expected to base their article on referenced to reliable sources that devote significant coverage to the person. Please read WP:NPOLITICIAN and WP:COMMONOUTCOMES for details. As for railroad executives, there is no such consensus. The applicable standard is WP:NPERSON. Cullen328 (talk) 21:24, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

@94.6.86.81 You stated " I see from your Userpage that you have copious private documents about what I'm guessing is your intended subject. Such unpublished material cannot be used to demonstrate a subject's notability, or to corroborate individual facts in an article."

Published documents referred to here would be printed circulars or broadsides scanned and uploaded and presented as graphics. Letters cited are from or to state governors, presidents and high level officials of noteable railroads, and in many cases governors or other high level political figures were also high level railroad officials. These letters have been published by the Iowa Genweb project but is there consensus in WP that Genweb is not a reliable source? Also obits? The originals of the letters are archived at the C&NW Historical Society, another example of what WP appears to consider unreliable.

Regarding the verity of letters, I say that if they are shown to be authentic then they show what was said regardless of whether or not they espouse truth. History is rife with examples of this. To corroborate facts I would want published research, as you say, and I believe I have done that.

None of this addresses my biography of Watkins. There is no lack of published material to verify the facts if newspapers like the NYT can be trusted, plus the Stennett volumes. Unless WP consensus acknowleges the man and the event as notable I see no reason for resubmission. MarkWHowe (talk) 03:35, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

The three requirements for sources useful for establishing notability are reliability, independence from the topic (Watkins in this case) and significant coverage (of Watkins). Most of the assorted documents you describe seem like primary source material useful to historians or to journalists but of no value to Wikipedia editors. The issue with such archived documents is not that they are unreliable but rather that they are not independent of the topic, and independence is just as important as reliability. Also, they have not yet gone through a professional editorial process. Historians and journalists separate the wheat from the chaff, determine what is of significance and construct an original and coherent narrative under the supervision of a professional editor. The credibility of their work is greatly dependent on the academic reputation of the specific historian or the reputation of the publication. Wikipedia editors who are volunteers and largely anonymous are forbidden by policy from engaging in that type of original research. Instead, we are summarizers of a particular, narrow type of published sources. Significant coverage in the New York Times and similar publication is fine. As for obituaries, there are two kinds. Family submitted paid obituaries are of little value. Obituaries by professional journalists are much better sources. In conclusion, it is your responsibility to limit the sources you cite for the purpose of establishing his notability to reliable published sources entirely independent of Watkins that devote significant coverage to Watkins. That is the key to success, and the quality of the sources is vastly more important than the quantity. Cullen328 (talk) 18:22, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

We have a strong preference for secondary sources, defined as A secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. Cullen328 (talk) 18:35, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

does Agata Bleizgyte exist

im her 2A0A:EF40:900:CB01:5C33:89D4:F717:3769 (talk) 18:45, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

This pages is for help with using and editing Wikipedia. Do you have a relevant question? Shantavira|<sup>feed me</sup> 19:06, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, IP user. If you are asking whether English Wikipedia has an article called Agata Bleizgyte, the answer is No (or that link would appear in blue, not red.

Nor is there an item with that name in Wikidata, so there is probably not an article in any other language Wikipedia either (though I can't be sure there isn't without a more complicated search). ColinFine (talk) 22:41, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Am I really spamming or is this guy just unhappy?

The edit listed on this page was reverted twice by someone controlling the page and I don't understand why. Apparently replacing an old link on a page is spam. I'm pretty sure that I can't try to add the edit for a third time without it being considered an 'edit war' or something (not that there is any point since it'll probably get reverted again anyway).

What am I supposed to do in this situation? Do I just have to let this slide or can I force the person blocking my edit to give a better reason for why the edit is not an improvement? HappyWrap (talk) 01:33, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

@HappyWrap: Welcome to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1239. What you should be doing is discussing this on the associated talk page at Talk:List of Johnson solids. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:56, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Ok thanks I'll try that. HappyWrap (talk) 01:58, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Are redirect pages included in Wikipedia's article count?

This is a very dumb question, but yes, are they included? Usernames are not practical (talk) 12:56, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

@Usernames are not practical They are not. Looking at Special:Statistics, there are 61 million pages (including talk pages and other stuff) a lot of which are redirects. win8x (talking | spying) 14:39, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

The count of actual content articles is currently 6 904 994. We are actually at 98.64% to 7 million articles! See Wikipedia:Seven-million pool. Ca <sup>talk to me!</sup> 15:45, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

According to the technical documentation at :mw:Manual:$wgArticleCountMethod § Details, Redirect pages will never be counted as valid content pages (articles) (emphasis in original). Folly Mox (talk) 04:05, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Regarding Wikipedia Page of SBBS University

Sant Baba Bhag Singh University (''Page'')

This page on Sant Baba Bhag Singh University seems to lack a clear justification for its notability. The university, though occupying a sizable campus (while the page mentions 116 acres, the actual built area is 11.41 acres, is quite small and doesn't appear to have any significant achievements or contributions in academia, industry collaboration, or research, as noted by the NAAC report. The tone of the article also raises concerns, as it uses reverential language ("Sant Baba Dlawar Singh Ji (Brahm Ji)"), which feels out of place for an encyclopedia entry and suggests it may have been authored by someone affiliated with the institution, perhaps even a student or university official.

Anjuli Bhargava’s article, referenced here, is particularly critical of universities like this one, questioning “how and at whose behest” they spring up, acquiring vast lands with “no limit to how much reflective glass and chrome” can be used while academic rigor is suspect. Given these critiques, and the page's heavy promotional language and lack of meaningful citations, a more neutral, fact-verified rewrite (or maybe deletion) would be essential. VeritasVanguard (talk) 04:53, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

@VeritasVanguard: The college does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOL. Majority of school and college articles from India fail to meet our notability guidelines, as they were previously presumed notable. However, following updates to guidelines such as WP:NSCHOOL, they no longer meet notability standards. I recommend redirecting these non-notable school, college, and university articles to relevant targets, such as their affiliated institutions. If there is disagreement or a challenge, then an AfD can be initiated. However, if we start bringing all of these to AfD, the backlog could become overwhelming. GrabUp - Talk 05:26, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

@GrabUp The institution on question is a private university. Laws governing the private universities in India do not allow them to affiliate institutions, such power is only given to State universities. I don't think that redirection is suitable for this non-notable university. I suggest this article be deleted, as no reliable sources exists for this article to be re-written. VeritasVanguard (talk) 05:36, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

@VeritasVanguard: Yes, I couldn’t see that this university is affiliated with any notable institution. If no appropriate target is found, then first consider using WP:PROD, and if challenged, proceed with AfD. GrabUp - Talk 05:42, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for Your reply, I have placed Wikipedia:PROD to its page, as no appropriate target was found. VeritasVanguard (talk) 06:29, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

@VeritasVanguard: Nice work! Consider placing a notification on the author’s talk page, as shown in the notification you added to the article. You can also use WP:TWINKLE in future nominations, which will automate this process. GrabUp - Talk 07:28, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

@GrabUp My Wikipedia:PROD Tag was removed by an editor giving no explanation whatsoever, just said 'Recognized'. What should be done VeritasVanguard (talk) 17:52, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

@VeritasVanguard: I asked them in the article’s talk page, lets see their reply, or you can start an AfD. GrabUp - Talk 17:54, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

VeritasVanguard, the bar for removing a PROD is very low, and although you can always ask, they do not have to answer, and you are prohibited from adding te PROD a second time. I would skip asking (what would it gain you?) and just take it to Afd. Mathglot (talk) 20:34, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

@Mathglot Even if the 'bar' is 'too low'. There has to be some kind of reason, why it was removed, article since then was not improved whatsoever. Is the bar too low that anyone can remove it without stating any reason or any commitment to improve, and get away with it? VeritasVanguard (talk) 03:26, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

@GrabUp @Mathglot I have added an AfD tag on the Page of this university. VeritasVanguard (talk) 03:44, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

@VeritasVanguard: Please consider notifying the author about your nomination; use the help provided at WP:AFDHOW. GrabUp - Talk 03:53, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

@GrabUp @Mathglot Going through the History Page of the Article, Seems the editor who removed my WP:PROD tag, contributed to this article back in 2016. Most of the article that remains today was created by the Same editor. VeritasVanguard (talk) 03:59, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

@VeritasVanguard: Yeah, They are the author, You can just see the author from "Page Information" option. GrabUp - Talk 04:00, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

VeritasVanguard, you asked:

Is the bar too low that anyone can remove it without stating any reason or any commitment to improve, and get away with it?

The answer to your question, is 'Yes, they can remove it without any reason.' That is the nature of PROD. The next step, if you wish to proceed, is for you or someone to nominate the page for deletion. Mathglot (talk) 04:19, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

When to override and add a short description when none is present?

Reading this Wikipedia:Short_description#SDNONE it is not clear to me which exceptions should be made and when? For instance, in the page of Culture of the United States, I think a short description with the same name might still be better than "none". What is the rule in that kind of case? Iljhgtn (talk) 20:44, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

@Iljhgtn, hello and welcome to the Teahouse! In such cases it can be a good idea to check other articles for existing examples:

• Culture of Argentina, Culture of South Africa, and Culture of India all have {{Short description|none}} <!-- "none" is a legitimate description when the title is already adequate; see [[WP:SDNONE]] -->
  • Culture of the United States has a more shouty {{Short description|none}}<!-- This short description is INTENTIONALLY "none" - please see WP:SDNONE before you consider changing it! --> :
• but Culture of Italy has Culture of Italy and the Italian people

Right now WP:SDNONE isn't a guideline or a policy, it's just a part of an information page. So it's up to editors to decide where it would be appropriate to include a longer short description.

I think that United States can be expected to be known to anglophone readers, so we don't need clarifications, like (borrowing from short description of United States): Culture of the United States, a country in North America . —⁠andrybak (talk) 09:21, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Hmm. Interesting. That is confusing at best unfortunately. So maybe I will simply tread carefully with editing short descriptions. I have gotten into "trouble" before for editing things like this too quickly where perhaps a change might not be necessary. Iljhgtn (talk) 14:06, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Iljhgtn, when a shortdesc is intentionally set to none, it's typically been done with good reason. The idea of duplicating an article title within a short description is a strong signal that no shortdesc is necessary. They are not mandatory subtitles.

See also related discussions at Wikipedia talk:Short description/Archive 12 § Redirecting less than useful descriptions to "none" (January 2022), Wikipedia talk:Short description/Archive 15 § WP:SDNONE (February 2023), Wikipedia talk:Short description/Archive 16 § WP:SDNONE and "History of" (March 2024), Wikipedia talk:Short description § "National flag" as short description (Summer 2024), Wikipedia talk:Short description § To SD none or not to SD none (August 2024)... there are probably more elsewhere. Folly Mox (talk) 04:25, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

How do I gain concensus

So there was a small incident in Foreign relations of Pakistan. I reverted Mister Banker's edits on restoring sources in the list because I believe that the United Nations digital library is enough proof and because it adds too much bytes to the article, but ke kept on undoing my reverts because he wants me to "Cite a policy for my actions or gain concensus". How can I explain to him without edit warring? I'm afraid he won't accept me and I have to quit Wikipedia forever. Underdwarf58 (talk) 22:42, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Open a discussion on the article's talk page: Talk:Foreign relations of Pakistan Meters (talk) 22:48, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

The additional references add many fewer bytes to the rendered article than all the unnecessary national flag images do. Folly Mox (talk) 04:30, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Template:Infobox artist-Infobox artist

I have a question about these template. In most of articles about an film director/actor/actress, the template "Infobox person" was applied, instead of "Infobox artist". Why editors don't apply template "Infobox artist" in those articles? Is there any rule about applying those template to Biography articles, particularly in topic Actors and Filmmakers? Mintu Martin (talk) 12:53, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

{{Infobox artist}} are for people who are actual artists, like people who make paintings and art. {{Infobox person}} is used for anyone who is a person that doesn't have a sub-infobox, you can find some sub-infoboxes at Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Templates/Infoboxes. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 05:58, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

How do I remove a template from an article?

There's some annoying templates in an article, I don't know how to remove them, so they are just stuck there, how do I remove a template? Riod456 (talk) 19:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

You might, as a newcomer, think them annoying, but they might be there for good reasons. Reply with a link to the article you mean, and tell us which templates, and we can evaluate them and advise you. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.6.86.81 (talk) 19:57, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

No, just tell me how. Riod456 (talk) 19:59, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

@Riod456 It depends on the kind of template, so you need to tell us the article so we can help you. Thanks, Cremastra (u — c) 20:37, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Wait, I just found out. I can hit backspace and the template is removed. Riod456 (talk) 07:12, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

@Riod456 Yes, the Visual Editor treats them kind of like text. You can also cut, copy, or paste them, both within an article and between articles. Good luck, Rjj<sup>iii</sup> (talk) 06:16, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

How to organize posts in descending order

I can’t seem to find a way to get posts to start with the most recent rather than the furthest back, like for instance at my User page. Would much appreciate the necessary steps from on high.

Actually, I’d have thought descending order would be the default… Augnablik (talk) 01:22, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

@Augnablik: Wikipedia features appear to be built with ascending order in mind, but if you're looking to just read unread items, you might want to consider installing the Convenient Discussions script. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:31, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for replying but I don’t quite “get” what this script does.

(Do you really speak something like 17 languages, as I noticed at your alternate User page?) Augnablik (talk) 02:07, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Any new comments on a page are going to be highlighted in green; there's more documentation about what the script does at the link posted.

Where do you see me stating I speak 17 languages? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:42, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

So I gather that I’m supposed to follow the green light … okay, will do.

As for languages:

I copied an “Other languages” section associated with the User jack built the house, which seemed to be an alternate user ID you use, that shows a long list of languages with little icons showing what appears to be the degree to which you speak them, planning to paste it here. But I found it wouldn’t paste, so all I could do was describe it.

Before I saw you’d replied to my original Help message, I was about to apologize to you if you do speak all those languages and it looked as if I were calling you out for fibbing. I mean, I know there are a few super polyglots in the world, but it’s pretty rare — and I’d simply been awestruck that we might have one among us Wiki editors.

From your question as to where I saw you’d said you spoke 17 languages, though, now I’m wondering what’s what. “The thot plickens ...” Augnablik (talk) 03:38, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

It's two completely different users: the one who built Convenient Discussions (whose Babel boxes at meta:User:Jack who built the house list two languages) and the one recommending it here at the Teahouse (User:Tenryuu lists six languages at varying levels of proficiency). They're not otherwise affiliated. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 09:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Hide bots from watchlist

Hi, could you tell me how can hide the bot edits from my watchlist? Thanks! OrionNimrod (talk) 11:02, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi OrionNimrod -assuming you are using the desktop version, on your watchlist page, above the live updates switch are three bars and "Filter changes (use menu or search for filter name)" click on that. The 19th entry in the dropdown list should be "Human (not bot)" tick the box next to that and click back on the watchlist page. Done. If you are using mobile - I have no idea. Best wishes - Arjayay (talk) 11:41, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi Arjayay! Thanks, that solved the issue! OrionNimrod (talk) 13:48, 3 November 2024 (UTC)