Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1244

Archive 1240

←

Archive 1242

Archive 1243

Archive 1244

Archive 1245

Where in p&g / essays is most concise / clear / explicit suggestion to not only …

link to policy but also to quote language from policy? Thx Humanengr (talk) 23:15, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

@Humanengr: I assume that you mean policies and guidelines and essays. However your question is much too concise and hard to understand. SO please be less concise! Do you want a link to a list of all of these? Essays will be hard to get a total list as many are in userspace and a one user's opinion. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:02, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Less concisely: Say someone objects to an edit and claims, e.g., WP:DUE as their justification. I, on the other hand, don't agree that WP:DUE applies (and quote part of that policy to support my argument) and ask the objector to indicate what they are relying on in WP:DUE. They don't respond. What should I cite to encourage them to respond? Humanengr (talk) 01:42, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

See WP:POL along with Wikipedia:List of policies, Wikipedia:List of guidelines, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Contents, and Wikipedia:Essay directory Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:05, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

You'd quote policy in addition to linking it to, for example, communicate clearly to new users and ensure properly use of a shortcut. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 01:16, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Thx … my question is: Which policy, guideline, etc., says to quote policy? Is there anything stronger than WP:ALP? I thought I had seen something, but can't remember where. Humanengr (talk) 03:16, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

That is much clearer question now. This depends a lot on the context of where you are talking and to whom. If you are issuing a warning to a newcomer, then link the policy and explain it simply. If you are talking to someone around for a long time then basic policies can just be mentioned, or linked as an abbreviation. So please consider your audience. For a formal deletion discussion then policy based arguments should be used, and it should be clear what policy that is. But in many discussions you don't have to mention policies. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:40, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

I am trying to upload an image that I created in BioRender

Wikipedia's image scanning bot doesn't let me upload an image of the nodes of Ranvier that I created personally in BioRender. How do I get past this? It says it can not determine whether or not it's copyright material. I guess I'll take it as a kudos to my graphic design skills? Mgcaptainzanko (talk) 07:52, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

@Mgcaptainzanko: you triggered an automated filter. It is based on simple rules (a new user trying to upload a small resolution image) and can't make any complicated copyright decisions. Try to upload the file directly in commons:Upload Wizard. MKFI (talk) 09:02, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch! I just uploaded my first image!! Great to see what I created and threw in an old research paper to be forgotten forever being used. Mgcaptainzanko (talk) 05:43, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

My page rkbanda aka Raghu Banda

Hello,

Why was my wiki page deleted? I have been contributing to the good of the wiki foundation for sometime. I am real human being and all the information provided was true but still it got deleted. I would appreciate a response.

best,

Raghu. Raghu Banda 07:06, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

@Rkbanda Wikipedia is not for promotion, and your user page was deleted as a result. We do not have an article about every real human being (or else we'd have billions of crappy stubs), and instead only have articles about notable individuals. Also, your donations go straight to the Wikimedia Foundation; all editors are unpaid volunteers who do not receive compensation. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 07:09, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

@Rkbanda: I deleted your user page because it was very promotional, and not compliant with our user page policy WP:UP. I also posted a message on your talk page about autobiographies – have you read it? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:20, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi is this a good reference

https://www.elpais.com.uy/enlaces-patrocinados/mauricio-novoa-un-maestro-de-wing-chun-y-filantropo-destacado 180.150.38.255 (talk) 03:32, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not a master on the subject, but I believe that any references put here on the English Wikipedia must be in English. I could be wrong. Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 03:50, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi, @Shovel Shenanigans! There's actually a policy about this: WP:NONENG. While we prefer English-language sources, non-English language sources are completely fine! Without them, we wouldn't be able to make the encyclopedia very complete, would we? For example, I wrote Great Raid of the Pasaje Begoña last year, and I only used one English language source. As far as I can tell, this event was only ever covered in one English language source. It would be a great shame if I had to limit myself to just that one source, wouldn't it? I hope this helps! GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 04:19, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

And that's exactly why I'm not a master on the subject. The feedback is greatly appreciated, and has been noted for later. :) Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 04:44, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi, IP! This looks like a Spanish language newspaper from Uruguay, but looking a the top, it appears to be a sponsored post. That means the article subject paid for it to be written. These aren't typically good sources- they may be able to say a few facts about the subject (such as name, birthday, job), but they can't be used for exceptional claims or to establish notability.GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 04:16, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Agree. Possibly some WP:ABOUTSELF use, but no WP:N value. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:02, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Where to ask about biomedical sources

Hi Teahouse,

Where should I ask if 'Personal View' articles published in The Lancet are appropriate secondary sources for biomedical information? According to The Lancet website they are peer reviewed. Daphne Morrow (talk) 10:00, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

@Daphne Morrow Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine seems like an appropriate place. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 10:06, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

In addition @Daphne Morrow

Check this training guide out Tesleemah (talk) 10:36, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi thank you for this. I understand the basics, I just need specific advice on this one type of article and I can't find this specific type mentioned within the resources I've checked. Daphne Morrow (talk) 11:05, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for this. Daphne Morrow (talk) 11:05, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Doubt regarding three revert rule

Hey! What exactly counts as a revert?

If I'm editing a page and I think - this section needs rewording, or that section could be expanded upon and/or edited, does it count as a revert? I recently edited one page where I added some more information and to incorporate that completely, I reworded the original text a bit. Just some grammar, and sentence structure. Is that a revert? WikiwriterM (talk) 12:51, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

@WikiwriterM "revert" means a complete reversal of a previous edit using Undo or Rollback. The situations you described count as normal editing and maintenence. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 12:52, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! WikiwriterM (talk) 12:56, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Is it possible for someone to undo their own edit? WikiwriterM (talk) 12:59, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes. See WP:NOT3RR for the full list of exemptions to the three-revert rule. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 13:02, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Convictions

I was fired by a company for a simple assult but hand book says, The possession of a criminal record is not a bar to employment. Each employee’s criminal record will be individually evaluated during the selection process to determine if the criminal activity renders the employee unsuited to the specific job assignment. As part of this evaluation, the applicant or employee will provide an opportunity to explain the circumstances surrounding the criminal conduct.I wasn't given a chance to explain. My concern is others are allowed to work there depending their color. I'm looking for legal help. Ovacheva (talk) 13:04, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

You're on the wrong website. Wikipedians don't offer legal help. Ask a lawyer, or try another forum. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:15, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, I just thought someone would lead me in the right direction. Ovacheva (talk) 13:39, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, but we cannot offer legal guidance. Try making use of a search engine to find assistance. 331dot (talk) 13:43, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi. can I make a page on wiki about bird-bud?

hi. bird.budReal here. can you visit my page https://sites.google.com/learn.cssd.ab.ca/bird-bud/home and see if it is ok to put on wiki? Bird.budReal (talk) 01:12, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

It's not accessible? Also, is there any context here? If it's the same one on your user page, almost certainly not unless you can cite three reputable news articles on it that aren't interviews. Mrfoogles (talk) 01:24, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Here's your description of it (as posted on your rightly deleted user page): Bird.bud is a website about absolutely random tool and silly stop, and there is no practical use for random tool. these things and more with the bird.bud's homepage link: So it sounds like mere junk. Can you make a page about it here? No you can't. Can you post it here? No you can't. -- Hoary (talk) 05:52, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Account indefinitely blocked David notMD (talk) 13:51, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

How can I get someone else to use Rollback?

There have been a ton of edits made by one person to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=La_Revoluci%C3%B3n_World_Tour&action=history and I'd need to use rollback to revert all of them, because every edit seems like vandalism. How do I contact someone who can use it? BadEditor93 (talk) 07:52, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi @BadEditor93: without commenting on whether the edits you refer to are vandalism, and/or whether you should be reverting them, just to say that you don't need rollback rights to undo someone's edits. Simply go to the last 'good' revision, ie. the one that you want to roll back to, and click on 'restore this version' on top of the page. This has the added advantage that it allows you to leave an edit comment explaining what you've done and why. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:59, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh. Thanks! BadEditor93 (talk) 09:07, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

@BadEditor93 These edits are certainly not vandalism, which has a very narrow definition meaning, roughly, that the edits in question are known and intended to damage the encyclopedia. The IP clearly went to considerable lenghts to add information, even if in your opinion that information is wrong. Please discuss this on the Talk Page of the article at Talk:La Revolución World Tour. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:51, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

The IP inquestion has been making edits to Los Vaqueros: El Regreso World Tour and La Revolución World Tour . Neither efforts are vandalism. Whether all this tour information makes for valid articles can be discussed on the Talk pages. Be aware that the article about the musicians Wisin & Yandel has Wikilinks to these and to other tour articles. David notMD (talk) 14:02, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Mention of Number of Views

There is this article, which i'm trying to clean up and there this section called: Public image and influence. Which policy / guideline regulates / specify what to include in it or if it should just be deleted? Synonimany (talk) 23:57, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Synonimany I think you can just remove the section as the only sources are the post itself and two spammy 'news' websites. Number of views doesn't hold any weight. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 00:46, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

@Sungodtemple Thanks for the reply, do you know the policy for this, so i don't need to come back here again? Synonimany (talk) 10:36, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

@Synonimany The main policy is that Wikipedia article content is based on secondary sources, not primary ones. If some reliable secondary source had commented on how influential Giardelli had been owing to his videos, that would be valid content. Indeed, it would help confirm his notability. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:06, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

How best to cite a source that applies to the whole article

I engaged in a discussion here earlier about removing the "issues" tags about adequate sourcing of this article: List of people pardoned by Bill Clinton. In that discussion, Mike Turnbull indicated that the "Many of the people in the list have neither separate articles, nor, more importantly, citations to show what offense it was they were originally found guilty of. That seems to me to be a violation of our biography policy and well justifies the cleanup tag." Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1243#Removing warning labels

However, there are two sources from the US Dept. of Justice that list all of the people named and their offenses so I think the problem is just that those sources are not cited prominently or frequently enough. That is, in theory, they could both be appended to each individual person but that seems to be overkill to me. I asked a follow-up question but did not get a further reply.

As far as I can see, the current references #1 and #2 are sufficient to satisfy WP standards for biographical information. It seems that they should be referenced more prominently so that it is clear where the information on each person is sourced from. I've done what I propose for the first two sections -- adding those references adjacent to the date that starts the section. Another alternative would be to repeat them for each individual.

I'm looking for advice as to

which method (or another suggestion) is best?

If there is anything else that would be needed to address the issues that have been flagged on that entry before the warnings can be removed.

As to the issue flagged about use of "unencyclopedic" terms for the crimes. I believe that was valid when the issue was posted but the entry has long since been revised to use the descriptions of the crimes as listed in the DoJ source, sometimes with arbridgement such as "Desertion in violation of the 58^th Article of War" in the source listed simply as "Desertion" in the WP entry.

• • The above was edited to correct the reference to the references and remove a redundant phrase.Jreiss17 (talk) 18:01, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Jreiss17 (talk) 17:57, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

@Jreiss17 I'm not an expert in these things but the way the referencing has been done at List of people granted executive clemency by Donald Trump seems much better. For example, by placing the main citations in the table header, anyone like me who has "sticky headers" set at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets sees the citations for all the table entries. The Trump article also goes into much more detail, with many more specific secondary sources. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:19, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Podcasts as reliable sources

According to WP:SPS, podcasts are considered self-published sources. I want to ask whether there are situations where podcasts can be used as reliable sources, particularly podcasts that interview celebrities. Do the podcasts have to be produced by a reputable organization to be counted as reliable sources? How about, for example, this podcast produced by a YouTuber that interviews Barbara Corcoran? Could it be used in the article about her?  Băng Tỏa  01:44, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Băng Tỏa My guess is that it can be treated the same as a post on social media by her. Since Doctor Mike is not reliable, it could only be used to a limited extent. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 03:25, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @Băng Tỏa, and welcome to the Teahouse. Reliability for podcasts is the same as for any other source: it depends on who publishes it, not on who it features. A podcast published by the BBC is probably reliable; a podcast published by some YouTuber on their own channel, probably not. ColinFine (talk) 14:30, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Correcting classical answer that has many cited references

Bertrand's box paradox - Wikipedia Is just one of several Wikipedia articles that pose a probability problem and answer the same way. The question in each is about the probability of a specific outcome of an event after it occurred but the answer is the probability of that outcome before the event has occurred. Therefore the answer is incorrect.

I tried editing Betrand's box paradox but since it contradicts all the cited sources, it is not completely accepted. It was thought that I was using "original research." But my reference is an article of which I am the sole authoer published in the peer-review magazine Chance: https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/N2ZHDVNZTCGQBQWTN5ZQ/full?target=10.1080/09332480.2024.2415844 How do I edit to correct these wrong answers?

Thank you. Kicab (talk) 17:31, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Kicab was told at the article talk, Talk:Bertrand's box paradox#Edit posted by Kicab potentially violates no original research, to come here to the Teahouse for advice. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 17:41, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Will you help me or was your reply to others with the Teahouse? Kicab (talk) 18:03, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @Kicab, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm not sure why you were directed here, because I don't think you'll get any better asnwers here than at the Talk page. ColinFine (talk) 22:07, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I just wanted to chime in since I'm the one that suggested that they come here. The discussion on that article's talk page was primarily between myself and Kicab, though I'm fairly new here so I wasn't sure of the best way to resolve the dispute. In retrospect I probably could have asked here myself, though someone else has joined the conversation so I think that things will resolve themselves over at the talk page. Thank you! DoomInAJar (talk) 00:14, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you both. Kicab (talk) 13:17, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

@DoomInAJar: Welcome to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1244. You or Kicab may want to ask for input over at a WikiProject like Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics, which will have editors that are interested and/or well-versed in the topic. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:42, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

@Tenryuu: Great, thank you so much! DoomInAJar (talk) 15:52, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll ask them for more help. Kicab (talk) 15:56, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Deleting my edits

I have 2 edited articles, now I want to start from zero. How do I delete my edits? Taymallah Belkadri (talk) 06:57, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the question, @Taymallah Belkadri. Can you please elaborate on what you're asking for? Do you wish to delete these two pages you've created (this and that) or are you asking for something else? TheWikiToby (talk) 07:07, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

The first one is correct @TheWikiToby. I wanna delete those pages. Taymallah Belkadri (talk) 07:36, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for answering, @Taymallah Belkadri. I've just marked the second page under WP:CSD, where the author wants the page deleted. However, I'm reluctant to delete the first page as it's actually your sandbox. I'll blank it for you, but if you really want the page deleted, you can copy and paste {{db-author}} to request a speedy deletion or ask someone to delete it for you again. TheWikiToby (talk) 16:08, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

@Taymallah Belkadri if you're referring to your recent edits to Merit Academy and Louisville Classical Academy, the answer would be no, you cannot delete your own editing history. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 07:11, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Anything within your own User area (link starting User:Taymallah Belkadri) is under your own control and you can simply blank the page or place the template {{db-author}} at the top and an administrator will come along and remove it entirely. That course of action is not really needed for pages in User space, as you can simply re-use the page by adding new content. As CanonNi said, you can't delete the editing history of a contribution you made to a live mainspace article, although in many cases you can self-revert if you simply made a mistake. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:50, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Let me reassure you, Taymallah Belkadri, that Wikipedia is a very complex entity, and making mistakes of one sort or another is pretty well inevitable for a new, and even for a more experienced user: we all did, and do, and honest mistakes (of fact, coding or judgement) are not held against us. Learning from our mistakes (or just having another editor disagree with us) is how we all get better at editing, which is why the WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (often just referred to as BRD) is a standard way of working here. Happy editing! {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.223.204 (talk) 16:26, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

how to submit for topic review but wait on smaller edits?

hi, this is our first try at a page. we would like to get an overall look at the Topic Suitability before we spend more time fixing small citation errors, putting in some helpful figures, etc.

Is there any way to request just the big-picture review of the page but defer the smaller things until we've had a chance to clean it up further and make various small improvements that we want to do? Many thanks!! Ingrid wysong (talk) 20:54, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Rarefied gas dynamics — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ingrid wysong (talk • contribs) 20:56, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Ingrid wysong Hello. You don't need the whole url when linking to a Wikipedia article or page. I fixed this. You linked to an article, but you seem to be talking about a draft. What review are you waiting for? 331dot (talk) 21:35, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

hello @331dot, and thank you. i was hoping it would be a draft that would get a first review, but i may have done it incorrectly and put it to an article page directly by mistake? ugh. what should i do? Ingrid wysong (talk) 21:42, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @Ingrid wysong, and welcome to the Teahouse. No, there isn't any particular way to get a review of an article, as opposed to a draft. I suggest asking at WP:WikiProject Physics - have a look at that first, and if no better option appears, ask on its talk page. ColinFine (talk) 22:13, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Noticed you used "we" and "our" -- just so you know, the policy on Wikipedia is there should be one account for each person, and accounts shouldn't be shared. See the relevant policy. Mrfoogles (talk) 01:26, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

More than one person can work on an article (or draft) as long as each has an account. David notMD (talk) 13:48, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

@Ingrid wysong The article has many refs that need repair and subsections with only the word "text" followed by references. Please fix all. David notMD (talk) 13:48, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

yes, @David notMD, you are correct there for sure. I had really intended to move this from sandbox to a draft article for a while, since it needs a bunch of format corrections, and added text where indicated. But, I did it wrong and it went straight to article. If you know how to put it back to Draft status, I would be grateful. It definitely needs work before it's public. Thank you. Ingrid wysong (talk) 16:33, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

@Ingrid wysong It is now at Draft:Rarefied gas dynamics. It can be submitted for review when you are ready. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:34, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

thank you @Mike Tumball Ingrid wysong (talk) 16:36, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

oops, looks like @ldm1954 has moved it back to draft for me, so that's good. Will work on the fixes. Ingrid wysong (talk) 16:35, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

@Mrfoogles thank you for mentioning that. I will be more careful. the draft so far was mostly done by myself and by @Dreamchaser4180 and one can see that in the history Ingrid wysong (talk) 16:30, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Laurenzo Noèl Thomson

Good day I would like to confirm I did a page for a person Laurenzo Noèl Thomson. How can I publish the page and submit it for approval? It's on my account. Thanks I'm new to this. You guidance will be truly appreciated.

Regards. People1965 (talk) 16:19, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:People1965&oldid=1261789097 People1965 (talk) 16:24, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:People1965&oldid=1261789097

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:People1965&oldid=1261789097 People1965 (talk) 16:23, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

@People1965 You have created a draft on your user page at User:People1965 and, frankly, it is a bit of a mess. The citations are not done correctly. Please ready this help article and also this one. I combined your headers into one thread and will make more comments in a moment. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:45, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Is this an attempt at an autobiography? While that's not prohibited, it is almost never successful, especially when new editors come here just to create such a thing. Wikipedia is not social media and for biographies of living people we insist that all details are cited to reliable published sources. I suggest you give up this attempt and begin by adding to our millions of existing articles until you have learned the basic of contributing. Then you might like to read this essay which explains why you might not want to have a biography here. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:51, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Reliable sources (and pending edits)

Hello! One of my pending edits on John Logie Baird was recently reverted due to it referencing IMDb. I found another source referencing the exact same thing which is The Engineer. I am a little worried though that it seems like a blog type program because there are multiple on Late great engineers. Would this be considered a reliable source? ThrowScroll (talk) 05:08, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

@ThrowScroll My opinion is that since The Engineer (UK magazine) has an article in Wikipedia it is likely to be reliable. The source you linked has a byline and seems perfectly valid. It certainly isn't a blog. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:56, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, a near-170-y-o professional journal is very far from being a blog, and is about as reliable a source as one could hope for. FWIW, I used to refer to 19th- and 20th-century issues of the magazine when researching articles (for a part-work encyclopaedia) on railway locomotives (and related topics) back in the 1980s: the library of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers kept (and probably still keeps) complete bound volume collections of this and many similar publications in its basement archives. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.223.204 (talk) 16:16, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Alright, thank you!

ThrowScroll (talk) 17:26, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Template wording change

Hi Teahouse, I've just encountered Template:Incomprehensible which when used displays: This article may be very hard to understand. That's usually because you, the reader, are a moron. Yes, you. Get a life. Please help clarify it.

This kind of seems like wording that would get people a sharp WP:NPA warning or block if aimed at a fellow editor, even though I'm sure it's meant in a humorous/teasing way. Am I overreacting? If not, where's the best place to propose changes? Village Pump? StartGrammarTime (talk) 21:32, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

It was vandalised this morning. I have reverted it. Thank you for pointing it out, @StartGrammarTime. (Since it was an IP address which has made only this one edit, and was done from a mobile, I don't think there's any point giving a warning. The last time it happened was four years ago, so I don't think it needs protection either.) ColinFine (talk) 21:53, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

@ColinFine Oh, I didn't think to check for vandalism - that was silly of me. Thank you very much! StartGrammarTime (talk) 22:18, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Shouldn't templates (being, by their very nature, multiplied to many pages) generally be (at least) semi-protected? 176.0.136.253 (talk) 21:36, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Draft article keeps being submitted for creation despite not being complete

Hello! I'm the creator and main editor behind Draft:Plainrock124, this article has been submitted for creation by random users multiple times now, even though the article is still far from ready. What preventative measures can I do to prevent this from happening? I still want other editors to pitch in and help me work on this article, however the submitting is honestly getting on my nerves. TansoShoshen (talk) 21:44, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

An interesting predicament, TansoShoshen. Perhaps have the draft moved, without a redirect, to "User:TansoShosen/[string]". (The string might be "Turnips", or whatever you think wouldn't attract attention.) Look through it and alter any occurrence of the two consecutive hyphens, e.g. by putting "@" between each pair. Put <!-- at the very start and --> at the very end. When you want to edit, simply remove the "!", edit, preview, restore the "!" and save. When the draft is ready, remove what's at the very start and end, and reconstruct any two-hyphen string. NB (i) You can't (I think) move something without creating a redirect; if indeed you can't, ask an admin to do it for you. (ii) The fact that you're editing will still be apparent, via your list of "contributions". (iii) There's probably a simpler/better method, but if so it eludes me as right now I'm caffeine-deprived. (iv) If my suggestion is adopted, perhaps we'd better tear this thread into strips and flush them down a convenient receptacle. -- Hoary (talk) 02:28, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

That’s a hidden note that informs editors to not edit something. Sparkbean (talk) 02:44, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi TansoShoshen. One of the things about Wikipedia is that pretty much anyone can edit any page at anytime. Another thing about Wikipedia is that whenever someone clicks on "Publish changes", they're releasing whatever they created under a free license that allows anyone anywhere in the world to build upon or modify at anytime (as long as they do so in accordance with the terms of the license). These things tend to work OK most of the time when it comes to articles because nobody really WP:OWNs an article per se, but they also apply to pages in other namespaces as well (like the draft namespace and the user namespace) where creators often do feel they "own" their work in a sense. WP:DRAFTS aren't really owned by one person per se and they can, in principle, be worked on or even submitted by others when they think they're ready for article status, but many users will leave them alone as a courtesy unless asked for help by their creators or to address some serious violation of a major Wikipedia policy. WP:USD aren't really too different from drafts in the draft namespace, but because they located in the user namespace they tend to be even left more alone absent any serious policy violations that need addressing. So, moving the draft to a userspace draft as suggested above might allow you to work on it at your own pace, but at the same time, if the draft is ready for the article namespace, you might just want to move it their yourself or submit it for an AfC review. Articles don't need to be perfect and it's completely OK to work on them after they become articles; moreover, once it's in the mainspace, it's likely going to be edited by others (you can't stop them from doing so). So, the same thing pretty much applies to drafts as well. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:01, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Could it be made simply that the button "submit to review" (as opposed to the button "publish") in a page in user namespace (as opposed to draftspace) only works when the user of the namespace is logged in. 176.0.136.253 (talk) 21:47, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Mobile editing; Technical difficulties with adding specific objects

Question:

How do you add a heading/subheading on mobile?

Problem:

There is no button that helps with adding advances on mobile.

External info:

When I try to change the URL from “en.m.wikipedia.org” to “en.wikipedia.org”, I get sent back the “en.m.wikipedia.org”.

Selectortopic (talk) 17:22, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

@Selectortopic: Hello! Welcome to the Teahouse. If you are familiar with html language, or md language, then you can do it easily in mobile view with source editor. Even if you are not familiar with html, the source editor uses wikitext, which is very easy to learn. For example, normal headers have two = on each side, eg: == normal header == a sub-header has three = eg: === sub-header === Regarding your second query, Wikipedia shows me two different versions of "desktop mode" (because of my settings). To achieve desktop mode, you have to do two things: first, click on "view deskto site" in a menu somewhere in your browser. Second, go down to the bottom of the Wikipedia page, and click on "desktop mode". If you do both these things, you will get desktop mode/display. —usernamekiran (talk) 18:24, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @Selectortopic. You really don't need to know any HTML, contrary to what @Usernamekiran implies.

You can use the source editor if you wish (I always do except when replying to posts on this or talk pages), but when I just tried it on the App on my Android, one of the items it offered on the editing toolbar was "H2": if you pick that it offers H2, H3, H4, and H5 - that is to say, a header at level 2, 3, 4 and 5. ColinFine (talk) 20:15, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

knowing html is not necessary, but it makes learning wikitext easier than it already is ;-) —usernamekiran (talk) 23:26, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

New article - trying to understand notability

I am really confused about new articles and notability. I picked some well known people (Rowlett and Steckles) and researched them using independent sources and avoiding their own websites. The first has been rejected. The rejection links to academic notability criteria. This person is an academic, but I'm not arguing their research is notable or that they have won lots of awards, etc. I cited several newspaper articles and several in-depth interviews and I don't know why this isn't enough, especially compared to other people in UK maths that I can find Wikipedia pages for. I try to explain in reply to the rejection, but I'm not sure if that gets read. Any advice welcome! Maths11 (talk) 07:45, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

The reviewer may not have seen your question–I suggest dropping a note on their user talk page. Ca ^{talk to me!} 11:44, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Your drafts were Declined (Rejected is more severe). The two reviewers posted standardized wording for their reasons for the decision). You can still ask for more feedback on their Talk pages. David notMD (talk) 16:47, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Ah, got it, thank you! I got a notification that there was a comment on my user talk page, and when I read it there was a reply button underneath so I used it, but that doesn't actually reply to anyone except me. Maths11 (talk) 16:06, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Looked at some of your sources for Rowlett. This doesn't appear to mention him at all, maybe wrong URL? This one and this one he wrote, failing the "independence" criteria. This, this, and others are interviews, which are allowed to be cited, but also fail the "independence" criteria because its what he says about himself, and you can't base an article entirely on that. You're on the right track with the focus on newspaper articles/books/etc. but you need to find 2-3 that write a paragraph or so about him that aren't interviews to pass the notability (really, "is there enough independent stuff written about this guy to base an article on") criteria. Ping the reviewer with that and you should be good. Mrfoogles (talk) 01:19, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Might have missed some of the ones not written by him because they were paywalled (couldn't tell if they were interviews or not), the reviewer could have too, so you might need to point those out specifically. Mrfoogles (talk) 01:20, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, this is really helpful. Here the independent things are either quite short or interviews, I had thought the interviews offered depth but hadn't realised being interviewed by an independent source wasn't enough. I still find it quite confusing when I see people with pages that only cite things written by themselves or their employers, but worrying about that doesn't help me. I'm learning, slowly. Maths11 (talk) 16:03, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

There are a lot of pages like that -- a thing I hear other people say on the Teahouse a lot and agree with is that the majority of Wikipedia pages are either pretty or very bad, so you can't always take them as an example. The B-class or Featured articles are the good examples, essentially. Mrfoogles (talk) 01:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Issue with page names, pages with the same name

Hello, I added a page Alfred Steiner (artist). There is another Alfred Steiner page Alfred Steiner page, a French weightlifter, so I added the "(artist)" to the page title since I could not find information on how to deal with it in the Help section and obviously thought that was how it was done. (1.) So now Alfred Steiner (artist) only shows up when that entire title "Alfred Steiner (artist)" is searched for, and does not show up when "Alfred Steiner" is searched for. (2.) I also think his descriptor should be (artist, lawyer). Could someone help me with these issues? And also point me to where to learn more about them? Thank you. Ogmany (talk) 19:27, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Disambiguation would be what you are looking for. A hat on the other article may be in order. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:00, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Ogmany: I have two commments. (1.) Something has gone wrong with the categories at Alfred Steiner (artist), I've failed to figure out what. (2). When you cite six sources for a statement, it suggests that something odd it going on. Why not just cite the one or two best sources? Maproom (talk) 23:47, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I have done some category cleanup.[1] PrimeHunter (talk) 23:56, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for checking the categories for that post. It is not working for me either. Will try again soon. As to the six sources for a statement, I assume you are talking about the sources at the end the paragraph about the artists and arts advocacy groups getting together to write an amicus brief for the Supreme Court on artist's rights. It actually had a lot more press coverage and that is the good coverage. It is a landmark case and very interesting, covers new ground and is important to artists and I am sure the issue will evolve and is worth covering. I get your point though and will redistribute the sources throughout the paragraph instead of all at the end. Ogmany (talk) 22:17, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. It really brought what I was trying to get across about the subject into focus. I worked on that section, detailed its importance, which makes the multiple footnotes make more sense, and then added another innovative collaborative project that shows how as an artist/lawyer he integrates both fields. (Because I think he is a genuine polymath or multi-hyphenate professional, being innovative in both fields, much less being an activist in both.) On that note I think the page should be renamed Alfred Steiner (artist, lawyer) since he has made important and new contributions to both fields in both roles. I know I can change it to a new page with that title as per Help:How to move a page but wanted to check in if that is appropriate, and in this case believe it is, and the article demonstrates that now. Ogmany (talk) 02:17, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I am working on it but as noted below, something odd going on. Ogmany (talk) 22:10, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I read Wikipedia:Disambiguation and decided a Hat on the other article was not what was needed. So I created an Alfred Steiner Disambiguation page listing the two Alfred Steiners which is in my sandbox. I just cannot figure out how to post it. Could you check that I have it right and direct me to where to find out how to post it because at this point I am not getting it. Ogmany (talk) 01:47, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Is there a template?

Is there a template to notify users they added disambiguation links to pages? Stumbleannnn! Talk to me 21:48, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

hi! No there a not sir sorry 2605:B100:1129:3EBA:6D2E:C0B:1DCA:468 (talk) 21:59, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh okay! Can you ask an admin if I am allow to make the template? Stumbleannnn! Talk to me 22:02, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't believe so. DPL bot does this automatically. Cremastra ‹ u — c › 22:05, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

aw.. Stumbleannnn! Talk to me 23:03, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

As far as I can see, {{Ambiglink}} is an appropriate template for this purpose. CodeTalker (talk) 00:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Ah, thanks! Stumbleannnn! Talk to me 02:24, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, the IP is totally wrong. And I've generally been getting live notifications while editing if my edit adds a dablink. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:39, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I noticed the IP was wrong. Stumbleannnn! Talk to me 02:52, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

The IP has been blocked for vandalism. CodeTalker (talk) 03:13, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh. Stumbleannnn! Talk to me 03:14, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Dates (2019, December 2019 or 2020?)

I'm currently working on the Sacred Reich article (specifically at my user sandbox) and I don't know whether or not to use "December 2019" for accuracy or "2019" or "2020" for simplification.

I've used the Alice in Chains article (the lead) as a reference, and it simply says "2006" because the most recent change in the band's lineup was in mid 2006. However, the most recent lineup change in Sacred Reich was in December 2019, which has me doubting if I should use "2019". Any response is appreciated, Sparkle and Fade ^talk_edits 06:54, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the question, @Sparkle & Fade. I am unaware of any policies or guidelines which specifically state this, but looking at several other articles for bands (including The Beatles, which is a featured article), it looks like the best answer would be to either say 2019 or late 2019. I hope this helps! TheWikiToby (talk) 07:17, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

How to improve this draft?

Hi there, it's my first time writing an article and I understand that Wikipedia is all about credibility. May I know what can I cite or add to this draft (Draft:LUZ (2025 film)) to get approved? Would it be more media coverage or an IMDb link? Thank you very much. Pineapplebunbun (talk) 07:30, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Pineapplebunbun. There is a pretty high threshold for articles about unreleased films. What is expected are references to multiple sources that are indisputably reliable and that devote truly significant coverage to the production of the film. Your current references are weak. Synopses published in advance on film festival websites are of little value, because their purpose is to promote the film showing, not to discuss the production process. Please read WP:NFF. As for IMDb, that is not a reliable source. Please read WP:IMDB for the consensus of the community. Cullen328 (talk) 07:44, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply! Really appreciate it. Pineapplebunbun (talk) 07:52, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Is it possible cite Gale OneFile (Wikipedia Library) findings in the same sort of way as, e.g., ProQuest, i.e. with an id?

Such as: https://go-gale-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/ps/i.do?p=ITOF&u=wikipedia&v=2.1&it=r&id=GALE%7CA53563938&retrievalId=91e943d4-bf38-4dbc-a4cd-7f8ee8863759&inPS=true&linkSource=interlink&sid=bookmark-ITOF

Thanks for any advice! Protalina (talk) 12:34, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

@Protalina Yes. If you go to the URL you specified, which can only be reached by people who have TWL access, you will see a way at the foot of the article to link to it. It is fairly easy to see that the URL= link.gale.com/apps/doc/A53563938/ITOF will work and, indeed if that is placed in the address bar of a browser takes you to this webpage. There should be related links at the Internet Archive which could also be used. We should never use wikipedialibrary.idm links in articles as they are not generally available to readers. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:42, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Noted and understood.

— Protalina (talk) 09:20, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Aha – found my way to Template:Gale – had previously searched for <facepalm>Gale OneFile</facepalm> – thanks again.

— Protalina (talk) 09:36, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Completing Draft and Article

Hello, I have completed this draft and would like assistance in moving it to the mainspace. Thank you! Lusiano Huang (talk) 08:24, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Lusiano Huang, you have submitted Draft:Indonesian Vtuber Awards for review. It will be reviewed. Please be patient. -- Hoary (talk) 08:49, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Reviewed and Declined. There is content that does not have a reference. Given that the first time this award was given was November 2024, may be WP:TOOSOON to have published content about it. David notMD (talk) 12:13, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Creating an edit to an existing page

I thought I had submitted a proper edit to the existing wiki page called True Anomaly. However, I do not see the changes shown on the page. Can someone kindly tell me if I have done something wrong or will pending changes not be shown until either accepted or rejected? The link to the current page is: True anomaly Pdmaley (talk) 10:29, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Pdmaley Hello. The edit history of that article does not show any edits by you. Did you click "publish changes"? 331dot (talk) 10:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I did. It should have showed up. Any ideas? Pdmaley (talk) 10:45, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Would it help if I resubmitted? I assume I must have made some kind of mistake or the edit history would show it. Pdmaley (talk) 10:52, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I would try again. There's nothing in the edit history or in the edit filter history(which might have stopped your edit). 331dot (talk) 10:56, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Your addition now appears in the article. David notMD (talk) 12:20, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Add a link

how to add a link on someone's wikipedia page that has been published on national news paper and also aired on national tv? 2405:6E00:4EE:EEAB:8D69:852:B5E2:9914 (talk) 22:38, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

I can see the edit you tried to make. It was on Sippy Grewal, correct? I would put a brief description of the desired information in its appropriate place on the page, and then use the "Add Citation" function to use the link in an unobtrusive manner. Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 23:20, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Here's the diff of the edit I was referring to, by the way. Please, correct me if I'm wrong. Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 00:54, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

The Sippy Grewal biography seems to be a hoax. Can somebody remove it ? It is piggybacking on Gippy Grewal. Nothing about this "Sippy Grewal" can be verified through English language sources. I made a few removals there but gave up. Arcot Shankar (talk) 06:51, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not going to remove it, Arcot Shankar, because the sources don't have to be in English, and if there were sources in other languages then these would be languages in which I have zero competence. If you're pretty sure it's a hoax, do please nominate it for deletion. Here's how. Just follow the recipe. ("AfD" isn't the only option, but in view of the number of participants, or co-conspirators, so far, it's the best option.) -- Hoary (talk) 13:06, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

resubmitting an article draft after adding inline citations

My article was declined and I was asked to use inline citations which I did and edited the draft, then I clicked publish. What do I do now, just wait? The message about having the draft declined remained the same after I re-published the article. Nikitronic (talk) 14:15, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

@Nikitronic "publish" just means making your edits live. To resumbit the article you need to click the big blue button. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 14:17, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you :-) Nikitronic (talk) 14:37, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Now at Draft:Death of Richard Gribble Submitted a second time and again Declined. David notMD (talk) 13:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Concerts

Well, WP:NCONCERT does not say anything about once-off concerts such as the Super Bowl Halftime Show. Question is, can a concert (which is a part of a world tour) have a standalone article? The "Chris Brown Live in Johannesburg" is a well discussed concert in RS, plus he sold out the biggest stadium in Africa (13th in the world) in less than 2 hours. dxneo (talk) 13:46, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

It could do, per WP:NEVENT, if the one-off concert has enough lasting impact. Though it would have to be looked at case by case and I don't think that would be possible to guage when the concert happened (let me check...) yesterday. For some examples, Modena Park 2017 broke the record for highest attended concert, a sum which is more noteworthy of how quickly the tickets sold out. The Last Waltz was made into a Scorsese documentary and has been discussed in depth many times since, the article is as much about the event as it is about the documentary. The album At Folsom Prison has an article but the concert which it is a recording of does not - arguably the topics are one and the same, but the article is structured around the album and not the concert. The Doors at New Haven doesn't have a standalone article, as even though the event is discussed in many reliable sources it is always part of the band's story as a whole - which what I imagine this one concert of Chris Brown's would be: undeniably worth including in the main article, but not so much standalone. -- D'n'B-t -- 14:48, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

How to fast forward the waiting process over Request comment on Talk:Jats

oh hi, my request sound is too bulky and marginal, but it have some common expect to remove an controversial featuring of wrong image and I did on talk summary over all by so far, still i felt it dont getting enough attention or recognition from wiki moderation and hardly lapping for more than 1 hrs 2409:40D6:109F:6A5F:D5CB:4884:480C:2A0E (talk) 04:36, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I guess somehow no one try to cop with me at this point yeah how long it should to take for am extended request that why i am asking for recoiled booster i dont find any right consulter to refrain me out @Fylindfotberserk can you do this for attribution? 2409:40D6:109F:6A5F:D5CB:4884:480C:2A0E (talk) 05:45, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I for one find your request incomprehensible. Suggestion: Edit it. Read it out loud, checking that it makes sense. Where it doesn't make sense, edit it again. Make sure that it says precisely what should be changed to precisely what, and why it should. Then save ("Publish changes"). -- Hoary (talk) 06:00, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Cheer-up man, I don't bother you either and for the sack of god What the purpose of your statement is itself an intelligible resentment, most of the time i used this wikipedia as an medium of relatable centralised platform and coming to your spectacular question i think your try to revert the changes on Jats and font me point if you mind my word it was restricted by Semi protected layer ,however if you dont mind likably to ascend you over talk page at Talk:Jats you will understand whole endorsement User talk:Hoary 2409:40D6:109F:6A5F:D5CB:4884:480C:2A0E (talk) 06:25, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your requests are very difficult to understand in English. If you don't have the ability to translate directly, I believe you would best get your point across by using short, simple sentences, using basic English words, and getting right to the point at describing exactly what you want changed and the justification. I kind of get the idea you want the photo removed because you claim the people in the picture are not Jats, but like Hoary, I find your justification to be incomprehensible. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:03, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

An Vandal, allegedly Jats offender who pretending to be an pseudo mocker for ethnic marking

Hey can anybody please try to resolve an utterly arrogant issue which affecting the dignity of an social groups which sound quite sensitive issue for most of and not even single wikipedia user try their efficiency to resolve an hypocritical and triggering the value offered by Wikipedia standards

• Accuser: This For removing the recent racist remark, and unfaithful potation by User:Dympies, who bluntly confronted by various admin over narrowing Jat and related topic
• Reason: Unexplained exposure of controversial image convicted by User:Dympies[2]

if you visibly look the deep in the the image which was dully copyvio form Jat reservation agitation which involve other groups , it doesn't show the true factuality and idly triggering the sanctioned of WP:Truth in unnatural way and dosent expertise the whole wide ranging ethnic groups which i overlayed at Talk:Jats#Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 December 2024

• Diffs[3] toxicant user tried to defame Jat imaging and I cursed this is not hai first time it an tragedy for Jat ethical preservation

PowerwithAttorney (talk) 15:05, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Please stop making personal attacks. and assume good faith. You are not helping your argument concerning the image by attacking other editors in that manner. Acroterion (talk) 15:08, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

@PowerwithAttorney: the Teahouse is a place for questions about editing Wikipedia, not for hasing out content disputes. See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for more appropriate venues - although you will still be expected to act WP:CIVILy in all forums. -- D'n'B-t -- 15:26, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Truthfindervert. - Ratnahastin (talk) 16:23, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your concerns about the image uploaded by Dympies and its impact on the article about Jats. I appreciate that we are all working towards ensuring that Wikipedia presents content in a neutral and verifiable manner, in line with the platform's core policies. I understand that the image in question is a contentious issue for many, and I believe there are a few key points to address to move forward constructively. SkīHī talk 17:20, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Not only does this reply sound like a whole lot of nothing (and is nearly impossible to read in dark mode), it makes me suspicious that this user has a connection to the sock. Why else would a brand new account choose to comment here? For full disclosure, I've been monitoring SkiHi's contributions since they inappropriately warned an IP for editing the sandbox. GSK (talk • edits) 17:34, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Infobox Airline frequent flyer programme parameter

For Template:Infobox airline, is there any way to have the “frequent flyer program” parameter written in British English as opposed to not? I’m guessing no, but it’s worth asking anyway. notadev (talk) 02:21, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not seeing that in the infobox itself, only in the documentation. Although MOS:RETAIN is aimed at content, not template documentaion, I think the same logic applies here, there's simply no compelling reason to prefer British English here, given that frequent flyer programs were invented in the U.S. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:30, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Sure, but what about for non-US airline pages which use british english but then have a random piece of non british english in the infobox? notadev (talk) 03:36, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Most non-US readers are bright enough to not fret over Americanisms. Doug butler (talk) 05:08, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

What helpful insight notadev (talk) 06:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

If you're really bothered about it, @NotADev, put a request on Template talk:infobox airline asking somebody to add a parameter to make that display as "programme" rather than "program". I don't know that you'll necessarily find anybody with the rigthts to make the change willing to do so, but you might strike lucky. (I'm in Yorkshire, and I wouldn't bother). ColinFine (talk) 17:39, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Restoring my previous Wiki page

I have had at least two - maybe three Wikipedia pages over the years created by great efforts of volunteers. All have disappeared, thanks to the censorship in vogue over the last decade. Is there any way to restore one of these - at least. The last one was the most comprehensive - amazingly so. It included family history I was only slightly aware of. I have no idea how to do this and would like some guidance. Bill Still writer director of: The Money Masters - 1996 The Secret of Oz - 2010 - winner of best documentary of 2010 at the Beloit International Film Festival Jekyll Island - 2015 YouTube producer of 4,608 YouTube news reports over 18 years. Author of: "No More National Debt" - and several other books Billstill (talk) 11:06, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

@Billstill This had nothing to do with censorship and was entirely because, at the time (up to 2013) there was no evidence that Bill Still met any of Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The history of what happened is available here. The administrator who salted the tilte was User:Anachronist, who may be able to advise on the details. It is possible that more sources now exist to allow the creation of an acceptable article but if so that should not be done by you owing to your conflict of interest. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:44, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Actually the history is available here (and at the pages to which it links). People can make drafts for articles about themselves (though in practice such drafts tend to be pretty feeble). No matter how heartfelt an attempt at a draft might be, if good sources don't exist then the attempt will fail. -- Hoary (talk) 12:52, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

From what Hoary linked to, articles about you were nominated for deletion and deleted in 2007, 2010, 2013, 2015. Also an article about your film The Secrets of Oz. You can try by creating and then submitting a draft via WP:YFA, but Wikipedia advises against attempts at autobiography (see WP:AUTO) as those almost always fail. What you know about yourself to be true cannot be included unless verified by independent references (see WP:42). David notMD (talk) 14:18, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi I'm not know you 196.129.15.194 (talk) 01:51, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Can someone upload this image?

Hello, I hope that someone can upload an image to the Harry Potter: Wizards of Baking. I tried to upload it well though, 190.21.180.249 (talk) 01:51, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

IP editor, you added a hyperlink to the image's URL, which doesn't work. Since the image is likely copyrighted, it can only be added under fair use, which only applies to articles. Please only add the image after the draft is accepted. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 01:55, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Artificial intelligence can be used.

Artificial intelligence used to help موسی اشترک (talk) 00:36, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

If this is a question about using Wikipedia, موسی اشترک, could you please rephrase it? -- Hoary (talk) 00:38, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

What I believe they're asking is if the use of large language models (LLMs, otherwise known as AI) for Wikipedia articles. There is an essay on this and other documents regarding it on Metawiki, but there doesn't seem to be a lot of consensus/info on it. However, the common points are:

1. All text needs to be backed up with reliable sources/citations, as AI is generally known to "hallucinate" sources for text—among other problems—which can lead to original research.
2. Text needs to be verified for grammar mistakes, unverified info, and other problems before being published. Editors need to take caution when using LLMs for articles, and should not edit using LLMs if they are unfamiliar with using them responsibly.

Sparkle and Fade ^talk_edits 01:24, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree that AI will simply 'make stuff up'. You might be interested in this interaction I had with ChatGPT when I asked it to write an article for me in the style of a Wikipedia article, and then challenged it over the veracity of what it made up. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:43, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Elaborating on my comment here since I accidentally posted too early:

Generally, you will be held accountable for any edits you make using LLMs and AI, and are advised to use it responsibly, and with due respect to Wikipedia's core content policies and guidelines. If you are new here, I recommend familiarizing yourself with editing at Help:Introduction. If you are unsure about an edit, contact an administrator or another editor about it. Thanks for asking. Sparkle and Fade ^talk_edits 02:18, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Can fix all significant grammatical errors

Hello I'm Ampil. on Rollback requests. Text: I'm fight vandalism again, and I'm quite active in the Recent Changes, I use a Anti-Vandalism tools like AntiVandal and Ultraviolet. after Fastily retired, since November 19, 2024. I have more than 200 vandalism reverts, last 4 months, and I'm meet all minimum requirements. The rollback rights would make easier. Can fix the grammar? Thanks. ~🌀 Ampil ^{「💬 / 📝」} 03:44, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I've fixed your Grammar, "I'm fighting vandalism again, and I'm quite active in the Recent Changes. I use AntiVandal tools like AntiVandal and Ultraviolet. After Fastily retired on November 19, 2024, I have more than 200 vandalism reverts in the last 4 months, and I meet all minimum requirements. The rollback rights would make it easier." Here you go. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 03:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

@Ampil, your're requesting the perm for yourself, so please fix the errors yourself too. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 03:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

@Ivebeenhacked Fixed. ~🌀 Ampil ^{「💬 / 📝」} 03:53, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Advice for new article

Hello,

I need help in writing my first article. Florescaroline94 (talk) 10:40, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. What help is it that you are seeking? 331dot (talk) 10:44, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Are these sites acceptable in citations for a company page- forum, we-awards, clutch, and hubspot. Florescaroline94 (talk) 11:08, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

@Florescaroline94 The first and the fourth certainly are not because one is a forum where (as far as I can tell) anyone can write anything they like and the last is a blog, again without the editorial oversight we like in reliable sources. There is a specific noticeboard where you can ask about marginal sources at WP:RSN. If you intend to draft an article for a company that doesn't already have a page on Wikipedia, your main task will be to show it is wikinotable using sources that meet our golden rules. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:36, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Okay, Thanks for guiding me. Florescaroline94 (talk) 06:47, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Writing an article

Is there a page which has the process for formatting an article the Wikipedia way and how to add drop down sections, etc? WikiwriterM (talk) 08:42, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

@WikiwriterM the Manual of Style documents standard formats of articles here. I'm not sure what you mean by drop down sections, could you clarify? '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 10:21, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! As in - each question in this TeaHouse presents as a drop down section, right? I was asking about that. Collapsed until we click it when it expands. WikiwriterM (talk) 10:26, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh you mean that. That's only a feature on mobile to save screen space. You don't need to add it manually. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 10:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

@WikiwriterM: See Help:Section#Creation and numbering of sections. Level two == Section == makes a drop down on mobile. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:06, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Much appreciated! WikiwriterM (talk) 11:21, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Politician possibly discovered article on his party

I have a bit of an odd situation on my hands. Earlier this month, shortly after the Namibian elections, I created a short article for the Body of Christ Party as it gained a seat in their National Assembly. Recently, on the talk page of this article, someone claiming to be the politician heading the party saying he wanted to "start discussing" the party came onto the talk page. What should I do in this situation? Should I delete his message or just leave it there and not respond to it? --IntergalacticOboist (talk) 00:14, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I see no reason to delete it, IntergalacticOboist. I think I'll reply there myself. -- Hoary (talk) 00:41, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I've replied there. -- Hoary (talk) 00:56, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for helping out! I haven’t created that many articles so I was just nervous. IntergalacticOboist (talk) 12:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

A Polite Request

Hello, I have drafted an article about Eray Birinci, which I am connected to, and I have disclosed my Conflict of Interest (COI) per Wikipedia guidelines. I would greatly appreciate it if a neutral editor could review the draft for notability, neutrality, and verifiability.

The draft is here: User:Bayçokbilen/sandbox. Thank you for your time and assistance! 195.85.255.114 (talk) 14:14, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Remember to log in when posting. You need to click the "Submit your draft for review!" button on the draft to formally submit it. 331dot (talk) 14:16, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Bayçokbilen, and welcome to the Teahouse.

As 331dot says, you can submit your draft. But there is no point in doing so now, because the only sources are about Birinci's books. Like most new editors who immediately try the challenging task of creating an article, you have written your draft BACKWARDS. Wikipedia is not interested in what you know about Birinci: it is only interested in what people wholly unconnected to Birinci have chosen to publish about him in reliable sources - and if you cannot find several such sources, then there is no point in trying to write an article about him. 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) 15:08, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Reference

Is it permissible to cite Google Maps or Google Earth? TrueMoriarty (talk)TrueMoriarty TrueMoriarty (talk) 14:59, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @TrueMoriarty. The answer is "mostly not": see WP:GOOGLEMAPS for why. ColinFine (talk) 15:12, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Further to the information at WP:GOOGLEMAPS, much of the detail on Google maps is user-generated, rendering it unreliable. I make corrections to Google maps almost daily. Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:59, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Email about paid wikipedia page

hello,

I have been in contact with someone who wants me to pay them to write my Wikipedia page. Is this something that is possible or not acceptable? Sophia Labadi (talk) 19:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, @Sophia Labadi. This is a scam and not acceptable under our policies. Report the email and its contents to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org so that they can handle the situation. Do not contact or interact with this person. Please read WP:SCAM for more info. TheWikiToby (talk) 20:13, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Was the user that did this by any chance Biune Ploke? I can see that they made an account to instantly make a page about you. This situation may require a block.

Then again, I'm still fairly new, and I could be misinterpreting. Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 21:06, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

15, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I concur with what TheWikiToby wrote, that you should not make any contact with the person, and should report them, but will add a few comments. Any Wikipedia article, including an article about a living person, must pass the test of notability, which mostly means that reliable sources have written significantly about the subject (that is, about you). An article about a person (or other subject) that is not notable will be nominated for deletion. After the deletion discussion is closed and the article is deleted, there will not be an article about you, but your money will still belong to the con person. They are making a false promise if they say that they can get an article about you to be in Wikipedia. So you, User:Sophia Labadi, were wise to ask whether this is permitted or is not acceptable, because it is not acceptable and is a con game. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:17, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Above: "have written significantly about the subject (that is, about you)". Yes, if we stretch the meaning of "you". Academics are busy people and very few of them have the time or energy (or desire, or, arguably, bad taste) to appear on TV game/"reality" shows, wear "designer" clothes, get into newsworthy spats with their significant others, or do the other nonsense that keeps mere celebs in the tabloid eye. What makes them notable is the reception in reliable sources not of themselves but of their work. Comments on your publications by academics unaffiliated with you would go towards notability. -- Hoary (talk) 01:11, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

According to a quick search, you are a professor at the University of Kent who has published and has received various awards. Wikipedia guidance for academics is at WP:NACADEMIC. Looking at that, do you believe you meet the criteria? If yes, you could attempt to draft an article about yourself using the guide at WP:YFA, after first carefully reviewing WP:AUTO. There is a consensus that succeeding without first gaining experience by improving existing articles is rare but not impossible. a key requirement is that people with no direct connection to you have published about you (see WP:42). The Univ Kent website does not count as an independent, secondary reference, nor do published interviews, nor your website. David notMD (talk) 23:44, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

@Sophia Labadi You have a Wikidata entry but a brief look at the links there indicates your h-index is fairly low and the 2023 prize you were awarded by the Humboldt Foundation isn't named on their Wikipedia page, suggesting it is not enough on its own to show you are wikinotable. However, you only have to meet one of the criteria at the linked page listing academic notability. Which do you think you might meet? Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:12, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

References Change

I stumbled across a page with a bare URL (Takeya Mizugaki) and I wanted to correct it but once I entered the visual or source editor, all the references change to completely other websites and also the bare URL is gone. Can someone explain that behaviour to me and whether if I can remove the banner? Squawk7700 (talk) 15:56, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Squawk7700 and welcome to the Teahouse. There is one bare reference in the article but it is in the infobox. The Visual Editor has limitations when it comes to templates like infoboxes. It ignores those references and renumbers the others, so it looks like there is no longer a bare one while you are in the editor. You will need to use the source editor to correct the reference. Hope this helps. StarryGrandma (talk) 16:34, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh I get it, thanks for your quick reply :) Squawk7700 (talk) 17:05, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Flag in Template:SYR & Template:Country data Syria

After the fall of the Assad regime, the new government used this flag. However, neither those templates had changed to a the new flag. Should the template be updated now? Or should the file in commons be updated? 132.234.228.177 (talk) 09:14, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

The best place to discuss changing the templates is on their Talk pages: I see that on each of them a (different) user has already started such a discussion.

The file in Commons needs to be retained, as it will still be required for articles, etc. when referring to the historical period when that flag was in use. Its description will need appropriate modifications to reflect recent events, and this needs to be taken into account with relation to the approximately 22,000 pages on which Template:Country data Syria is used.

Personally, I feel that it's still a little early (perhaps only by days) to start making sweeping changes – the situation is still volatile. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.223.204 (talk) 17:06, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Pinging etiquette

Hi, I wanted to check on general etiquette when replying to editors on article talk pages. If I've pinged (@) someone in my post, then I reply to their response, do they get automatically notified or should I ping them again? I don't want to annoy anyone so thought I'd best check first! (I also just realised that my title looks like I'm asking about penguin etiquette if you squint really hard) Blue-Sonnet (talk) 00:54, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

First, adding "@" in front of a user's name does nothing. (Although using Template:Ping both pings and adds "@".) To your question: No. Just ping them, Blue-Sonnet. -- Hoary (talk) 02:09, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Just as well I checked, thank you! Blue-Sonnet (talk) 03:04, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I thought that if you used the "Reply" function it automatically notified them. Is that not so, Hoary? ColinFine (talk) 17:36, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I think there might be some miscommunication here. When using the Reply tool, typing @ will open up a dropdown list of available users. Continue typing the to-be-pinged username and choose it from the menu. The user will be notified once the comment is posted. Users won't be notified if someone edits a comment; it has to be a new line with the commenter's signature; WP:MENTION goes into further detail.

Users are, by default, subscribed to discussions they have participated in. When anyone adds a new comment in the discussion, they get a notification in their . You can still alert them with a ping and put a notification in their , though. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:59, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

@Tenryuu No, to be subscribed by default you have to tick "Automatically subscribe to topics" at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing. You can see (and later change) which topics you are subscribed to at Special:TopicSubscriptions. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:35, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I was under the impression that was enabled by default; at least, I didn't have to fiddle with my preferences to toggle it on when the feature first came out. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:00, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Link should be on Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets (not as in my previous post). The ones enabled by default are marked with a "D" as in the guide at the top of that page. That particular gadget may have been automatically activated when it was first released. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:29, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

What are watchlists for

Maybe I'm just using mine incorrectly but I can't find any reason to use my watchlist. I currently have two articles, my user/talk page, and a draft I made on my list and I just never use it. Is it a thing that is more useful when working on multiple articles at once or something? How would a more experienced user use their watchlist? ApteryxRainWing🐉 | Roar with me!!! | My contributions 18:23, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, the way I use my watchlist (I have 628 pages) is that before leaving Wikipedia for the day, I check the watchlist to make sure that other edits made by others are legit. So the watchlist will be more useful if you have more pages under watch. Hope this helps. Cheers. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 18:37, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Alright, that explains it. The two pages I have on my watchlist are pretty niche ones that don't see too much traffic so I never see anything show up on the feed ApteryxRainWing🐉 | Roar with me!!! | My contributions 18:59, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

@TheWikiToby. Unsigned comment left by you. Most likely edit conflict by me. My bad. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 18:40, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Nah, I checked and I just forgot to sign lol. TheWikiToby (talk) 18:48, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the question, @ApteryxRainWing. The watchlist is used to be of alert of any edits that occur to any articles. This is especially useful if you're a part of a major discussion, a contributor to a GA nomination, or are simply interested in whatever shenanigans happen for whatever reason. For example, I watchlisted Rain World and Lethal Company. I did Rain World because it's my favorite video game of all time and I wanna see what happens. I added Lethal Company because it's one of the first articles that I majorly contributed to when I first created my account. I'm pretty sure I have 71 and 72 edits to them respectively. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheWikiToby (talk • contribs) 18:34, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi ApteryxRainWing, some people don't use watchlists and others use them for different reasons. I mainly deal with vandalism and spam so I have 4,942 articles/talk pages on my wl. A small amount of those are temporarily watched (you can select how long a page/article stays on your wl). I go through my wl every now and then to reduce it. I wouldn't worry too much about the list if it's not really useful to you. Hope this helps, happy editing, Knitsey (talk) 18:53, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, ApteryxRainWing. I am an editor with 15 years of experience and an administrator. I have over 67,000 pages on my watchlist. I can usually detect subtle evidence of vandalism or disruption, or see unusual activity of various kinds that I can investigate when I review my watchlist. A large majority of the entries on my list are uncontroversial. I pay attention to those that are out of the ordinary. Cullen328 (talk) 19:04, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

So it's more of a thing to track how other people are interacting with an article? Other people in this thread said they use it to track edits and stop vandalism on articles they have contributed to as well ApteryxRainWing🐉 | Roar with me!!! | My contributions 19:09, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

It's both of those things. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 19:51, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

ApteryxRainWing I use my Watchlist to keep track of articles I’ve written or have done major edits on, plus I watch pages that interest me. If some new information is put forth on an obscure topic that appeals to me I want to check it out, and see if a reliable reference was sourced. Use the list anyway that is of help to you, and if you don't consider it helpful, then just ignore it. Best wishes on future Wikipedia projects. Karenthewriter (talk) 19:49, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Creating a redirect

I'm trying to make a redirect for Portal:Democratic Republic of the Congo. I've created P:DRC and linked it on the portal. However, for the life of me I can't get the "redirect" function to work. Can someone help me out? Zoozoor (talk) 19:54, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Never mind! A helpful user deleted the "no wiki" codes on the full page. Zoozoor (talk) 19:58, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

@Zoozoor. Hello there, don't worry. I've fixed the error. It seems like nowiki codes ended up with your attempt to create a redirect. I've fixed it. It maybe happened because you were on the VisualEditor since something similar happened to me when I tried to create another redirect. Cheers. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 20:00, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I'll switch to SourceEditor when encountering similar issues in the future. Zoozoor (talk) 20:01, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

No problem. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 20:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

A question I have

good afternoon workers of teahouse!

If I wanted to make a story about something and I needed news articles. how do I include the "[1]"? (for example [1] "local kid robbed store" NBC.com) Jude Marrero [=D (talk) 20:31, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Do you have any specific questions on the steps at WP:REFVISUAL? Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 20:46, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

oh, whoops I didn't know there was a page for that. Jude Marrero [=D (talk) 20:51, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Image

Would this image qualify as fair use or would it be not copyrighted because it is not original enough? https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/fr/thumb/f/f7/Logo_CNESST.png/800px-Logo_CNESST.png?20160209184422 WikiPhil012 (talk) 02:34, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

The data at fr:File:Logo CNESST.png seems to imply that the logo meets Commons:threshold of originality. If so, we would need the context for its use (which article, etc.) to evaluate whether the non-free content criteria are met. That said, I wonder if someone could argue that the CNESST logo is comparable in originality to the Amtrack one, which falls below the threshold. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 02:53, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi WikiPhil012. The threshold of originality applied when assessing the copyright status of logos often varies from country to country; so, it's hard to say whether this logo would be 100% within the public domain worldwide without knowing more about its provenance. The US, for example, has a relatively high threshold compared to the UK; so, this would most likely fall below the US's threshold and be considered too simple to be eligible for copyright protection under US copyright law; however, it could be considered to be above the UK's threshold and thus creative enough for protection under UK copyright law. Since English Wikipedia's servers are located in the US, English Wikipedia primarily follows US copyright law when it comes to such things. Wikimedia Commons, on the other, also takes into account the copyright laws of the country of first publication in addition to US copyright law because Commons is more of a global site. So, if this logo originates out of the US, it should be fine to upload to Commons under a c:Template:PD-logo license; if, however, it originates in a country other than the US and that country has a lower threshold than the US, it might not be OK to upload to Commons. In the latter case, it should be fine to upload locally to English Wikipedia under a Template:PD-ineligible-USonly license and would not need to be treated as non-free content. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Sacred Reich and verifying sales claims

I'm currently working on the Sacred Reich article (specifically a draft on my userpage) and I'm trying to verify a claim regarding the sale of one of the band's release. In an interview with the Arizona Republic, the band's frontman Phil Rind recalls that their EP "Surf Nicaragua" outsold their first album "Ignorance" within two weeks. However, I'm having trouble verifying this because this is a statement from 2019 (when the release was in 1988) and I can't verify the sales because Metal Blade Records, the band's preferred label, did not sign with the RIAA until 2011. Should I use his statement in the article as fact "It outsold the band's first album within two weeks", use it as a quote "Phil Rind recalls that the EP "outsold their first release within two weeks." or not include it at all per WP:RS and maybe WP:ONUS? Any response is appreciated. Sparkle and Fade ^talk_edits 23:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the question, @Sparkle & Fade. FYI, if doesn't look like the Arizona Republic link works. TheWikiToby (talk) 01:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Whoops. Try this or this, that should work. Sparkle and Fade ^talk_edits 02:07, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorry. They're turning up nothing. TheWikiToby (talk) 02:17, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

[4] Maybe this will work? Sparkle and Fade ^talk_edits 02:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response. Yes the link works.

I would personally go with your second option and tweak it a little to say that, "In 2019, Phil Rind recalled that the EP "outsold their first release within two weeks." TheWikiToby (talk) 02:30, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Wikitoby. I'll be sure to use that (or likely omit it) within my next revision of the article. Thanks, Sparkle and Fade ^talk_edits 03:28, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Deceptive claim from RS

I have often encountered deceptive claims from military sources, which are equally often repeated in otherwise reliable news sources. The specific claim itself might just be accurate, if you are prepared to squint at the details. I have already searched for the correct guidelines here (MOS etc), and failed. It's not quite WP:PUFFERY - so where will I find the best description of this phenomenon?

Specifics; U.S. Naval Base Subic Bay

The base was 262 square miles (680 km2), about the size of Singapore.

This is allegedly supported by an article in The New York Times, but access requires an account. However, I am prepared to accept it as a correct quote, so that isn't the issue. The problem is that Singapore is a land mass, whereas Subic Bay is a vast area of sea water. The actual land mass of the Naval Base itself is probably only a fraction of that figure, in the same way that 80% of the area of San Francisco is the bay itself. Even for a Naval base, including the water area is disingenuous (unless you compare it to another similar area, not a land mass like Singapore).

WendlingCrusader (talk) 13:55, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. Firstly, the comparison is illustrating the size of an area, irrespective of what it is made of (land, water, mudflats, whatever), and people find it easier to relate to an area of land than to an expanse of water. Secondly, the water area of a naval base is very much relevant to its function and potential importance. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.223.204 (talk) 18:24, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm thinking of other large bases like Pearl Harbor, Fort Irwin, Camp Pendleton. There is a small amount of acreage that is built out structures. But the entirety of area they are tasked to control is much larger. Because normal status = empty for most of the time should not disqualify it for counting toward the size of the named location. We don't list states/countries by area of developed space. Otherwise. Alaska would be a tiny state. Roughly 150-160K out of 360+million acres is developed. Alegh (talk) 19:25, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

It is good to have any response, but you are not always comparing like-for-like. Fort Irwin NTC is a major training area - the clue is in the first line, although in common use they might label the entire area part of the 'base', all the way up until somebody turns up and asks for directions to 'the base'. At that point they will be shown the small area that is actually Fort Irwin. The aerial image in that article shows it perfectly.

The comparison against Pearl Harbor is much more valid, providing the US Navy has exclusive control of the waters in Subic Bay. Is that the case? I suspect not, because Subic Bay includes several substantial settlements such as Subic, Olongapo City, and Morong.

Then we come to Naval Base San Diego, the world's second largest surface ship naval base. The base is composed of 13 piers stretched over 1,600 acres (650 ha) of land and 326 acres (132 ha) of water. Or approximately 1% of the area of Singapore. One per cent! That is a colossal gap between the exaggerated claim for Subic Bay, and the honesty of San Diego. How can you possibly be comfortable with that?

As for developed areas and Alaska; that's a complete red herring. My argument would be that we don't list the area of Alaska as including 12 miles of territorial waters. And that is what I believe Subic Bay is guilty of.

WendlingCrusader (talk) 01:11, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi, WendlingCrusader, I too didn't check the NYT source article, for the same reason as yourself, but having now looked on Google Earth, it seems to me that the actual water area of Subic Bay is only around 60 square miles, which means that the quoted base area would comprise about 77% land (all very approximate). This suggests that either the description is not misleading, or that the figure is in error, or that there is some further factor involved.

Perhaps, for example, the shore infrastructures were surrounded by a large area used for on-land training. Note that Section 3 of the article includes the paragraph: "The value of Subic Bay as a training area was recognized as the Marines practiced movements in wild and difficult environment. Their building of bridges and roads was also considered to be excellent training."

I agree the matter bears further investigation, but others would be better placed than myself to do so. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195}94.1.223.204 (talk) 04:29, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Sourcing question

When writing an article about a video game, can a digital storefront (eg. Steam, GOG, Epic, PlayStation Store, etc.) be used as a source for basic information like release date, DLCs, the developer, etc.? If so, does it count as a primary or secondary source? The information about these games is uploaded by the developers directly and the store is just a sort of proxy for delivering that information, but these stores (usually) are unaffiliated with the developers so maybe it would count as a secondary source. ApteryxRainWing🐉 | Roar with me!!! | My contributions 20:25, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Wait for reliable sources to cover. This will back the claim. Ahri Boy (talk) 00:09, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

It would count as a primary source. The storefronts are selling the games, which inherently makes them affiliated (also as you said the devs upload the information, so it wouldn't be independent). Industrial Insect (talk) 15:34, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I think it would be best counted as a primary source, because it's directly from the source & not based on another document. It wouldn't be independent, either. But assuming the release date/etc. isn't controversial and the storefront is reputable I don't see why it would be as good a source as the developer's website. So, I'd say yes. Make sure to note the date you accessed it and save it on the Internet Archive, though, because these things change. Mrfoogles (talk) 04:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Also noting the the reliable sources noticeboard is a good place for questions like this. Mrfoogles (talk) 04:50, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Etiquette regarding removal of extensive needless detail

Hi, I am wondering if there are any specific etiquette or pitfalls I should be aware of as I go about trying to improve an article like Monk parakeet. I understand that it's acceptable to edit boldly, but in this case what I'd like to do is start chopping out a lot of what I consider to be needless detail, for example a population estimate of 5277 parakeets in Barcelona in 2015. It seems like taking out something that someone thought was interesting is a little more aggressive than fixing typos or adding to an article.

One thing I was particularly unsure of: should I start a new topic on the discussion page for the article? I can be civil but it comes down to being pretty blunt about the fact that I think the article is badly organized and overemphasizes one particular aspect of the subject. Discuss or just go after it?

I have found some general guidelines that bear on this. (Wikipedia is not a collection of statistics, it is more than a collection of facts, etc.) I'm just wondering if there is more I should be aware of or if I am being too delicate. Philly6097 (talk) 23:00, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi, @Philly6097. I'm all for cutting out cruft from articles. The question, I suppose is, whether you think anybody is going to object. If you don't think anybody is, then go ahead and be bold. If you think they might, then you still have the choice of whether to be bold and see if you're reverted, or to open a discussion first. It looks as if the person who has contributed most to the "Invasive Species" section recently is DuckWrangler97, so that would be ping in a discussion if you decide to do that. ColinFine (talk) 23:21, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

@Philly6097 We do encourage the removal of WP:TRIVIA from articles. But, yes, it can be tricky. It's important to be aware of possible reasons why such figures were included in the first place. The context here is about this being an Invasive Non Native Species (INNS), so I found the figures very informative to show the spread of this taxon around parts of the Europe and elsewhere. That said, I would go for generalisation rather than completely excising it. Thus, I might change Madrid has the greatest population of monk parakeets in Europe, with 10,800 parakeets as of June 2015. A population estimate model projected the population of monk parakeets in Barcelona to be 5277 in 2015 to something like: Madrid has the greatest population of monk parakeets in Europe, with 10,800 parakeets as of June 2015, whilst Barcelona's population was estimated to be well over 5,000 at the same point in time. Some of the minor detail about which spots the birds occur in within one particular city do seem like WP:TRIVIA, and are quite unnecessary. But don't lose the elements that show a currently changing situation. Hope this helps. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:43, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Far too much detail and referencing to invasive locations, especially for those which were only in brief existance. And too many images!! David notMD (talk) 06:10, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Search ends at Badtitle/Message

When I go to a page that does not exist, such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Test132 and then click on "You can also search for an existing article.", it forwards me to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=Badtitle%2FMessage&title=Special:Search&ns0=1, searching for "Badtitle/Message". I don't understand, why. Is that a bug? Can somebody help? --Nocemath (talk) 15:10, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @Nocemath. I'm not seeing that message at all: I see ' The page "Test132" does not exist. You can click on "Test132" to create the page directly, or you may create a draft and submit it for review. '

What kind of device, and what skin, are you using? ColinFine (talk) 15:22, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

As I just created the account, I use the standard settings on a conventional Windows notebook with Firefox. The site states:

   The article that you're looking for doesn't exist.
   
   You can create it as a draft, but...
   
   Before you create an article, you should read this guide.
   New to Wikipedia? See the contributing to Wikipedia page for everything you need to know to get started.
   Need interactive help? You can ask questions at the Teahouse, help desk or through live chat.
   You can also search for an existing article.

--Nocemath (talk) 15:59, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

In that case, I'm afraid I don't know, @Nocemath. For questions about the user interface (which I think this question is), you may get a better answer if you ask at WP:VPT. ColinFine (talk) 17:16, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

PrimeHunter, you've answered a similar Teahouse question about two weeks ago. Any updates? Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 19:12, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

@Nocemath: The problem is only seen by accounts which are not autoconfirmed. I reported it at phab:T381822 which was marked as resolved today but the fix hasn't been deployed yet. It may happen Thursday with mw:MediaWiki 1.44/wmf.8. Otherwise your account will be autoconfirmed Friday. To avoid confusion I have temporarily changed the link to just go to Special:Search without a wrong prefilled search.[5] PrimeHunter (talk) 20:22, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank all of you, good to know this is an actual error that will be fixed some day (and I'm not so stupid). --Nocemath (talk) 07:45, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Draft:The Hong Kong media controversy

Hello, our English articles are all translated from Chinese articles, but the source information in the Chinese articles is not reliable. Moreover, this article was published in 2015. It may be very difficult to find reliable source information now. How can we solve this problem? CHEN HEBING (talk) 09:34, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi @CHEN HEBING: simple answer is, you need to find better sources. (Sorry if that sounds like a truism, but that's what it boils down to.)

Each language version of Wikipedia is a completely separate project with their own policies and requirements. The English-language one has stricter referencing and notability standards than any other version (that I'm aware of at least), therefore it often happens when translating from other language versions that the referencing isn't enough to be accepted here.

My advice when looking to translate anything is to first check if the sources cited in the original article are enough for our requirements. If not, then do some research to find more and/or better ones. And if you can't, then don't bother even starting to translate, as your effort may well be wasted. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Need help with Littlemore Rugby Club

I have taken over the arduous task of creating a wiki page for my local rugby club. Could anyone assist? MrSirZA (talk) 10:21, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @MrSirZA, and welcome to the Teahouse.

I'm afraid this answer is probably not going to be what you want to hear.

My very strong advice is to give up. "Creating a page or your local rugby club" is not a task that is in the gift of your club - in fact you (and your fellow members) are collectively the least appropriate people to work on such an article, because of your conflict of interest - not forbidden, but discouraged.

More fundamentally, the chances that a local Rugby Club meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability are remote, and if it doesn't then any attempt to write an article will fail.

A Wikipedia article should be a summary of what independent reliable sources have said about a subject, and very little else. Unless you can find several such sources (see WP:42) there is nothing you can put in an article. Sorry. ColinFine (talk) 10:56, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Medals

I am making an article Draft:Nikolaos Stamatonikolos and i don't know how to add his medals. one silver and one bronze so if anyone can help, it would be thankful

Note i am using the VisualEditor. 1timeuse75 (talk) 12:13, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Can you show to us a similar article in which medals are mentionned ?

If you show me that. I could maybe help you but I think you should use "code editor" to do it. I can be wrong. Anatole-berthe (talk) 09:19, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Alejandro Parada 1timeuse75 (talk) 09:52, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Read the code of the article with the editor. The answer is certainly inside. Do you have a problem to read it ? Anatole-berthe (talk) 10:15, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

okay 1timeuse75 (talk) 13:08, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

ok i fixed it. 1timeuse75 (talk) 13:21, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Did you read the code to understand how to do this ? Anatole-berthe (talk) 23:59, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

yes 1timeuse75 (talk) 12:06, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

AIR Media-Tech

Hello. I need help with an article about the company AIR Media-Tech. I tried to create this article earlier, but the moderation considered it too promotional. Now I’ve rewritten it and tried to make it more neutral. Could I get feedback on it? What are the chances of publication, and is there anything else I need to change? Thank you very much in advance for your help! Draft:AIR Media-Tech Yuliya Kravchenko 2018 (talk) 10:49, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @Yuliya Kravchenko 2018, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid you are having an experience which is very common among new editors who plunge into the challenging task of creating a new article before spending time learning how Wikipedia works. (I'm aware that you created your account six years ago, but you don't seem to have made any edits until recently).

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.

It is tiresome evaluating your sources, because you have presented them as bare URLs, which means that the useful information - publication, date, title - are not immediately apparent: please see WP:REFB. But I can see straight away that several are not appropriate: Crunchbase is not regarded as a reliable source, which means it should never be cited (see WP:CRUNCHBASE; anything from newswire, (or elsewhere if based on press releases) is of very limited value, because it is not independent.

A Wikipedia article should be a summary of what independent commentators have published about a subject, and very little else. 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.

Please see WP:42 for a discussion of the criteria that most cited sources should meet. ColinFine (talk) 14:01, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much for such an expansive answer! In fact, I have two articles on Wikipedia (in Russian and Ukrainian) and they were written from scratch, just never published articles in English. Maybe that’s why I look like a new author :) Please tell me, can I try again to upload the article I will rewrite based on these rules? And do I have to make edits to other articles before publishing this one? Or is it more a desire than a rule? Yuliya Kravchenko 2018 (talk) 12:30, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Publishing, after drafting

It had been some years since I'd started an article from scratch, and my later WR contributions have been additions of information, wording improvements, discussions on talk pages (etc) — pertaining to existing articles. Publishing procedures have changed.

Over six weeks or so, I developed a draft of a new article. Partway through, I'd received a Comment saying that the tone needed to be more flat and dry. So I worked toward that. In my latest drafts, I had shortened the article as well. This is what I'd like to publish:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Raymond_(publisher)&oldid=1262549293

How should I go about it? Advice will be much appreciated.Joel Russ (talk) 01:23, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @Joel Russ. Since you have moved it to main space, there is nothing you need to do to it. You can carry on improving it, as can anybody else.

However, I think you should work at improving your sources. I'm not sure what ref 10 ("The introduction to "The Briarpatch Book"") is, but I'm pretty sure that it is not a reliable source, and so, should not be cited, period. The "History of the Briarpatch" is not published by the Wayback machine, but is a self-published source by the Briarpatch community, and the entry should say this (see Template:cite web#Using "archive-url" and "archive-date" (and optionally "url-status") for webpages that have been archived). As far as I can see, you have no independent sources for the existence of Briarpatch, so I question whether it is sufficiently notable to be included in an article about Raymond.

The other thing that I suggest you do is to add him to the disambiguation page Richard Raymond. ColinFine (talk) 13:45, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

First, thanks so much for your reply. As to my reference #10, I'd like to leave it in place for the time being, if possible. The writer (Ms Bedi) directly copied a quote from the book. A problem I've faced is that, locally, I can't get my hands on a copy of Michael Phillips' The Birarpatch Book (ISBN10: 0912078634). True, my issue would be resolved if I can purchase a copy from a used-book seller.

Independent sources have certainly attested to the existence of the Briatpatch Network (established to support small businesses), e.g. Kirk's book, also page 306 of The Next Whole Earth Catalog, and elsewhere.

Your replacement contents web-template contents for reference #12 is a very helpful item. So thanks for that, and for the generosity of your entire response.Joel Russ (talk) 17:49, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Joel Russ, the book is available in over 100 libraries], perhaps one near you. In addition, a full-text version of the book is available for loan at the Internet archive Open Library collection; I just signed it out (and then returned it) and full access was instantaneous. You may have to create a (free) IA account before you can borrow it. Mathglot (talk) 09:53, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Mathglot. Joel Russ (talk) 14:57, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Adding images

I am updating Nat X Ross page. He has no photo or photos. I would like to add a headshot and a photo of his biking. How might I go about that if I do not have photo taken by myself. Nat X Ross Keelahgrif (talk) 23:42, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

@Keelahgrif You can only upload an image to Wikimedia Commons if you can find one which is clearly and explicitly marked as available for re-use for commercial purposes. I might look on Flickr, or search with a tool which allows you to select for Creative Commons images (but a quick check didn't reveal anything useful). So, you are stuck, really, unless you find images that someone has posted and persuade them to change the licensing. I've done this once or twice with copyrighted images on Flickr where a personal approach to the photographer has resulted in them changing the default licence they first posted it under. But we do take copyright very seriously here, so please don't try to upload an image you can't clearly prove is properly licenced. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:53, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

@Keelahgrif Before you upload an image to Wikimedia Commons (the site that hosts creative commons images for Wikipedia), you need to verify that the image is liscenced under a Creative Commons Sharealike (CC-BY-SA) liscense. If it is listed under CC-BY-NC or only permitted for use on Wikipedia, do not upload it. If it does not have a Creative Commons license, then it is presumed copyrighted. You can attempt to upload it On Wikipedia instead of Commons under a Fair use rationale in accordance to Wikipedia's non-free content policy. If you do not know what fair use is, see Fair use. I hope this helps, Sparkle and Fade ^talk_edits 23:58, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

@Keelahgrif Note that the non-free policy does not allow for upload of images of living people: see WP:FREER. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:16, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Guru Software page

Hi, I am trying to write a Wikipedia page for Guru (getguru.com), a knowledge management software company. We are quite large and larger than many others that have Wikipedia pages below but we keep getting denied for being "run of the mill". We've been denied 4 times now with multiple edits over 9 months and it's becoming a bit frustrating because there isn't any constructive feedback given, especially relative to smaller competitors that already have "ROTM" Wikipedia pages and are referenced in the Knowledge Mgmt Software Wikipedia page (Knowledge management software)

Could someone help me with the next iteration so we know what "good" looks like for something like this? we are kind of stuck and willing to adjust as needed. Draft:Guru (software company)

Others with pages...

Bloomfire

EGain

Elium

Confluence (software) Dennissevilla (talk) 16:34, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

An important thing to understand is that Wikipedia is a work in progress; just because an article is on Wikipedia, does not mean it should be on Wikipedia. It's possible that each of the articles you mentioned should be deleted (I don't know; I haven't checked). It's also possible that your company simply does not meet notability criteria at this time, despite being successful and influential: 'notability' is a function of external independent coverage. The extent to which a topic has been noted. This is the problem with having a conflict of interest (which we do appreciate your mentioning, thank you): you are incentivized to believe that your own company meets notability criteria, because you equate 'being on wikipedia' with 'greater publicity' and, consequently, with 'your own financial success'. DS (talk) 17:50, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Retrieving deleted article made by sockpuppet user

Hello, a while ago I found out about the Recession pop article, and I believe it was well written and should stay on the project. However, as it was written by a confirmed sockpuppet, it recently got deleted. Is there any way for an admin to restore the article Pyraminxsolver (talk) 07:44, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Also is there anything regarding Wikipedia policy on restoring a sockpuppet edit if another person regards it as a reasonable and quality contribution? Pyraminxsolver (talk) 07:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

@Pyraminxsolver: I think these things are kind of covered in WP:REVERTBAN. If you're WP:HERE and feel recreating the deleted article would be to the benefit of Wikipedia, you can your explain your intentions to the administrator who deleted the article and see what they have to say. They might restore it for you themselves. The same applies to individual edits made by blocked/banned accounts. You should understand though that trying to do so things might make others suspicious and they might assume the worst. So, you should make it clear that you're not WP:PROXYING and be able to clearly show how whatever you want to recreate is in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:22, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

@Pyraminxsolver:, how would you feel about being given a list of the sources used in that deleted article, so that you can rewrite a new version from scratch? DS (talk) 17:53, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Nutrality

what would happen if something like this happened

https://xkcd.com/545/ 🐢 (talk) 22:30, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @Saarabout. See WP:NOTNEWS. Until the event had been written about substantially in independent reliable places it could not be the subject of an article - and not necessarily even then. ColinFine (talk) 22:47, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

???

I am confused with this error in references. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madagascar_banana Laffuble (talk) 22:42, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Laffuble, I removed the extraneous undefined reference tag that caused the error. Cullen328 (talk) 22:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Thankyou. Laffuble (talk) 22:57, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Johannes Spieß page

Greetings. A few weeks ago I created and edited the page in caption. I'm quite happy with the result. However, I have noticed there is no caption about the subject when typing the page name on the search box. How can I add a caption? Benzekre (talk) 19:59, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi Benzekre. See Template:Short description. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:21, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Benzekre. In its current form, Johannes Spieß fails to establish that he is a notable person. You have a database listing without prose and a link to a book that he wrote. What is required are several references to reliable sources completely independent of Spieß that devote significant coverage to Spieß. Cullen328 (talk) 00:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Possible Erroneous Conflation

I think I found an issue with the Operation Easy Chair article, which I discuss here. Can anyone give me feedback on my proposed changes? I'm a new editor, and I didn't want to proceed without a second opinion. Xanjaxn (talk) 14:40, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

And to be clear, my talk section is this one. Xanjaxn (talk) 14:41, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Xanjaxn. I think that both the development of the espionage device and its placement can be covered in a single article without any policy problems. A reader interested in the first will certainly be interested in the second, and vice versa. Plus, it is a very short article and we normally only split very long articles. Cullen328 (talk) 02:01, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Are maps reliable sources

So I just came across the article Myene, Myanmar, and the only sources it has are from Google and Bing maps respectively. Are both of these reliable sources, and furthermore, are maps in general considered to by reliable sources? RedactedHumanoid (talk) 23:51, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

@RedactedHumanoid Maps can, on the one hand, be very reliable sources. However, they can also be used as tools to promote a particular viewpoint. A good example would be some recently pubished maps showing Crimea to be part of Russia, not Ukraine; or the ownership dispute of the summit of Mont Blanc as perceived differently by the French and the Italians.

Google and Bing are prone to errors, although in the example you cite I would ask what grounds you might have for disbelieving the citation supporting this article, per WP:NGEO? Have you tried looking for any others to confirm that this place exists? (Hint: it does). Regards,

apsmcan contain incredibly valuable information, unobtainable elsewhere. Yet, they can also be error prone. I suspect that in the article you cite there would be little dispute Nick Moyes (talk) 00:10, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't disbelieving the town's existence, seeing that its only sources were maps just prompted me to wonder if maps are reliable sources. RedactedHumanoid (talk) 01:09, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

RedactedHumanoid, sometimes maps can be reliable and sometimes they aren't. In this case, clicking the links provided takes the reader to the Wikipedia articles about the map sites, rather than to actual maps of Myene. WP:NGEO says Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. As anyone familar with maps knows, a dot and a name on a map does not mean that the place is a populated, legally recognized place. So, it would be best to find some Myanmar government document or other reliable source that verifies that Myene is a legally recognized place. Cullen328 (talk) 01:21, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I had to chuckle as, having Googled "Myene", some ten minutes later Booking.com sent me an email listing a whole load of hotels it thought I might like to stay at there! Nick Moyes (talk) 01:58, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Were any of them named "Hilbert's"? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.223.204 (talk) 02:09, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

LOL RedactedHumanoid (talk) 02:55, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Genealogy cruft

Nick Moyes, on the matter of cruft, how about the kind exemplified within the article Philip Nichols (diplomat)? It's ostensibly about somebody who was an ambassador to Czechoslovakia at a very volatile and decisive time in that nation's history. (This is how I encountered his name.) But it says very little about that, instead divulging to the reader such nuggets as who his younger sister's husband's sister was and who his daughter's husband's father and (maternal) grandmother were. -- Hoary (talk) 00:24, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Does not belong as a subsection to the parrot query. David notMD (talk) 06:08, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Hoary, I agree that the material about Nichols' less immediate relatives is not very useful*, although I'd hesitate to cut all of it, but of course it has no bearing on showing the subject's notability, and ignoring that material I'm not sure that the remainder, actually about Nichols, contains enough to justify an article. He seems to have been just another competent diplomat, doing his job, with no outstanding achievements (or blunders).

(* I had to double check that he was not part of the Middleton family sphere so over-inserted by a certain Australian-based contributor.)

{The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.223.204 (talk) 16:46, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

@Hoary I'm not sure there's any comparison, is there? One article is attempting (albeit a tad verbosely) to use data in an encyclopaedic manner to demonstrate the expansion of a non-native and potentially harmful species around various continents during the 21st century (and within quite a detailed article); whilst the other is about a UK ambassador and knight of the realm - and mentions a load of notable relatives in passsing - all within a fairly perfunctory article that could merit some expanding. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:08, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

David notMD, one number formerly known as another, and Nick Moyes: Both articles arguably raise questions about superfluity. I'd informally rate the Monk parakeet article a lot higher than that about Nichols, because it's about an indubitably encyclopedia-worthy subject, because it keeps to that subject instead of wandering off elsewhere (e.g. among the members of the related and attractively-named genus Hapalopsittaca), and because, to me at least, it's far more interesting. Nichols came to my attention as the writer, or anyway the signatory, of a foreword to a handsome book whose other foreword is by no less a figure than Jan Masaryk. My uninformed guess is that hours of research in a first-rate library would demonstrate Nichols' encyclopedia-worthiness; but there are only so many hours in the week and years in my lifespan, so I'm not offering to try. (And if anyone were to send the Nichols article to AfD, I wouldn't object.) Meanwhile, I remain puzzled by en:Wikipedia's appetite for (Social Register–inspired?) genealogical trivia. -- Hoary (talk) 23:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

...and therein lies the problem. People here aren't willing to spend hours in a library confirming that a topic is notable. So, some lazy person simply AfDs it, and it goes in the bin and that person thinks they're doing a really good job. Pathetic. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:42, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Nick Moyes, I can imagine that there have been clearcut examples of the sequence (i) moderate amount of effort was made to show that the subject of a junk article was notable, but failed to show it; (ii) article was taken to AfD; (iii) nobody was able to show notability; (iv) article was deleted; (v) somebody pored through codices, newsprint, microfilm, microfiche, DVD-ROM or whatever, and found good material; (vi) whether via AfC or directly, a [lowercase] good article on the same subject was made, clearly demonstrating the notability of the subject to the satisfaction of the admin who'd deleted its predecessor and to virtually all reasonably-minded Wikipedians. But if there have indeed been such cases, were they hindered by the deletions? -- Hoary (talk) 00:30, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

@Hoary I would say, YES.

Good content on a notable topic would have been deleted for quite some time until someone (if we're very lucky) finally goes to the effort of researching and re-creating it. But maybe some newbie editor (or keen deletionist) feels happy they've got rid of some sh*tty article. Instead I wish they'd put some genuine effort into WP:BEFORE, or finding something better to do. That's not to say that poor article's shouldn't be deleted; it's just that too much laziness and very little effort goes into deletions, and not enough effort goes into article improvement and retention. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:38, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

But Nick Moyes, can you come up with an example or three of the sequence: (i) Junk article deleted at AfD because of lack of notability (as gauged by the paucity of worthwhile hits from Google, Google Books, etc); (ii) Some user puts serious time and effort into library research into that article's subject; (iii) Said user releases a new article (whether via AfC or directly); (iv) Aside perhaps from the occasional crank or party-pooper, all acknowledge the notability of the subject and the quality of the article? (The creator of the newer article may have created it in anger at the earlier deletion, or despite depression caused by the earlier deletion, or in complete ignorance of the earlier article and its deletion.) Or, more pertinently, an example of: (i) [As previous]; (ii) Good reason to think that good material is in research libraries, awaiting somebody with ample resources of time and effort to spare; (iii) Good reason to think that there is a user who'd fit the bill, but that this person was so dismayed by the earlier deletion that they decided not to bother? I tend to think that the great number of junk articles encourages the addition of more junk articles; and that today's editors are likely to bristle at the seeming message "You're too late. If only you'd perpetrated this back in 2010 or so, it would have been accepted. OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The other stuff is no better than what you're trying to add, you say? True, but none of us can be bothered to investigate. And so yes: Old junk, good; new junk, bad." -- Hoary (talk) 02:24, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorry - too much of a wall of words for this time of night. And, no, I'm not going to jump through hoops just to please you, sorry. I remian of my view that too many people are too quick to delete content and many who do don't always have the skills to do WP:BEFORE or undertake proper research. It does, however, give them a quick fix and a warm feeling, so that's OK, isn't it? G'night. Nick Moyes (talk) 02:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

A wise decision, Sir! -- Hoary (talk) 07:12, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Request for Feedback on Draft: Dr. Toula Gordillo

Dear Wikipedia Editors, I hope this message finds you well. I am seeking guidance on improving the draft article I submitted about Dr. Toula Gordillo, a clinical psychologist, author, and researcher. You can view the draft here: [6]. The feedback I received from an editor included the following comment: “No evidence of notability, and very poorly referenced.” I want to ensure that the article meets Wikipedia's notability and content guidelines, and I would appreciate your expert advice on how to address these concerns. Specifically: Notability: What additional evidence or sources should I include to establish Dr. Gordillo's notability? Are there particular types of achievements or recognitions that would better meet Wikipedia’s guidelines? References: I have attempted to use reliable and verifiable sources, but it seems they may not be sufficient. Could you suggest how to strengthen the references or identify any gaps in the current citations? General Improvements: Are there other significant issues in the draft, such as tone, structure, or content, that I should address? I have disclosed my potential conflict of interest (COI) and my intention is to create a balanced and encyclopedic article. I’m committed to improving the draft and learning from the process to ensure it aligns with Wikipedia's standards. Your feedback and guidance would be invaluable in helping me improve this draft. Thank you for your time and expertise. Best regards, Syed Tayyab SyedTayyab560 (talk) 18:24, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the question, @SyedTayyab560. I am unable to fully answer your question at the moment, but I will direct you to our guideline for the notability of academics, WP:PROF. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 18:29, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, SyedTayyab560. This is about Draft:Toula Gordillo. The thing that I saw immediately is that there are five "failed verification" tags and those must be resolved because Verifiability is a mandatory core content policy. When someone clicks on a link in one of your references, it must take them to a reliable source that explicitly verifies that content. Then I noticed the unreferenced assertion Her father’s storytelling and her mother’s dedication to music education shaped her interest in narrative-based therapies. That also fails verifiability and must be corrected. You have references to two Amazon bookselling pages, which are of no value and can be considered as spamming. Amazon will create a page for any book that they can make money off of. Her claim to notability seems to be creating the trademarked concept "Story Image Therapy". When I check Google Books and Google Scholar, I find no discussion of this topic except by Gordillo herself. Is it somehow connected to Narrative therapy which was also developed in Australia? An acceptable Wikipedia biography of Gordillo would summarize the significant coverage that reliable sources completely independent of Gordillo devote to Gordillo and her work. What she says about herself and her theories has very little place in an article about her. Cullen328 (talk) 23:56, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Dear Cullen328,

Thank you for your thorough feedback on the draft for Toula Gordillo. I appreciate the time you’ve taken to highlight the issues and provide clear suggestions for improvement.

I understand the importance of verifiability and will address the "failed verification" tags by reviewing all the references to ensure they explicitly support the claims made in the draft. I’ll also remove the unreferenced assertion about her parents' influence and work to replace unreliable citations, such as the Amazon links, with more credible, independent sources.

Regarding her claim to notability, I see your point about needing significant coverage from reliable sources independent of Dr. Gordillo. I will research further to find academic discussions, media coverage, or other reputable sources that demonstrate her contributions and align with Wikipedia's notability standards.

Additionally, I will revise the draft to focus on summarizing significant coverage of her work as presented in independent sources, minimizing content that relies on her self-published material or theories.

If you have any further suggestions or guidance, I would be grateful for your input. Thank you again for your time and constructive feedback.

Kind regards,

Syed Tayyab SyedTayyab560 (talk) 09:55, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

من كاتب عن مماليك العراق

اريد ان اعرف من كتب عن مماليك العراق الباشا انا من سلالة عمرباشا ابن احمد باشا ابن حسن باشا .. حيث ان عمرباشا لم يمت بل هرب لدمشق والكاتب هنا كتب انه قتل فهل لي ان اعرف من الكاتب وشكرا Rasha Omar basha (talk) 01:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Machine translation of the above:I want to know who wrote about the Mamluks of Iraq, Pasha. I am from the lineage of Omar Pasha, son of Ahmed Pasha, son of Hassan Pasha. Omar Pasha did not die, but fled to Damascus, and the writer here wrote that he was killed. Can I know who the writer is? Thank you. El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 01:48, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

@Rasha Omar basha Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. No single person has contributed to Mamluk dynasty (Iraq). In fact, 126 different editors have helped create it. We do have this tool to show who has contributed most to any given article, though it doesn't not help you understand who has made the most recent edits to it. For that information, you should visit the 'View History' tab (see here). As this is English Wikipedia, please only post questions in English, please. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:54, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

The only mention of an Omar Pasha is Mamluk dynasty (Iraq)#Omar Pasha (1762–1776), but it does not saythat he was killed, just replaced. Meters (talk) 01:58, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

@Rasha Omar basha, I wonder if you are asking about an article on Arabic Wikipedia, perhaps ar:مماليك العراق? We cannot give you any useful information about that here, since this is English Wikipedia. Try asking at ar:ويكيبيديا:بوابة المشاركة ColinFine (talk) 10:10, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Determining consensus

When there is just one person on the talk page who disagrees with an edit. How many people have to agree with it, for there to be a consensus? Tinynanorobots (talk) 10:21, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Tinynanorobots: there's no hard number or percentage, it's more nuanced than that. You may want to read through WP:CONSENSUS, if you haven't yet done so. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:35, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I have read WP:Consensus, it wasn't helpful. The BRD has reached its discussion phase, but pretty much everything has been said. One user says that the edit is against policy and shows no sign of changing opinion, but no one else is appearing to buy his argument. What can I do? Tinynanorobots (talk) 10:54, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

If there are only two people in the discussion, try WP:3O. More generally, look at WP:DR. ColinFine (talk) 13:01, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Request a Block

I wrote this when I was fighting vandalism, but even though a moderator has resolved it, I need to know for the next time this happens... how do I request a block on a user? Basically, when the person has vandalized like 5 times and won't stop, how am I supposed to alert a moderator to block them? Should I ping a mod? Should I just wait for a mod to come across the profile? Help! Ali Beary _{(talk2me!) (stalk me?!)} 13:40, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Vandalism may be reported to WP:AIV. 331dot (talk) 13:41, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

331dot, great, thank you. Funny thing... you were the one who blocked the user I initially wrote this for! Thanks for your help. Ali Beary _{(talk2me!) (stalk me?!)} 13:43, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

@Ali Beary You're also well within the requirements for WP:TWINKLE, you can warn people and report them if necessary far quicker using it. Well worth picking up if you plan to continue dealing with vandals. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 15:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

CommissarDoggo, I appreciate it, but I do use Twinkle. I was sending several vandalism warnings and they wouldn't stop. However, how do I report a user with Twinkle? I only know how to work the Welc and Warn sections really... what section is the report one in? Ali Beary _{(talk2me!) (stalk me?!)} 15:38, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

@Ali Beary Oh whoops, hadn't seen this message so sorry for the late reply, you click on ARV in the Twinkle drop down. In that section you can choose which board you want to post the report to, sockpuppets/sockpuppeteers, AIV, edit warring and usernames. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 16:29, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Ali Beary, Wikipedia has nobody designated a "moderator". Do you perhaps mean "administrator"? There's no policing of the English language (so you're free to call administrators "moderators" or indeed "knights who say 'ni'" if you wish), but calling administrators "moderators" suggests that they have a role that they don't have, and perhaps adds to confusion about them. -- Hoary (talk) 23:36, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Hoary uh... 'moderator' is basically just another term for 'administrator'. Also, I'm on Discord a lot, so they use 'moderator' more there. Sorry I say stuff differently... I guess... but it didn't seem to confuse anyone else to replied to this thread..? Ali Beary _{(talk2me!) (stalk me?!)} 12:44, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

User:Ali Beary, There is no 'moderator' here. Discord is one thing, and Wikipedia is another. What you are used to calling a 'moderator' is called an 'administrator' here. At Twitch and YouTube, a moderator is a very limited type of thing for live streams mostly. On FB and Reddit, they are assigned to specific groups or conversations, Twitter and Instagram don't have a role like that called a moderator (although Twitter has paid content moderators but that's something else). The role you are used to thinking of as a 'moderator' on Discord is called an 'administrator' here; you might as well get used to it. You can find more terms at the Wikipedia:Glossary. Mathglot (talk) 07:13, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Please let me talk in my own way, Mathglot. Ali Beary (talk) 13:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Specific articles take a long time to load edit history

Does anyone else notice how some articles take forever to load their edit histories? Does that mean there have been a lot of edits and/or an edit war? An article affected by this phenomena that really annoys me (as someone who is currently giving it a major overhaul) is the Wings of Fire article. It's not a problem with my device or WiFi, the edit histories take exceptionally long times to load no matter my connection strength or PC power. ApteryxRainWing🐉 | Roar with me!!! | My contributions 20:36, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Unless this is a setting that can be changed and you've done so, loading the edit history for any page only initially shows the latest 50 edits, so I don't see how the total number of edits to an article being large would have any impact on the load time for the edit history. My instinct would be that this is an issue at your end, so I wonder how you know that it's not a connection speed issue? Cordless Larry (talk) 21:10, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

i know it isnt a connection issue because I have that problem on all three of my devices (personal PC, phone, school chromebook) on all three of my connections (school wifi, home wifi and mobile data). My PC is pretty beefy and I have gigabit internet, but I have the same problem that I have on my school chromebook and shitty 50mbps school wifi ApteryxRainWing🐉 | Roar with me!!! | My contributions 21:13, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I looked at the history page of Wings of Fire (novel series) on my phone and on my computer and in both cases it loaded in less than 2 seconds. Perhaps you have some gadget enabled that is making it take longer for you? CodeTalker (talk) 22:29, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Loaded the history page for that article. Took ~1-2 seconds for me. One anecdotal data point that is probably useless in troubleshooting the problem you're seeing.

By default, loads on the newest 50 edits. So, not expecting that volume of activity would have any bearing. Alegh (talk) 22:44, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

yeah I give up, maybe it's just weird for me for no reason ApteryxRainWing🐉 | Roar with me!!! | My contributions 22:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Even when I ask it to list the most recent 500 edits, about a second. David notMD (talk) 13:07, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I timed it and for me on all of my devices and connections, it takes on average eight seconds. Could it have something to do with the fact that like 85% of the edits on that page in the last three months were made by me? ApteryxRainWing🐉 | Roar with me!!! | My contributions 13:09, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

@User:ApteryxRainWing That might be the case if you use some cascading style sheet which is converting your username in the edit history into something fancy. Also, it may be worth seeing whether using different skins makes any difference. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Draft: May-Li Khoe

I’m currently working on this page, Draft:May-Li Khoe, as part of a project for my Digital Technology course at LIUC University, and it will be evaluated. The page needs to be approved by December 28, ideally with a very high B rating. I was wondering if you could offer some advice on how to further improve the article to increase its chances of receiving a high rating. If you have any suggestions on refining it or if you could assist with the approval process, I would be very grateful. Thanks again for your assistance! LIUCRiccardo10 (talk) 20:48, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't know what advice to give you (unless another editor does give) since your draft is already pretty good. However, this is what you should keep in mind. Drafts will be reviewed by AFC reviewers in a random order. That means that your draft may not be accepted before December 28. But hopefully, for you, it does. That's all I can say to you. Hope it helps. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 20:54, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Ivebeenhacked,

Thank you so much for your helpful advice and for taking the time to review my draft. I appreciate the insight about the review process and will keep in mind that the timing can vary. Hopefully, it will be reviewed sooner rather than later!

Thanks again for your support. It really helps to have this perspective as I move forward.

Best regards LIUCRiccardo10 (talk) 08:12, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

You're welcome. If you have further questions to ask, feel free to ask me or the editors at the Teahouse. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 14:21, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @LIUCRiccardo10, and welcome to the Teahouse. The first thing I will say is that making academic depdend on getting an article accepted at Wikipedia is a thoroughly bad idea, because you have no control over how long it will take to be reviewed: drafts are not reviewed in any particular order, but just as the volunteer reviewers choose to get to them. Whoever set this as part of your coursework should take a careful look at WP:EDUP

I am not a reviewer; but looking at your draft, in my opinon, there are far too many sources which are either not reliable (eg linkedin, sprout.place), not independent (eg MIT, all the patents), or barely mention Khoe (sprout-place again, the Rene Ritchie piece). There might be enough reliable, independent sources with significant coverage of Khoe to establish that she meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability, but I'm not prepared to wade through looking for them.

An article should be almost entirely a summary of what such sources (see WP:42) say about the subject, and very little else. Sources which do not mention the subject of the article are nearly always a waste of time. Sources which are not independent may be used to verify a limited amount of uncontroversial factual data (such as places and dates). But if you can't find an independent sources that talks about (for example) Sprout, why is it significant enough to get a mention in an article about Khoe? ColinFine (talk) 22:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

@LIUCRiccardo10 I completely agree with this, and would add that the Apple and Microsoft logos are really not necessary - just use a wikilink to the company names. You may think it makes the page look pretty, but it adds nothing of encyclopaedic value; just as a skyline view of Vancouver would not be needed to illustrate the statement that she once lived there. Also: sub-headings should always be written in sentence case, so you could remove the unnecessary capitalisation.

Feel free to show this reply to your tutor and tell them that we regard it as not only unreasonable but also unfair to have student's work assessed by whether or not our volunteer team have regarded their work acceptable, and to some artificial deadline that they have set. A course tutor should be sufficiently skilled in the workings of Wikipedia to be able to assess students work for themselves, based purely upon a Draft article or sandbox page! If they aren't, then they should not be setting you these tasks. It smacks of incompetence. I'm sorry you have all been put in this invidious position by your tutor - but you appear to made a pretty reasonable attempt thus far. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

The matter of sentence case for headings is so trivial that I fixed the matter myself. The Apple and Microsoft logos are conspicuously superfluous here; please get rid of them. Aside from those (I suppose) differences of emphasis, I warmly agree with Nick Moyes in his comment above. Nick's "we" (in "we regard it as...") isn't a grand way of referring to himself; instead, it probably covers most people who've been editing Wikipedia for some time and who've given some thought to the matter, and it most definitely includes me. -- Hoary (talk) 00:08, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Nick Moyes and @Hoary,

Thank you both for your constructive feedback and for taking the time to help me refine my draft. I completely agree with your points about the logos—I'll remove them and rely on wikilinks to the company names instead. And thank you for correcting the sub-headings as well; I’ll make sure to follow sentence case going forward.

I also appreciate the advice regarding my tutor's expectations. It’s reassuring to hear your perspective, and I’ll certainly pass on your comments to them.

Thanks again for your support and for helping me improve the article! LIUCRiccardo10 (talk) 08:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi @ColinFine,

Thank you for the warm welcome and for your thoughtful advice. I really appreciate your feedback on my draft, especially your points about the reliability of sources and the importance of independent coverage. I'll definitely revisit the sources and make sure I focus on those that provide significant, independent coverage of Khoe.

I also take your advice about the academic use of Wikipedia seriously and will keep in mind the unpredictable nature of the review process moving forward.

Thanks again for taking the time to help me improve my draft!

Best regards LIUCRiccardo10 (talk) 08:15, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Notified the Education noticeboard and Women in Red WikiProject. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 22:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Deleted logos and other stuff that would have contributed to the draft being Declined. Still needs work and references. P.S. There is no such thing as a "high" B rating. David notMD (talk) 06:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

The deletions were beneficial. But, David notMD, I don't see how the deleted material "would have contributed to the draft being Declined". To be accepted, a draft doesn't have to be "good"; it must merely seem likely to survive AfD. I'm pretty sure that it would do so now. I could accept it now, but LIUCRiccardo10 still has more than one week, and is keen to get "a very high B rating". From whom -- Wikipedia or the class teacher? If the former: Individual Wikipedia users give "B" ratings, but typically not after careful consideration. And if it's "B", it's plain "B": there's no "high B" or "low B" or even "borderline B". ¶ Here's something that Riccardo could attend to. A reference that's not unusual for this draft: Gray Area. "May-Li Khoe". Gray Area. Retrieved 2024-11-07. If a web page, article, etc that's on/in website or magazine XYZ isn't attributed to any particular author(s), we don't attribute its authorship to XYZ. Instead, we just leave it blank: "May-Li Khoe". Gray Area. Retrieved 2024-11-07. Same if the website, magazine etc attributes it to "Editorial staff": "Editorial staff" is uninformative, so we skip it. If using a Cite template, use "last=" for the surname of a single person, not for anything else. (This edit of mine [search within it for "Schachman"], and this one may help explain.) -- Hoary (talk) 07:29, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Hoary,

Thank you so much for your thoughtful feedback and the clarification regarding the draft. I appreciate your point that the draft doesn’t need to be perfect, just likely to survive an AfD discussion, and I’ll keep that in mind moving forward.

Your advice on citation formatting is incredibly helpful, especially regarding the handling of sources with no attributed authors. I’ll make sure to leave the author field blank in those cases and properly format the "last=" field for single authors. I’ll also review the reference you suggested and apply the formatting changes accordingly.

I’m continuing to improve the draft, focusing on better references and following your guidance on these details. Thanks again for your support!

Best regards,

@LIUCRiccardo10 LIUCRiccardo10 (talk) 08:20, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Hoary,

Thank you again for all your advice! I’ve made the necessary changes to the citations and followed your suggestions.

If possible, I’d be very grateful if you could review the page and approve it. Also, if you have any further tips on what I can do to ensure the article reaches at least a B rating, I’d love to hear your thoughts.

Thanks once more for your help and support. Looking forward to your feedback!

Best regards,

@LIUCRiccardo10 LIUCRiccardo10 (talk) 08:31, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

LIUCRiccardo10, there's more work to do. Here are three tasks. ¶ First, a sample: Khoe served as Vice President of Design at Khan Academy, a nonprofit educational platform dedicated to accessible education. In this role, she has developed user search methodologies and design systems to improve the usability and functionality of the platform. She implemented team evaluation processes to assess collaboration and inclusivity within the design team. What does "platform" mean? (Fee-charging database and website combination, perhaps?) I have only the vaguest idea of what "developed user search methodologies and design systems to improve the usability and functionality of the platform" might mean. "Inclusivity", referring to the inclusion of what or whom? Go through the draft and try to rephrase for ease of comprehension. (If you're citing a source that uses vague abstractions, then you can repeat the vague abstractions -- but in quotation marks.) ¶ Secondly: The game has been recognized for its accessibile approach to [snip]. Don't fret over the (rare) spelling mistake; rather, "has been recognized" raises the question of who it is who've recognized it. And there's a single reference for this: Khoe's own "Creating the rhythmic pixel art of Playdate music maker Boogie Loops". I infer that either Khoe has recognized it, or others have (according to Khoe). Neither is satisfactory. You're free to cite Khoe for such matters as her birth date, but for anything that could reasonably be described as an achievement (e.g. recognition by others), you should not. If this leaves a number of assertions unreferenced, remove those assertions. ¶ Thirdly, remove the table of patents. If you can find a source independent of Khoe for your introduction to the table, then retain the introduction, with a reference to that independent source. And if you can find commentary that's independent of Khoe and is about one or more of the patents, you can summarize and cite that, of course specifying the patent(s). -- Hoary (talk) 08:58, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I think the other users and I have made the necessary changes based on your feedback. Could you please review and let me know if I've addressed everything properly? Specifically, I would appreciate your thoughts on whether the changes to the patent section are acceptable and if the sources (Justia Patents and Google Patents) are appropriate to use. Additionally, could you confirm whether all the images have the correct permissions in place?

Thank you for your help! LIUCRiccardo10 (talk) 15:19, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

possible meaning: "uncontroversial" vs "barely"? 176.0.133.82 (talk) 07:35, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Links to specific book page from {sfn}

From a full citation I can link to the exact book page I’m referring to if that page has its own URL, like https://archive.org/details/b2803806x/page/58/. But if there are several citations of different pages of the same book, I like to replace all full citations except one with {sfn}. The remaining full citation links only to one page (if any). Is it possible and appropriate to create links to specific book pages from {sfn}?

Thanks in advance. The Cosmic Ocean (Please feel free to modify or undo any of my edits as deemed appropriate.) 18:08, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

@The Cosmic Ocean, this can be done with Sfn. There is information at Template:Sfn#Adding a URL for the page or location. Just use square brackets and add a link where you are using p= or pages= (e.g., {{sfn|Harvey|2010|page=[https://example.com/page/14 14]}}). Reconrabbit 21:13, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! The Cosmic Ocean (Please feel free to modify or undo any of my edits as deemed appropriate.) 16:07, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Question about an article

So I recently joined WikiProject Weather, and I have decided to work on the list of tornadoes in Ohio, which is where I am from. Since the article says it is a list, does that mean it should be comprehensive? I've noticed that it is particularly lacking in information about the recent tornadoes we've experienced such as a micro-outbreak near Lima back in March. Should I include a paragraph or two about these smaller events, or stick to adding the bigger ones that were forgotten such as the June 15, 2023 event (which I already added, by the way)? ApteryxRainWing🐉 | Roar with me!!! | My contributions 15:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

You might want to review MOS:LIST, in particular WP:LISTPURP Cmrc23 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 15:58, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Alright thanks. I'll probably stick to fleshing out the list with notable events (the 2010-2019 timeframe in particular is pretty bare) and only add notes of the smaller events when necessary ApteryxRainWing🐉 | Roar with me!!! | My contributions 16:00, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Make sure you add a reliable source to each entry Cmrc23 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 16:06, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Local news outlets are okay, right? For the section about June 15, I cited the NWS Cleveland office's official breakdown on the event, but I also relied on some Toledo news outlets like WTOL and WTVG for more specific information on events that happened in their viewing areas. ApteryxRainWing🐉 | Roar with me!!! | My contributions 16:09, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

It depends on the topic, but it's fine here Cmrc23 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 16:57, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Edit

Are republicans allowed to edit Wafsotgog (talk) 00:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Everyone is allowed to edit Wikipedia, so long as you follow the rules. WP:Five Pillars is a good starting point! Happy editing! Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 00:59, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, @Wafsotgog. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, so yes, supporters of the Republican Party can contribute. There is no reason why you shouldn't, so long as you follow our policies and guidelines! Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 01:00, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

General advice: I would gently advise newcomers to gain familiarity with the rules and editing experience before touching contentious topics, which include post-1992 U.S. politics. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 01:30, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Gosh, what about Independents? And Green Party supporters? Augnablik (talk) 09:31, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Socialists? Communists? Left-handed people? David notMD (talk) 13:10, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

What about Anarchosyndicalists? Pastafarians? Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 17:59, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Definitely not left-handed people! Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 18:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

The reason some (but far from all) Republicans might feel left out is because Wikipedia is based on science and fact, as covered by reputable sources. The MAGA movement and President Trump in many cases wants to push an agenda that is based on what (perhaps charitably) people want to be true, rather than what can scientifically be established as true. This is incompatible with Wikipedia's mission, and trying to add "facts" that have no support from reputable academical circles will be removed, and if you insist on adding them, you will eventually be banned. None of this is directed at Republicans or any other political movement specifically, and you should not take it personally. CapnZapp (talk) 13:24, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Earlier this year, using my IP, I suggested a split. What do I do now?

Hello! this march, I found the page on Religious views on masturbation and was shocked to find that the christianity section is literally the length of an entire article while everything else was brief. I made the Topic on the talk page ([7]) suggesting it be split into its own article whilst being trimmed down heavily on the general religious page. nobody has responded to the request yet and Im not sure what to do. Ive been told by a helpful user that its generally bad practice to respond to old talk pages + it seems disengenious to just respond to it pinging people 9 months later, I think itd come off as me trying to boss people into responding to me now that I have an account. AssanEcho (talk) 22:19, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the question, AssanEcho. Off the top of my head, I would probably recommend going to the article's respective Wikiproject and ask if anyone interested would want to contribute. You can also ask prominent contributors to the article or people who you know are knowledgeable on the topic. TheWikiToby (talk) 04:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your helpful response! That's make sense and I'll do that from now on. Also, another deep thank you to @Rotideypoc41352 from the bottom of my heart for being bold and splitting the article. I didn't expect this to happen when I asked this question so thanks! AssanEcho (talk) 19:58, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I followed the bold, revert, discuss procedure: I boldly proceeded with the split. If anyone here, at the WikiProjects, or elsewhere have objections, they can revert the split, open a split discussion, wait a week, and ask at Closure requests for someone to determine consensus. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 04:35, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Where do i copy "{subst:submit}}"

I want to submit my article to be revised but i dont see the button, i found this code in the help page but when i paste it at the start of my article´s code it doesnt do anything pls help (i deleted a little of the code so it doesnt show the yellow box) Labauta PR (talk) 20:03, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi! You're missing the extra "{" at the front of the code, which would look like {{subst:submit}}. E_F⁵ 20:07, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I think he purposefully didn't add the extra "{" otherwise it would turn into a template. (Although we can use the nowiki thing). Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 20:28, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

ohhh ok thankss Labauta PR (talk) 20:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Labauta PR. If you copy and paste that code into the draft, I'm 99% sure it will not work since it'll convert to <nowiki>, especially if you're in VisualEditor. Can you please tell me your draft's title? Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 20:30, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, @Labauta PR. As the person above me has asked, can you provide us the link to the draft so we can see? Tarlby^{(t) (c)} 20:35, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

@Labauta PR: This is a help page for the English Wikipedia. If it's about a page at the Spanish Wikipedia then things are done differently at different languages and you should ask for help there. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:44, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Please use the AfC Submission Wizard instead. Thank you. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 20:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Only use that link if it's an English article for the English Wikipedia. Special:CentralAuth/Labauta PR makes me think it's about the Spanish Wikipedia. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:58, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

It probably is about the Spanish Wikipedia since, unlike Commons, Wikidata, and Spanish Wikipedia, he has no edits anywhere other than 2 edits here in the Teahouse. He could also have an alt account. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 21:02, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Can't find an article; thought I saw one a few hours ago

I cannot locate any article on the Canadian political crises that seems to have errupted just today, where multiple parties (opposition, plus former allies of the governing party) and several members of the Prime Minister's own political party, are calling for his resignation. This seems odd. And I believe I saw an article just a few hours ago. Articles are often created on much less news article source info than exist on this particular political set of political events in various Parliamentary democracies. I've tried four different Wikipedia searches: 2024 Canadian political crises, Canadian political crises, 2024 Trudeau..., etc. Not finding anything.

If an article existed a few hours ago, and got PRODed/Speedy Deleted, is there even any way for non-Admin editors to tell? Is censorship in Wikipedia transparent? (if it was deleted) Thanks. Non-Canadian Wikipedia reader here. N2e (talk) 01:30, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

@N2eDon't worry. If it's a notable event, then any uncited news story will pretty quickly be recreated, based upon Reliable Sources. But Wikipedia is not here to cover breaking news without good sources to back it up (see WP:NOTNEWS). I guess the answer to your question is actually, 'No', it's very difficult for a user to know what nonsense or non-notable pages have been deleted if they've not gone through AfD. You could try discussing any concerns at Talk:Justin Trudeau if you think key topics are benig overlooked. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Nick, for that thorough answer, to both questions! N2e (talk) 02:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

To add to Nick Moyes reply, if you know the exact page title, it's not hard to see if it was recently deleted, since every "redlink" page (here's one for you: Fjdkfjjfjfjrekkrkf3535shsh :) contains as the sixth and final bullet point "If the page has been deleted, check the deletion log, and see Why was the page I created deleted?" with the requisite links.

Of course, if you *don't* have the exact link/page title, then yes, it's hard to impossible to know, just as Nick says. CapnZapp (talk) 13:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

@N2e Just an afterthought to @CapnZapp's reply. If it was a page you very recently viewed which has now disappeared, you might like to check back through your browser history to see if you can find the exact page title that way. Sorry I didn't think to mention this earlier. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:46, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. There is one now: 2024 Canadian political crisis, which goes to an article section with ~10 sources that cover all the early events and the reactions of the various parties, politicos, and even foreign leaders. N2e (talk) 23:22, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Help on contributing to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion

Hello,

A number of categories I have made have been submitted for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion

I do not know how to respond to those in the appropriate context ie: Keep , etc.

I only am able to reply to comments, but not respond in a way that contributes to the consensus of the discussion. Can someone please point me to the the right way to participate here? My comments are ignored because they do not follow the right notation, its feels like punishment for new editors.

Any assistance would be helpful. Many thanks. Nayyn (talk) 15:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello! I suggest you read these: notability and arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Please note that the second link is for an essay and not an official policy. Cmrc23 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 15:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

@Nayyn another note, if the other person links an essay or policy, it might help to read through the link and consider if the article falls under that category. This can help you in formulating your response. Cmrc23 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 15:56, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

hi, let me clarify here. I'm not asking for help on what I need to respond, I'm asking how to contribute the "reject" response so it appears in the same syntax to be counted in the discussion.

I keep being told my response is not in the right format (when I reply) but I have no idea how to reply in the way that's correct, and the folks over there have no interest in helping. Does that make sense?

It feels like gatekeeping over there. Nayyn (talk) 23:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

@Nayyn, I can understand the frustration. For AfD, there is Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Contributing_to_AfD_discussions to give new participants guidance, but I can't find anything similar for CfD. I'm not experienced there so can't help, but I suggest that you read through a bunch of closed discussions to see what the differences are between your comments and others'. Hope that helps. Schazjmd (talk) 23:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. It seems that it's not possible to reply there using the visual editor, that's what I have seemed to have gathered anyway. It's a convenient way to keep people from contributing. Nayyn (talk) 23:57, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Interesting, I didn't realize there were pages on which Visual Editor wasn't an option. I seldom use it, so maybe just haven't noticed when it wasn't there. You seem to have figured out source editing for commenting there. The one thing I see missing from your initial comment in each discussion is a bolded statement of your recommendation (oppose, purge, delete, merge, and so forth). Schazjmd (talk) 00:04, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

How to edit at Periyar ?

I have registered and opened my account but I cannot correct the article on Periyar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arcot Shankar (talk • contribs) 04:41, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

If for some reason you can't edit the article Periyar, Arcot Shankar, you can still suggest an edit to it at the foot of Talk:Periyar. (Be sure to make the suggestion as precise as possible.) -- Hoary (talk) 05:09, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. How much time will it then take to get incorporated into the article ? BTW, there is a viewbox with view source code, what am I supposed to do with that ? I know HTML code and markups but this is something else. Arcot Shankar (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 05:50, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

What you're asked to edit, Arcot Shankar, is "MediaWiki". It's not Markdown, but it could be called a markdown language. Anyway, it's a markup language, which means that it's very easy (though tables remain somewhat fiddly). In regular body text, a line break does nothing; two consecutive line breaks start a new paragraph. Regular ("ASCII") apostrophes are used for italics and bold; <blockquote> starts an indented block and </blockquote> ends it. You sign by hitting tilde four times in a row. Help files, which are easy to find, tell you more, but there's not much more to tell. -- Hoary (talk) 06:13, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Is it possible to use HTML codes alongside MediaWiki markup for better formatting and readability ? What are the usable HTML codes ? Is there any FAQ for the MediaWiki markup language ? Arcot Shankar (talk) 06:18, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, I don't think HTML applies much here. My only suggestion is to familiarize yourself with the source (known as wikitext) and start editing. You can read about it at Help:Wikitext, which is very helpful in explaining the fundamentals of it. Be sure to familiarize yourself with citation styles and templates (or Help:Referencing for beginners), and Wikipedia's policies. Good luck, Sparkle and Fade ^talk_edits 07:03, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Arcot Shankar, start with the "introduction". Since you're accustomed to markup languages, skip the "visual editor" and instead edit the source. If the instructions seem too laboured, skip them and go straight to the "cheatsheet". The acceptable (or at least tolerated) use of HTML is explained in "HTML in wikitext": I'm pretty fluent in HTML ("strict", too: 4; less so for 5), but rarely need or want to use HTML here. The time you'd spend working out what you can and can't do here with the HTML you already understand would be far better spent accustomizing yourself to MediaWiki ("wikitext"). It's simple, really. -- Hoary (talk) 08:32, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Hoary and Sparkle and Fade. Much appreciated. Arcot Shankar (talk) 09:20, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Don't go away, Arcot Shankar! Please revisit "Add a link", above. As you're pretty new here, "AfD" may seem daunting. But it isn't. If you decide to nominate the article, do so citing one (or more) of the reasons for deletion. Avoid adding your own commentary (let alone sarcasm, etc). Be concise. If subsequent "keep" comments make fairly clear errors of fact (e.g. claiming that a particular reference states such-and-such whereas in reality it does not), then feel free to argue back, coolly; but if you object to a comment for some other reason, better keep silent. -- Hoary (talk) 00:34, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I have been observing how other editors are going about things, and I am bit more confident now about policies and strategies to contribute usefully. Arcot Shankar (talk) 04:17, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Covid-19 drama

I decided to start a new Noticeboard discussion to draw attention to how when I sampled the references cited for biomedical claims in the article on the Origin of SARS-CoV-2 it happens that out of the first eight I looked at, four of them were primary sources. I stopped there and make a comment on the talk page and nobody said anything except for a lone straw man argument from an editor who has been very active as a member of "the consensus". You might be aware that editors in the contentious COVID-19 lab leak theory have the article locked and they're vetting any requests with a fine-toothed comb. But when it comes to the article about the mainstream scientific hypothesis, the article seems to be chock full of primary sources, as if the article itself was in large part original research. Is this how it normally goes on here? It seems like a lot of editors don't want to touch this, and there are problems with civility in the talk pages on the part of an editor who seems to plays an informal leadership role going way back. I tried to address behavior on the user's talk page and they just called me names and told me to leave their page alone, and an experienced administrator suggested that I just focus on editing non-contentious topics. I have gotten people on my user page warning me about getting banned just for challenging the status quo in good faith, and an IP editor asked me why I am choosing to get involved. I'm not trying to challenge the consensus, just calling out obvious issues, and so far this isn't getting traction with anybody. I'm either getting ignored or people make a straw man argument and then disappear from the conversation. I am going to ping @Liz because it was her idea that I visit this forum but would be interested in any and all feedback. Cheers, Lardlegwarmers (talk) 19:06, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

In general, contentious topics are... well... contentious! People can get pretty heated (it's why I avoid editing them except for very minor edits and fulfilling edit requests). If you feel yourself getting heated, I suggest taking a break.

A sidenote - your comment on Origin of SARS-CoV-2 might be better served by an edit request - just try to be specific (i.e. talk mainly about what you want to be changed rather than the content of the article) Cmrc23 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 04:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Daniel Penny

New York - There is speculation to whether Daniel Penny is from Islip, New York and if he ever served in the United States Marine Corps. Penny was at the recent Army-Navy football game in Philadelphia, won by the midshipman, with President-elect Donald Trump and several of his cabinet selections. None of the selections have faced a vote in the United States Senate. Jef3dv500 (talk) 00:29, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Jef3dv500. Unless you have a question about editing Wikipedia, I suggest that you discuss this matter at Talk: Daniel Penny instead. Cullen328 (talk) 04:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Am I allowed to upload art I made to Commons so I can put it on my userpage?

I've been working on my userpage for a bit lately and I was wondering if I can upload art I made that is only intended to be used on my userpage. The art I am talking about in particular is a headshot of Apteryx, who isn't just a pseudonym, but a whole character with her own personality and all of that. Since it is art I made, there would be no problem with copyright, but the image also wouldn't be benefitting anyone but me, and might be seen as a circumvention of the idea where Wikipedia doesn't have profile pictures. I'm not sure if that is even an official policy or simply an issue where Wikipedia is unable to hire moderators to make sure no NSFW stuff gets in, but I was just wondering. I've seen some people put pictures of stuff they made (or a picture of themselves) on their userpages. I don't want my face on Wikipedia (unless I somehow become famous) but I still want a face people can match my personality to, so why not make it the face of a character I made to be a representation of myself. Apteryx!🐉 | Roar with me!!! 🗨🐲 18:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

If the image wouldn't benefit anyone other than you, please don't upload it. 126.179.119.206 (talk) 21:47, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello @ApteryxRainWing. It's policy on Commons to not upload images for personal benefit if they are not intended to be educational, but I believe you can simply upload the art directly to Wikipedia instead unless there's some local policy that I'm unaware about. Tarlby^{(t) (c)} 22:35, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

wait I can do that? How do I upload something directly to Wikipedia without going through Commons first? Apteryx!🐉 | Roar with me!!! 🗨🐲 22:41, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response! You can upload the image at Special:Upload. The image will be hosted locally to Wikipedia, not Commons. Tarlby^{(t) (c)} 23:06, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Local uploads are for files that meet the non-free content criteria, @ApteryxRainWing and Tarlby; an image solely used on a userpage probably doesn't. Locally hosted files that are freely licensed are deemed to have been uploaded locally in error and are usually exported to Wikimedia Commons. ApteryxRainWing, the main question you have to ask yourself is if you are willing to, for example, allow someone else to edit your work and then use that edit for commercial purposes without notifying (or paying) you if they attribute the original to you. The full explanation is at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted material#What it means to donate material to Wikipedia.

Given the importance of copyright law, I suggest reading the entire thing and understanding what happens when you release your work under CC BY-SA 4.0 or a compatible license. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 05:12, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

@ApteryxRainWing Just checked the Commons policy. While all images must be used for an educational purpose, the image's use on a project like Wikipedia makes the image automatically presumed to be a educational, even if it's only use is for a user page. You are free then to upload to Commons, not locally on Wikipedia. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 05:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

General use of Islamic honorifics

Hi there, I saw an article where a reference to Mohammed was followed by the Arabic ligature for PBUH (ﷺ), was wondering if that should be removed as the honorific is generally only included by Muslims. As Wikipedia is not a religious text, I was wondering if it would make sense for me to remove it. Couldn't find a exact guideline on this. Thanks. Lavenderlesbian (talk) 04:37, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Lavenderlesbian! You are correct that honorifics for Muhammad should usually be removed. This is specified in the Manual of Style at MOS:MUHAMMAD, and more general guidelines for honorifics are at MOS:HONORIFIC. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 04:47, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

(However, if the honorific is part of a quotation, it makes sense to keep it there.) Helpful Raccoon (talk) 04:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Lavenderlesbian (talk) 05:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

small business violin store

i know this small business in palatine IL (boring subarb) that is not super obscure that could probably have a wiki page but idk to make one for them. a page would really help the business financially Wich would be pretty cool. can somebody make one for it. its called the String project. 73.50.75.106 (talk) 06:04, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

if u look it up its the white building with grey details 73.50.75.106 (talk) 06:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Please see WP:42 for why this business would probably not have an article anytime soon. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 06:33, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Rules of recommendations to add links in an article

Hello ! I'd like to know if there are rules or recommendations to add links in an article.

I'm talking about internal links to Wikipedia in English.

As an example. We can choose the article "Bashar Al-Assad".

If there are a section or a sub-section citing "Moscow" (This is an example but I could take another subject mentionned on this article).

If Moscow is linked one time in the article. Can I do it for others sections or sub-sections if this is not the same sub-section or section ?

If you don't understand what I means with words "section" and "sub-section".

You can see the example below.

== Presidency == is a section.
=== Early leadership (2000–2011) === is a sub-section of the section "Presidency".

I don't think I'll work on the article "Bashar Al-Assad" because it's so voluminous I don't know where to begin but this is a good illustration of my question. Anatole-berthe (talk) 06:45, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

@Anatole-berthe, MOS:DUPLINK says that you should Link a term at most once per major section, at first occurrence. So I suppose the answer to your question would be yes. The word Moscow can be linked in every level-two section (==), but only once. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 08:24, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not certain I rightly understood.

Do you think we can link link a term once per section == and not once per sub-section === ? Anatole-berthe (talk) 08:29, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

A footnote on that page says Major sections are generally detailed sections with a level-2 heading, but consensus at an article may determine a lower-level subsection is major..., so generally speaking, a term shold only be linked once every section, unless the section is very large. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 08:33, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your useful advice ! Anatole-berthe (talk) 08:46, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Anatole-berthe, it is not necessary to wikilink major world cities known to all literate English speakers such as London, Manila, Paris, Delhi, New York, Tokyo, Havana, Cairo, Rome, Baghdad or Moscow, for example. However, my mother's home town of Moscow, Idaho should be wikilinked. Cullen328 (talk) 09:01, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree it is not necessary but I think an encyclopedia have to be complete as possible. Anatole-berthe (talk) 07:12, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Template skill needed

Hello Teahouse people,

At Template talk:Infobox train#Request for an extra parameter, I proposed the addition of a new, straightforward parameter to the Train infobox template. I don't have the skills needed to implement the change, so I asked for help (on 24 October). However, nobody has responded. Is it possible to establish contact through the Teahouse with someone who has the skills? Cheers, Simon – SCHolar44 🇦🇺 💬 at 10:32, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

@SCHolar44 why not try it for yourself in {{infobox train/sandbox}}, check it works and doesn't break anything against some testcases, and establish how the template documentation would need updating. Then if it's all working properly ask for someone to copy the code over to the live template. If you're prepared to do the legwork, then I'll do the last part for you. Nthep (talk) 11:49, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Uncooperative conduct by a bunch of IPs

I had requested WP:3O in the Talk:List of tallest buildings in Johor Bahru#Third opinion, but after arbritration had formed a consensus, some IP addresses that had refused to participate in 3O discussions launched a long-winded rant filled with WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:PEPPER. Is this enough grounds to seek admin intervention? hundenvonPG (talk) 00:18, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

@HundenvonPenang You have already raised an ANI case, which has been answered at WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1173#Persistent disruptive behaviour and unsubstantiated MOS:PUFFERY by 155.69.190.63. You also sent me an email about this. Together with this Teahouse thread, that is a type of WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Your options are to go back to ANI or to WP:DROPTHESTICK. I would advise the latter. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:21, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Advice on whether draft article meets notability guidelines

Hello, I recently got back into Wikipedia editing. I have edited before, but never created an article. I wanted to create one about Alice Morrison (a TV presenter and adventure traveller) because I think she is an important role model. When I submitted my draft for review, it got rejected because the sources didn't meet notability requirements. I added some more sources and received a similar rejection (with some slightly more specific feedback). I've now made a version which I think has every available source I can find on the internet. Please could somebody give me some more detailed explanation on whether this article would now count as notable? Thank you. Harry Kuril (talk) 13:23, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @Harry Kuril. We don't really do pre-reviews here: that's what "submit for review" is for. But just looking at your list of sources, I can see that most of your citations aren't helpful. You shouldn't be citing her "publisher's homepage" or "BBC programme index" at all, and interviews with Morrison are not independent, and so can be used only to support limited uncontroversial factual information. Which of your sources meet the triple requirements in WP:42? ColinFine (talk) 13:48, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

The AfC rejections say that your sources do not directly talk about the article's subject, only mentioning it in passing. Having a lot of sources means nothing if they aren't ones talking about the article's subject specifically. If you have already gathered everything you can find and it still failed AfC, then it's time to give up and move on to a new topic. The Task Center has plenty of things to do. ApteryxRainWing🐉 | Roar with me!!! | My contributions 13:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I see the subject of the article has written several books. Can you find any book reviews published by, say. newspapers or reputable magazines? GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 13:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Alice Morrison (journalist) was Declined, which is not as severe as Rejected; the former means that in the eyes of the reviewers there is some potential for success. David notMD (talk) 12:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

A few little things - references go after punctuation; some of your text is not your own working, but rather copied from the S&S website. Please paraphrase. David notMD (talk) 12:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Running out of sources on an article (or something else)

Hi, I'm currently working on the Sacred Reich article (a draft on my userpage specifically) and I seem to be running into an issue where I'm running out of available sources about the subject.

I am currently working on a major edit revising the band's history section and adding sections about their artistry and political views. However, I am unable to find good enough sources to help me write these sections as most of them do not provide significant enough coverage to write from in general. In specifics:

• For the history section, I'm attempting to cover the band's style during their respective eras (as the band's style changed significantly throughout their history) but there doesn't seem to be any sources that cover the subject of their style past brief mentions of their sociopolitical lyrics.

• I'm also trying to find time-relevant reviews of the band's respective releases to cover their reception, however, there doesn't seem to be enough (if any) reviews regarding their releases, likely due to the lack of digitized copies of pre-internet items such as magazines and newspapers.

• General searching on Google and it's sub-engines no longer seems to satisfy the search for sources, as I've either already used them in the article or are unrelated to the topic. Dig deeping on Google Books and News have failed, largely because of a. brief mentions, b. unreliability and questionable publishing, and c. not related to the band.

However, I have an underlying concern that this may be of my own doing and possibly overlooking worthy material unknowingly. There are some references (,) that may cover the aforementioned topics significantly, but I feel struggle to actually put together in the article. I'm unsure whether or not I am running out of material or if I'm just struggling to convert the material into encyclopedic content.

Thank you for reading my message, and advice is highly appreciated. Thanks, Sparkle and Fade ^talk_edits 04:23, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Sparkle and Fade ^talk_edits 04:23, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Sparkle & Fade, the answer is very clear - if you cannot find reliable sources verifying the content that you want to add, then that content simply does not belong on Wikipedia at this time. The broader point is that identifying reliable sources about the topic always comes first. Then, summarize the sources. Do not even ponder adding content that is not verified by reliable sources. Cullen328 (talk) 04:35, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328 I believe you may be mistaken on the problem I am having. I am very much familiar with WP:RS, especially when working with WP:BLPs (which applies to this article). However, I believe my problem is primarily regarding significant coverage (which I believe applies to information inside of an article as well) as most sources don't seem to provide enough insight on some topics for me to fully cover in the article, and not a problem with WP:Verifiability.

Apologies, Sparkle and Fade ^talk_edits 05:19, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Sparkle & Fade, significant coverage is required for references that are relied on to establish notability. But once notability is well-established, then other sources do not need to devote significant coverage to the band. So, brief mentions of their sociopolitical lyrics in reliable sources are OK to use, as long other reliable sources devote significant coverage to the band. Cullen328 (talk) 05:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Sparkle & Fade, not an answer to your question -- I think Cullen328 has already provided that -- but if you happen to have access to a well-funded library you might ask if you could access the fourth, online edition of The encyclopedia of popular music (previously The Guinness encyclopedia of popular music). I've only ever seen the second edition (or was it the third?), and it's very big; the fourth is said to be quite a bit bigger again. -- Hoary (talk) 09:14, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip @Hoary. When possible, I'll try and look around to find said book, as it sounds like a valuable source for the article. On a sidenote, I think I explained my problem rather poorly because of my incorrect understanding of SIGCOV: rather, I just can't find enough sources that actually cover the aforementioned aspects of the band. Thanks for the advice, Sparkle and Fade ^talk_edits 14:58, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

@Hoary, I viewed a portion (conveniently with the entry for Sacred Reich) on the Internet Archive and the entry is almost exactly the same as the one I cited in the article (The Guiness Who's Who of Heavy Metal) with the only new information is a single sentence about one of the band members leaving, which is already covered in the article. Sorry. Sparkle and Fade ^talk_edits 00:03, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh dear, Sparkle and Fade; sorry to have wasted your time. -- Hoary (talk) 13:02, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Template for warning hostile users?

Theres someone on my page, and i want to warn them if they continue (just in case) ~≈ Stumbleannnn! ≈~ Talk to me 06:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

If the attacks are offensive and disruptive, then you may report the User here are WP:ANI. Another way to best deal with the User it to simply ignore the guy. Hope this helps. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 06:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

oh ok. ~≈ Stumbleannnn! ≈~ Talk to me 06:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Your initial response to warn is correct, as it is better to try deëscalation before going to ANI. If searching Template:uw doesn't get what you want (and you don't want to install Twinkle or can't figure it out), you can just...write a brief message. This works better when talking to more experienced users, too. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 10:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

With a few exceptions, you are not required to keep content on your own Talk page. Delete stuff and move on. (It will still be viewable via View history if you think you need to see it again.) David notMD (talk) 13:11, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Necropolis of Amorosi

I'm currently working on the page Necropolis of Amorosi for a university project work, but the page has been approved as Start-Class. Knowing that there could be done significant improvements inside it, and maybe even lift up the class level, I wanted a detailed feedback and suggestions regarding the page. LIUCAurora (talk) 07:46, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

LIUCAurora, I fear that there's a misunderstanding about quality classes in Wikipedia. Class "A" is little used; let's not worry about it. Classing an article as a "Good Article" ("GA") requires some deliberation. Classing it as a "Featured Article" requires a lot of deliberation. "Stub", "Start", "C" and "B" are often applied with little deliberation. Recently when I, as a draft reviewer, have "accepted" drafts, I haven't bothered to class them, because if I were to do so conscientiously I'd have to read and digest the criteria and judge the draft against these, and I can't be bothered. One user might class a draft "Start" and another might class the same draft "B". Try to create a good article [lowercase], but please don't worry about these classes. (You might be interested in the comments within the thread "Draft: May-Li Khoe" above. And on another issue, or non-issue: I've added a a comment on "style".) -- Hoary (talk) 09:09, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Content assessment. For this article, I changed Start to C-class. For articles I significantly improve I prefer not to upgrade the rating myself. David notMD (talk) 13:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Creating a Deleted Page

I want to create a Page named Khaie but when i goto the WP:Article for Creation Process the Page was deleted previously. I want to ask that can i create this Page because i like this television series and i want to create the article on Wikipedia. Please Guide me. Bye To Hichki (talk) 15:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

@Bye To Hichki: Hi there! If you were involved in the previous version and are trying to violate a block or ban, then please stop. If not, then I suggest you first gather your multiple independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage about the television series. If you can find such sources, then follow the instructions at Help:Your first article to create a draft based on those sources and submit it for the AfC process. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 16:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

View deleted article records

Would like to ask for help, if I want to see a record of an article being retained that was previously deleted, where can I see it? This article was previously recommended for deletion but was retained and I'm interested in the reason it was recommended for deletion so I'd like to view it. Thanks! Lsimplehappy (talk) 11:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

@Lsimplehappy Welcome to the Teahouse. If you go to the main Articles for Deletion page (shortcut: WP:AFD) you'll see a navigation menu, allowing you to look through past deletion discussions, or search for a keyword in an article title.

Maybe this page will give you what you seek: Wikipedia:Archived articles for deletion discussions.

I remember an article I created when I first started here about a botanist called William Hunt Painter being put up for a deletion discussion, but which was quickly retained. Just by typing 'Painter' into the search box I found the article immediately and the discussion that took place about it's retention or deletion.

Looking back through past deletion discussions - whether successful or otherwise, is an extremely good way of learning how the process does (or doesn't work), and how editors work together to decide on an article's fate. Hope this helps. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 12:11, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! It's very helpful ~ I'd also like to ask where the records Wiki：Proposed deletion located if I want to see them?Is this visible?Extremely grateful Lsimplehappy (talk) 13:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @Lsimplehappy. I don't believe there is any such place to view proposed deletion discussions, because there is no such discussion! A proposed deletion is added to an article, and (nearly) anybody may contest it by removing the proposal. ColinFine (talk) 16:33, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

ok！thank you for your answer～ Lsimplehappy (talk) 16:43, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Highly disappointed to see the article on Autism going through bias.

I recently went through the current version of the Wikipedia article on Autism , and I found that this article is NOT representing the reality or encyclopedic wholeness. The huge, verbose, highly technical article is biased towards medical model of disability, medical genetics, and nearly zero information regarding the anthropology, evolution, neurodiversity, accommodation, accessibility, Augmentative and alternative communications, and all that actually helps wellbeing of Autistic people. The page boldly focuses on controversial methods such as ABA, such as EIBI (Early intensive behavioral interventions), DTT (discrete trial training) etc. without any mention of the concerns or criticisms against them. I entered the talk page, but it has been turned literally into a warzone, where any dissenting viewpoint is being silenced in name of "global and unanimous scientific consensus" which is simply wrong. It is mostly a view held by biomedical and pharmaceutical majority. But outside of that, opposing viewpoints do exist in actual Autistic populations (who have the lived experience), anthropology, sociology, psychology, etc. I added an "unbalanced" tag for reader information (I did not speak for complete erasure of controversial viewpoints, just needed the reader to know that there are other views), however the "unbalanced" tag was soon reverted.

It is not possible for me to daily attend and post arguments and counter-arguments. I have to acknowledge that, if this kind of silencing continues, this time Wikipedia literally failed as an encyclopedia, as well it failed at public health and education welfare perspective.

I feel like this needs editors' attention. Autism is NOT a well-understood condition by majority, Lived experience play the ultimate role on how a person feel about their life situation, and Nothing about us without us is an important ethics rule in disability cultures.

RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 05:54, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Myself and many other autistic editors have attempted to improve the article before and met the same difficulties. I agree that it is painful to read, and your concerns are very valid. I began to write a satirical alliance article to help showcase the issues in the autism article and show how medical language can create negative bias in my sandbox.

Because of the difficulty I faced with the autism article, I have moved to focusing on smaller articles related to autism such as double empathy problem and special interest (autism). -- NotCharizard ^🗨 07:41, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I really appreciate your work around this, and share your frustration with the central Autism article. It's not really okay that people are being persistently driven away from working on that entry by people stubbornly axe-grinding... Oolong (talk) 08:17, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

That satirical Allism article in your sandbox is gold. Moogle.png (kupo) 16:47, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

RIT RAJARSHI, Wikipedia is a volunteer project. If you feel the article is lacking, then you have the ability to improve it by adding material on anthropology, evolution, neurodiversity, accommodation, accessibility and the other things you mentioned. Just be sure to add inline citations as you go to reliable sources that reflect the majority and top minority viewpoints on the subtopics you are writing about, and respond to any disagreements by other editors by working it out on the Talk page to find a consensus that works. Please understand that basing the article on published sources is not negotiable, and while your first-person accounts might be helpful on the Talk page as deep background, they cannot be used in the article, unless your views have been written up and published by an source. If you have some sources on the anthropology of autism, for example, you can just WP:BE BOLD and add content to the article based on them. This might help:

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

If you haven't had success using that approach in the past, then just list some sources here that you think could be used to expand the article in ways you would find productive, and maybe someone else will pick up the baton, and carry on. Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 09:25, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

@Notcharizard: @Mathglot: Thank you so much for your views. I am thinking if I should create another article on Autism from other perspectives, as the current page is very strictly monitored, and has already structured in certain way that I feel difficult to change by some small edits. PS. I have TONs of references, although mostly from a social science perspective. I want to write their summaries which can be used by other users to improve the articles. I will be taking lot of time as I am extremely busy in my personal and professional life. RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 10:29, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello @RIT RAJARSHI

It's not possible to create an already existing articles but like it was suggested , feel free to make changes where you feel there is need for one. If the article is protected that you can't edit ,you can make some of these suggestions on the talk page Tesleemah (talk) 10:32, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

@Notcharizard: @Mathglot: @Tesleemah: I have access to edit button on that article but I am afraid somebody will erase my edits or may revert them. The article is already verbose. My time is precious. Is there a way I can state my article reviews that won't be erased by somebody? Can I store writings in sandbox for infinite period? Is the sandbox public access? And it looks even if I add non-conforming views to the main article, they might not allow to express those views. The talk page is warzone and they removed my "unbalanced" tag RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 10:39, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

How about you add the things you want to change in your sandbox and share with an experienced editor who can review if its ok to merge with the main article. Because ,in all this you have to be sure you are adding neutral and verifiable information. Afterward you can reach out to any editor edit warring with you.

I feel this is a little bit complex and you need to weigh if it all worth your time . I will leave this to other editors to give you better advise going forward. Tesleemah (talk) 10:56, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

@Tesleemah Thank you for your kind insights. RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 11:06, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

@Tesleemah Are there experienced editors who want to look after the matter? RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 11:07, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

how do I collaborate with them? RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 11:08, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

@RIT RAJARSHI: Just for reference, your comment I have access to edit button on that article but I am afraid somebody will erase my edits or may revert them. could happen on any Wikipedia article regardless of the subject matter. Wikipedia's wants us to be WP:BOLD when improving articles, but it also wants us to understand that others can be just as bold in undoing the edits we make. When that happens, the best thing to do (absent any type of serous policy violation) is to follow Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and try to resolve any disagreements over article content through article talk page discussion. Before being bold, though, you probably want to take a close look at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles because medicine related articles tend to be more highly scrutinized than perhaps articles about some others subjects are. You might also want to take a look at Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not for general reference. If being bold is not your style, you could be WP:CAUTIOUS and seek feedback from the various WikiProjects listed at the top of Talk:Autism and also check the article's talk page archives to see whether your concerns have been raised before by someone else. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:09, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

@Marchjuly Thank you for the useful resources and concerns. RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 11:11, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

@Marchjuly Similar concerns were raised, and at present such difficult conversation is going on in the article's talk page. RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 11:13, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

For the record, there have been a whole stream of editors (mostly autistic ones, I think) who got burned out on editing autism-related articles directly (especially the main one) because of intransigent opposition and reversions from people who are obviously very attached to a particular way of seeing autism. Oolong (talk) 08:40, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

@Notcharizard There is actually a research paper that shows us that neurotypicality can also be framed as a disease. Brownlow, C. (2010). Re-presenting autism: The construction of ‘NT syndrome’. Journal of Medical Humanities, 31(3), 243-255. doi: 10.1007/s10912-010-9114-4   https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10912-010-9114-4 RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 10:49, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

• The fundamental problem is that autism is a vast subject and the "world view" of autism is undergoing rapid change. Viewpoints from five years ago already look unprofessional and outdated today. In fact there isn't really a "world" view because the state of autism-understanding varies hugely between countries. As a result, written sources about autism range from well-thought, up-to-date, caring and balanced, to utterly outmoded and inappropriate, verging on discriminatory and offensive. Unfortunately Wikipedia is an encyclopedia whose role is to give a balanced overview of all current thinking, even if some of the current thinkers are Utterly Wrong. We are not here to promote best practice or best understanding. We're here to describe the current situation (and the history that led up to it), even if the current situation isn't right, and even if the history is in places despicable. As someone personally affected by autism in loved-ones, I cannot bring myself to edit on the subject at Wikipedia, because it is fundamentally too hurtful to me. I have to trust that the situation will improve, sources will improve, and other, tougher editors will edit the autism articles to reflect the improved situation, as it improves. I'm sure I'm not alone in my feelings. Elemimele (talk) 11:45, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

  @Elemimele Thanks; I would be happy if the editors accept the vastness or broadness of this topic than to force a reductionist strictly biomedical approach. Because the more subjective or philosophical journal resources will not qualify as "hard science", but still have lot of humanitarian values. RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 12:21, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

  @Elemimele You may think the situation in this way. Everyone is using video calls using a smartphone, and you are using a walkie talkie. Now yes you do face communication barrier, but more information on how a video display works, would not help you to translate the images into alt text.

  Similarly, more and more information on brain circuitry or genes does not help dissolve the barrier.

  But learning about lived social experiences do help.

  Another example; think you are a trained classical musician who can detect microtonal differences instantly. Now you have been thrown into a factory where people breaking down metal sheets with hammer and you feel like damn blown. Now everyone points out at you as the problematic one. Or think you are a more sensitive clinical mercury thermometer and other people are thermometers used in a water bath or hot air oven. And you are pointed as the 'defective' one.

  It takes 2 to make a communication. We spend hours to teach neurotypical communication to Autistics. Why not spend that time teaching the neurotypical society about Autistic communication? RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 12:32, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

  It's not our job to teach people what to do, it is our job to teach what other people have already said. Industrial Insect (talk) 15:28, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

  @Industrial Insect Thank you. I leave the matter. RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 15:33, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

@RIT RAJARSHI, though I have no connection to autism, edit warring like what's apparently going on in editing this one has long been distressing for me — to see in a group with such an important mission as Wikipedia as well as to be aware that I too may face something similar if I join in editing an article already struck by a few edit skirmishes.

So I have a question for senior editors who might be circling this article:

In an editing situation that seems to have reached an impasse like autism, does Wikipedia ever provide an impartial arbiter, even one unfamiliar with the topic, to step in to help? Not to make a final judgment about what should be done with the article but just to get the two sides to put down their weapons, discuss constructively, and move forward toward consensus on what to say in the article about what they couldn't agree on previously?

There's a process increasingly used in conflict resolution, ranging from corporate organizational teams to rival gangs, that could also help with this war-scarred autism article. It involves ensuring that those on each side really hear — really pay attention to — the other side's thinking and concerns. It goes something similar to what I'm writing below. These are only the main steps, not the mechanics:

— Each side listens to or reads a statement of what the other side wants to put in the article and supporting reasons.

— Each side repeats back its understanding of the other side's statement and the supporting reasons.

— Each side raises questions and concerns for the other side to address about the validity of its statement and supporting reasons.

— Each side answers these questions and concerns for the other side.

— The two sides work toward a statement they can both live with.

— When it's ready, they press the Publish button. Augnablik (talk) 07:59, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Augnablik, what you describe, falls most generally under the rubric of dispute resolution, of which there are multiple methods. But to answer your top question about whether some arbiter ever steps in to decide things, the simple answer is "No"; and in particular, admins do not do that. (Admins might block editors who cross some behavioral line during a dispute, but they will not decide who is "right".) Your last set of bullet points is very similar to something we do at WP:Third opinion, but that is limited to when there are only two editors. (Or perhaps, two groups evenly divided among exactly two opinions, I'm not entirely sure.) User:Robert McClenon can tell you more about that, but the short answer on that one is, there are already more than two people/opinions, so it is out of bounds here. Finally, there are some formal DR methods for multiple views/editors, of which the WP:Rfc process is the prime one. You can read about that at the link. At the end, there is an uninvolved, unbiased "closer", who however does not give any opinions of their own or attempt to arbitrate on the merits of the case; what the closer does, is to attempt to assess the weight of the arguments given by the various editors who have chimed in, weighing them against their ability to connect their views and conclusions with the stated policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. Thus, it is not a vote tally, but an argument assessment. The closer judges the prevailing or predominant argument and renders an evaluation, not an arbitration of case merits. If there is no prevailing argument or it is evenly matched, the closer may render a NO CONSENSUS evaluation. The Rfc generally runs for 30 days. Mathglot (talk) 08:34, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for this! It's a bit frustrating to me that Wikipedia's dispute resolution mechanisms seem as opaque and convoluted as they do, but I understand that they've come out of years of volunteer labour and discussions of objectively difficult questions!

In the worst discussions I've had, what I've mostly wanted is someone who understands enough about the topics involved, but who probably isn't particularly invested, to step in and say something like 'your references do not show what you are claiming they show. You need to stand down.' Oolong (talk) 08:49, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

@Mathglot, the RFC process you mentionedhttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Rfc is indeed similar to what I was suggesting. Similar also in who would lead the process: \ not a judge but someone able to help a group move from a seeming impasse to something both sides can live with, or hopefully even celebrate.

My hope for this article is that the outcome of this situation goes down in the annals of Wikipedia as a wonderful example of how an edit war turned into an edit success. Augnablik (talk) 09:22, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I am not entirely sure what I am being asked, but the usual process that I use at DRN is similar to what Augnablik recommends. I start by reminding the editors that the purpose of dispute resolution is to improve the article, and I ask each editor to state what parts of the article they want to change that another editor wants to leave the same, or what they want to leave the same that another editor wants to change. Then sometimes I ask them to comment on the other editor's objectives. A precondition to moderated discussion at DRN is extensive inconclusive discussion at the article talk page. I see that there has been extensive inconclusive discussion at Talk:Autism, and there has also been edit-warring. At DRN, the editors are asked to agree to a set of rules which include a rule not to edit the article in question while moderated discussion is in progress. Does that answer the questions that may have been being asked? It appears that Autism may be ready for moderated discussion, but only if most of the involved editors agree to participate. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:31, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I wish whoever might step in to help the two sides work things out would try this time adding in the components of having to listen carefully to each other’s statements and rationales, stating them back so it’s clear they were heard correctly, further questioning each other, etc.

Why? Because I’m impressed by what I keep reading in the top news media about how this strategy has worked in conflict resolution even with rival gangs. I think it has something to do with humanizing “those idiots” and other objectifications. Augnablik (talk) 03:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

It's an interesting thought! I've certainly seen the strategy of restating your understanding of someone's position being useful in a general sense; people like to feel heard! And it can be a great opportunity to correct misunderstandings.

Speaking for myself, a huge part of my frustration in that particular series of exchanges had certainly been the feeling that I have been totally misunderstood when I thought I was stating my position quite clearly. When I'm feeling more charitable, I can just about believe that that might have been the root cause of what I experienced as gross misrepresentations... Oolong (talk) 18:01, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Exactly, @Oolong. If people on two sides feel heard — even if not in agreement with - there’s hope for at least some degree of positive outcome that both can live with.

Without feeling heard, resentment, anger, and outright warfare is the obvious outcome. And with wars between wordsmiths, take cover in trenches! Augnablik (talk) 01:32, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

"Deprecated" vs "last updated"

I'm updating the RubyCocoa article, and I've come across a terminology problem. The language was last updated in 2015, and modern macOS no longer supports the bridge, replacing it with RubyMotion. However, there are no official sources declaring it deprecated. Should I add "deprecated" in the beginning and change the article to past tense, or should I keep the tense the same and add "last updated in 2015"? Would calling it deprecated be original research? JarJarInks (talk) 13:21, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Even if it is technically deprecated, Wikipedia follows the premise of "verifiability, not truth". If it hasn't been published by a reliable source yet, we can't put it as deprecated or it would be original research. So, you should likely keep the tense as the same and add "last updated in 2015" unless you're able to find another source confirming it's deprecated. Sparkle and Fade ^talk_edits 14:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

@JarJarInks Whoops, forgot to ping. Apologies. Sparkle and Fade ^talk_edits 14:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! JarJarInks (talk) 18:39, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Signing question

Hello friends, Shen here again. I was curious about something. I've noticed a lot of people have customized signatures (ex: colored text with their username, a neat little phrase instead of "Talk", etc.) and I was curious how I could go about doing that myself.

Thanks! Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 16:58, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi Shovel Shenanigans. See Wikipedia:Signatures#Customizing your signature. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:03, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the question, @Shovel Shenanigans. In your preferences, you can go to the tab User profile and create a custom signature there. Maybe I can find a guide out there on examples of how to change its look and show it to you. TheWikiToby (talk) 17:04, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

@Shovel Shenanigans @TheWikiToby There is a guide technically, it's at WP:SIGNATURES and WP:SIGTUT. At SIGTUT you can find a bunch of examples of people's signatures close to the bottom of the page, they really helped me to figure out how to put them into practice. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 17:24, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

👌👌👌👌 Tarlby (t) (c) 17:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Ah, thank you! As soon as I get a chance, I'll be taking a look! Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 17:39, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

@Shovel Shenanigans One alternative way to highlight your own signature so you can see it easily on Talk Pages but others just see the default blue text is to use a personal cascading style sheet at Special:MyPage/common.css. If you were to add the code #bodyContent a[title="User:Shovel Shenanigans"] { background-color: #008080; color: #ffffff; font-weight: bold; } there, you and you alone would see your signature in white letters on a bright green background. I do this and I wish more people would as it doesn't distract anyone else reading these pages. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:15, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh, thanks! I think that's what I'll use. Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 17:56, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, I tried it, but it said there was something wrong with the code :/ Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 19:06, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

@Shovel Shenanigans Did you copy the code straight from the rendered text? It should have worked. Compare my version at this page but please don't attempt to edit there. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I copied the exact code. I think I got it to work now, though. .mw-redirect {color: green;} #bodyContent a[title="User:Shovel Shenanigans"] { background-color: #008080; color: #ffffff; font-weight: bold; } .mw-parser-output .cs1-maint {display: inline;} /* display Citation Style 1 maintenance messages */ .mw-parser (talk) 17:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah no. .mw-redirect {color: green;} #bodyContent a[title="User:Shovel Shenanigans"] { background-color: #008080; color: #ffffff; font-weight: bold; } .mw-parser-output .cs1-maint {display: inline;} /* display Citation Style 1 maintenance messages */ .mw-parser (talk) 17:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I do wonder what's causing the issue, whether there's some issue with how/where it's inputted? CommissarDoggo^Talk? 17:29, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, it's not an urgent issue. It's just a slight blow to my vanity haha. Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 18:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Ah! I found the source, I think! It says it wasn't linking to my talk page or user page or something. Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 18:43, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Hybrid Bridges

Hi, Yavuz Sultan Selim Bridge has a hybrid design, so it is not just a suspension bridge or a cable-stayed bridge. However, it is on the List of longest suspension bridge spans, but not on the List of longest cable-stayed bridge spans. Would it be a better idea to create a new list for hybrid bridges? I know there are not many hybrid bridges, and unfortunately I haven't come across many resources on the subject. I kindly ask for your feedback. Ail Subway (talk) 10:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

@Ail Subway If you don't get any good ideas here, I suggest posting at WT:BRIDGE, which has over 100 page watchers. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Ail Subway (talk) 20:09, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

How do I mark a page for speedy deletion, please?

The page "https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manorial_Title_Register_Limited" is an advert pure and simple. They are selling bogus titles. The Director claims to be the "Earl of Dunbar" (which has been extinct for 100s of years). The only reference is to their own advertising page. The other reference link is broken. Thank You Kiltpin (talk) 15:19, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

The Simple English Wikipedia is a separate project; I'm not entirely sure that they have the same processes we do. 331dot (talk) 15:21, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

You can use a tool such as twinkle but please make sure you read the guidelines of the deletion on the simple english wikipedia. I have placed the speedy deletion for you on the article Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 15:43, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much. Kiltpin (talk) 18:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Page now deleted! Nick Moyes (talk) 20:17, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Edit History

Someone edited my article and I want to know who so I can thank them, the main question is, how do you find the articles edit history? Yuanmongolempiredynasty (talk) 22:37, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi Yuanmongolempiredynasty, welcome to the Teahouse. Click "View history" near the top of the page. See more at Help:Page history. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Yuanmongolempiredynasty (talk) 22:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

A note - "An article I created" is a better way to think about what you did versus "my article", as the latter implies ownership. At The Horde: How the Mongols Changed the World, View history, clicking on any of the dates in the list shows what the article looked like on that date. Green numbers mean content added, red numbers content removed. David notMD (talk) 12:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Yuanmongolempiredynasty (talk) 20:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Florida Power & Light Power request

Hi editors, I made a rather large request for the power generation section. It's essentially a reorganization and removing some unsourced sentences and a little bit of new content. I recognize that it is pretty unwieldy. I would appreciate any suggestions that editors here have for improving it! Cheers FPL Daniel (talk) 18:17, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

FPL Daniel, it's unlikely that any editor will approve a large unwieldy proposal like yours. You don't even make it clear what you want. Are [you] proposing to replace the whole article by the six sections you've written? Or to add them to it? Or to have them replace some unspecified parts of it? Maproom (talk) 21:16, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

@Maproom, In their original request they said Replace the content in the current Power generation section with what is in the collapse box below:, so it's evident that they wanted to replace the whole content. What I can say to, @FPL Daniel, is that editing Wikipedia is voluntary and the editors who complete edit requests do it on a voluntary basis and go through hundreds of them every week and month so please be patient while editors come and try to complete your edit request. Thanks, Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 20:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

So I wrote this article about a person who died 2 days ago

Khaled Nabhan as the title says I wrote an article about a person who recently died. Now I need help to nominate this article so it can appear on the ''recent deaths'' in the main page. Could anyone help me with that? I don't get it at all tbf. Thanks in advance! The Authentic Egyptian Pasha (talk) 18:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Recent Deaths is usually reserved for deaths of notable people. The article you are trying to nominate is a dictionary definition of a stub. If you want, expand the article then try again. Apteryx!🐉 | Roar with me!!! 🗨🐲 18:48, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh okay. I did not know that actually. Thank you! The Authentic Egyptian Pasha (talk) 18:58, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Sort of, sort of isn't. I wouldn't tag it as a stub as it has enough content that is worth an encyclopedic entry. The notability tag is something else. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 20:38, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

SIXFOOT 5 Page Deletion Question

Hi there - I'm wondering if you could give me more information about why 'SIXFOOT 5' Wikipedia page was deleted:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:CarsonRammelt/sandbox

I'm SIXFOOT 5, I'm a notable figure in the music industry and have worked with a number of artists who have their own Wikipedia pages. My sources included People Magazine and ABC News. CarsonRammelt (talk) 19:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello. It says it was deleted as a user request. You can recover it by going to WP:REFUND.

People do not "have Wikipedia pages" here, that they wrote, own, and control. Wikipedia has articles about musicians that meet our criteria. Autobiographical articles are highly discouraged, see the autobiography policy. A Wikipedia article summarizes what independent reliable sources say about the topic, not what it says about itself. Articles are typically written by independent editors wholly unconnected with the subject. 331dot (talk) 19:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

There is also a draft article located at Draft:SIXFOOT 5 (Record Producer). -- D'n'B-t -- 20:38, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Userboxes

How do userboxes work? I'm relatively new to wikipedia and i'd like someone the explain how to do it in simple terms or just help me learn at least.

Thanks if you help (Yes i'm talking to you), Tatsnorad (talk) 20:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

the page WP:UBX goes over their usage aquarium substrate^talk 20:42, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Am I trying too hard on something?

I'm currently working on making a chronological list of every notable tornado/tornado outbreak to hit the state of Oklahoma, and I plan to make a section about every storm and outbreak seen in Category:Tornadoes in Oklahoma. There are like 100 entries in the category and it's taking forever, so I am wondering if I should just choose two or three of the biggest/deadliest events from each decade, submit it to AfC, then come back and add the smaller ones later to make the list comprehensive. Apteryx!🐉 | Roar with me!!! 🗨🐲 15:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

@ApteryxRainWing Welcome to the Teahouse. As your own draft states, there have been 4,200 tornadoes in that state since 1950. So, yes, I think you could be trying to hard. It would be impracticable to cover so many events in one list. Making it clear by expanding the lead to say that the page lists only the most significant of these events would make a lot of sense. Set out the criteria for inclusion and stick to it. Are there similar articles for other states? If so, how have they approached this matter? If you know how many tornadoes impacted within each decade, that might be a worthwhile fact to highlight, too. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:16, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

there is a few lists for states such as Ohio, but that one misses so many major storms and is obviously a WIP. I want my article to be good from the start, so I am adding 3 of the most important events from each decade and I'll let other people fill in the smaller outbreaks after the article goes through AfC Apteryx!🐉 | Roar with me!!! 🗨🐲 20:45, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Userboxes and adding images to profile

Hi y’all! I’d like to know how to add userboxes and images? I’m very new but I’d like to learn and understand the editing process better so I can make my profile and edits better! Thank you! :D Razzlematazzle (talk) 20:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

@Razzlematazzle Welcome! this page might be helpful. Knitsey (talk) 20:54, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

thank you so much!!! i promise to do my best!! Razzlematazzle (talk) 20:56, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Single quotation marks conflict with wikitext

Hello, I was editing and realized that single quotation marks ' ' and the italic/bold wikitext sometimes interfere with each other. For example when trying to quote 'some text' but also italicize some text, the three quotes appear as some text in bold instead because of the triple quotes. Is there a way around this? I know some systems use a backslash \ to disable formatting but that doesn't seem to work here. Curuwen (talk) 22:10, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi Curuwen, welcome to the Teahouse. Single quoation marks should rarely be used. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Double or single. <nowiki /> can be inserted between things which should not be interpreted together 'like this'. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I had thought single quotes would be used in articles with British English but I guess not. Curuwen (talk) 22:33, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

In this concrete case simply using a space is sufficient. 'A slanted space is a space too.' 176.0.131.52 (talk) 23:19, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

@Curuwen: To answer your technical question, even though you may be no longer interested: You can use the template {{'}} to insert a single quote in a way that doesn't interfere with other markup. For instance, ''{{'}}text{{'}}'' renders as 'text'. Deor (talk) 00:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. There are at least three ways then, wikitext, template, and just adding a space. Curuwen (talk) 02:17, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Note that the template also inserts a very thin space before the ', to prevent the last letter from colliding with the quotation mark. Compare 'TEXT' and 'TEXT'. --rchard2scout (talk) 21:11, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

When is it appropriate to add (no relation)?

I was thinking of changing, in the article Web of the City, the line "In 1954, Harlan Ellison – inspired by the juvenile delinquency-themed novels of Hal Ellson" to "In 1954, Harlan Ellison – inspired by the juvenile delinquency-themed novels of Hal Ellson(no relation) – "

I had a moment of confusion/curiosity upon reading that Harlan Ellison's first novel was inspired by someone with the same surname as him, as many readers might. Is there a policy or a manual of style that explains when this (no relation) parenthetical might be used? Buddy Gripple (talk) 17:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

edit: I now see that their surnames aren't exactly the same, but I suppose the question still stands Buddy Gripple (talk) 17:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

@Buddy Gripple I don't think there's a specific guide anywhere, but I can see the confusion that'd give. For people with the same surname then it'd probably be better to add an explanatory footnote to point out that there's no relation. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 17:39, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Interestingly, Hal Ellson discusses the fact that the two authors were often confused. Cullen328 (talk) 17:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I've done so, and got to practice making a footnote, thank you. Buddy Gripple (talk) 18:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I think the clarification is particularly appropriate in this instance. Firstly, writers often use partial variations of their usual name as pseudonyms; and secondly, Harlan Ellison also wrote works about juvenile delinquency. The question of their possible identity is bound to arise in many readers' minds (I know it once did in mine). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.223.204 (talk) 21:38, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Linking to countries wikipedia pages

I am new to Wikipedia editing and trying the easy edits it is suggesting, I am unsure and confused of what needs to be linked and what dosent. I am not sure if the countries of the reciepients needs to be linked.

Any help would be great--thanks.International Dennis Gabor Award HoopymrGreen (talk) 23:14, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi and welcome, @HoopymrGreen! Take a look at WP:LINK, particularly the sections What generally should be linked and What generally should not be linked. Those should help you. Schazjmd (talk) 23:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @Schazjmd, as the countries don't really relate to the topic, I think I will leave them out. HoopymrGreen (talk) 23:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @HoopymrGreen, and welcome to the Teahouse. Well done for starting with some learning opportunities.

The answer (as so often) will depend on the case. But MOS:Linking gives a useful guide. ColinFine (talk) 23:21, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you,@ColinFine I have looked at the Linking guide. HoopymrGreen (talk) 23:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

SANDBOX. As a rookie, I started editing the suggested article and was blocked from publishing it. I have since been directed to create my sand box. Now I need instructions on getting this article into my sandbox. I have reread all the tutorials and have yet to find those instructions. How do I get the article I started editing into my sand box?

SANDBOX. As a rookie, I started editing the suggested article and was blocked from publishing it. I have since been directed to create my sand box. Now I need instructions on getting this article into my sandbox. I have reread all the tutorials and have yet to find those instructions. How do I get the article I started editing into my sand box? UDCIDE (talk) 21:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi @UDCIDE, your question seems to be connected to your edit to David H. Huntoon. That edit made no sense, that's why it was reverted. I suggest that you learn more about editing, such as by completing Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Adventure, and practice small edits and corrections before attempting to rewrite an article. Schazjmd (talk) 21:42, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

This link will take you to the sandbox page you created: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:UDCIDE/sandbox

Article content is text. Click 'Edit' near the top of an article's page. Copy a chunk of the article that you want to experiment with from the left column. This includes all of the special characters that handle formatting and links.

Go to your sandbox page. Click 'Edit'. Paste the text you copied into the left column. The right column should show the results of the new text/edits. Alegh (talk) 22:42, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

You should not copy an article into your Sandbox to work on it. It is appropriate to copy a portion of an article into your Sandbox, edit there, provide references if you are adding new information, and then paste the revised content into the article. David notMD (talk) 23:46, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks so much. I reread all the tutorials and never found your instructions. Thanks, again. UDCIDE (talk) 00:58, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

If a DRV ends up being an "Endorse" instead of "Allows Recreation", what happens to the new information that I found?

Hi, to give a bit of context, I recently found a lot of new sources for an article that was nominated to AfD after it was relisted [8]. But despite being relisted for extra discussion, the AfD was first closed as "no consensus", but then a few hours later, was changed to "delete", even though there were no further delete votes after the new sources were posted. From reading the DRV rules, I understand that if the DRV ends up being an "endorse", then the article will no longer exist and I won't be able to recreate the article. But what happens to the new sources I found? Does it mean that these sources no longer count as "new sources", and so I'd have to find more on top of these? GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 13:08, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

User:GregariousMadness - A deletion of an article at AFD normally allows the recreation and submission of a draft, and the endorsement of the deletion normally does not disallow recreation and submission. Some of the participants in the DRV are saying both to Endorse the close of the deletion discussion and to authorize submission of a draft, but they (including myself) are restating the usual procedure, rather than voting to make a special exception. If, as appears certain, the deletion is endorsed, you will be able to submit a draft of a new article for approval, regardless of whether the closer of the DRV mentions that.

There are two questions that authors who wish to recreate a title that was deleted often conflate, causing confusion:

• • May a draft with the deleted title be submitted for review?
  • May a copy of the deleted article be restored to user or draft space?

The answer to the first is almost always yes. The exception is if the title has been salted, create-protected, usually due to repeated recreation. It should usually not be necessary to ask the second question. It is often better to start over in creating a good article rather than using an article that failed to show notability as the starting point. It is almost always better to start over if the previous article was deleted as promotional, but the article in question was deleted for lack of notability. Anyway, in your case, you will do better to start from scratch than to use the deleted article to begin, because the deleted article was corrupted by sockpuppet edits and other misconduct. So I advise you to start from your knowledge and your better sources after the DRV is finished.

It won't matter whether the closer of the DRV says that you may submit a draft for review. You will be authorized to submit a draft for review. A statement to that effect restates the standard process.

Robert McClenon (talk) 02:57, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete, or take other actions?

I have two questions and they both relate to the exact same sentence;

1) If, in an article, a single sentence is a direct quote from a research paper that has CC BY permissions, should it be removed entirely, or should another type of action be taken?

2) If, in an article, a single sentence contains non-neutral words, should it be removed entirely, or should another type of action be taken?

For reference;

- The sentence is "The evolution of the “flood and drain systems” adopted in backyard aquaponics comes back to the pioneering work of Mark McMurtry"

- The source is; Rharrhour, Haytam; Wariaghli, Fatima; Goddek, Simon; Sadik, Mohamed; Moujtahid, Aziz El; Nhhala, Hassan; Yahyaoui, Ahmed (2022). "Towards sustainable food productions in Morocco: Aquaponics". E3S Web of Conferences. 337: 03004. Bibcode:2022E3SWC.33703004R. doi:10.1051/e3sconf/202233703004. ISSN 2267-1242

- I have not deleted anything, the sentence quoted was removed, twice, by other editors. Wiki142B (talk) 22:24, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

for background reference;

1) The sentence was removed by another editor for copyright violation.

2) I started a talk discussion to explain that it comes from a CCBY source.

3) The editor said it was bad practice and it should have been paraphrased.

4) I undid the deletion.

5) Another editor removed it because it was not nuetral.

6) I started a talk discussion and suggested the sentence be changed to ""The development of 'flood and drain systems' in modern aquaponics can be traced to the research of Dr. Mark McMurtry at North Carolina State University."

7) The editor still says this is "more about puffing McMurtry than informing the reader".

8) I suggested to change it to "The development of 'flood and drain systems' in modern aquaponics can be traced to the research at North Carolina State University."

9) The editor said "The content of the sentence is promotional. There is no neutral way to word it because the promotion is the only thing there"

I am still confused how it is promotional when it is a factual part of the history, foundation and development of that specific system type, it is not opinion it is supported by a scientific paper.

Why are other people involved in the history, foundation and development of of he types of systems allowed? Wiki142B (talk) 22:47, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

@Wiki142B I think that the context is important. Wikipedia writing allows direct quotes and a single sentence from a cited source is fine, whether or not the source has a creative commons license. So, in a biography of Mark McMurtry, to say he was "pioneering" would not be neutral but it would be fine to say 'According to X, the evolution of the “flood and drain systems” adopted in backyard aquaponics comes back to the pioneering work of Mark McMurtry'. Even there, you could paraphrase the quote: the point being that you are using it to establish that in someone's opinion he was a "pioneer". In the context of a broad topic like aquaponics I doubt that it is necessary to mention the "pioneering" bit at all. Every innovation could be said to be pioneering, right back to the Chinese. So I would stick to the basic facts and (in the example you give) focus on describing what a flood and drain system is, with citations to McMurtry's publication(s) and the secondary source. There is no need to namecheck each contributor in the body text. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia writing allows direct quotes and a single sentence from a cited source is fine, whether or not the source has a creative commons license

That is good to know, but also confusing/frustrating as I was previously informed by Diannaa that; "For legal reasons, Wikipedia strictly cannot host copyrighted text or images from print media or digital platforms without an appropriate and verifiable license. Contributions infringing on copyright will be removed. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. "

Although, the above may be referring to more than just a direct quote/single sentence. Wiki142B (talk) 22:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

It's okay to copy prose from a webpage or juornal article that is available under a compatible Creative Commons Licence, but you have to give attribution so that our readers are made aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself. It's also required under the terms of the license. Attribution for this particular item would be done by including the template {{Creative Commons text attribution notice|cc=by4|from this source=yes}} as part of your citation. Like this. Diannaa (talk) 00:37, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

@Wiki142B See, for example, the template {{blockquote}} and the articles which link there. Some good articles contain multiple quotations from sources that are copyright. Albert Einstein is a case in point. Provided that the quote is attributed to its author, is not modified, and is not excessive in length that's fine. What is not allowed is to copy/paste large chunks of other people's work and pass them off as if your own writing. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:59, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Help to get my wikipedia page approved

Hi, I'm doing a project here on wikipedia with my group, on an Italian Hiking trail and via ferrata, the draft page is called Bove Path. I need help to have this page accepted before 31 of December and if there is something to modify ill do it. LIUCChia.05 (talk) 08:42, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia does not have any deadlines, and is frankly not concerned with deadlines imposed on editors by others/outside forces. The draft is at Draft:Bove Path. You have submitted it for review and it is pending. We cannot guarantee a timeframe for review or a speedy review. Please be patient.

If this is a school project, your instructors have given you a poor assignment and put you in a difficult position. Instructors should not be requiring the creation/approval of a Wikipedia article for a grade. 331dot (talk) 09:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

@LIUCChia.05 The article has now been accepted at Bove Path. My suggestion would be to expand the lead to include a summary of some of the other main topics of the article. A couple more paragraphs could easily be justified. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

LIUCChia.05, it's clear that a lot of work has gone into this page; and my first impression is that it's good of its kind. But I note: "Before starting the trail, it is essential to consult the relevant authorities for updates on closed shelters or dried-up water sources"; and "This section has limited water sources, so hikers should bring sufficient supplies." It seems that here you're having Wikipedia give advice. Now, it seems to be very important advice, perhaps even life-saving advice; but Wikipedia doesn't give advice. (By contrast, if you were to say for example "In 2021 a group of six walkers had to be evacuated by helicopter; a hospital spokesperson said that dehydration was a danger and advised walkers to carry at least two litres when temperatures are forecast to exceed 27°C", of course with a reliable source, this would be OK, as you wouldn't be implying that the advice came from Wikipedia.) -- Hoary (talk) 11:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

While it is now an accepted article, many paragraphs do not have references. References can be used more than once. David notMD (talk) 12:01, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

From the quality of the writing, I have a suspicion that some has been copied verbatim from references. (I hope this is not true.) David notMD (talk) 12:09, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I did check it with earwig before accepting. Theroadislong (talk) 13:06, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Lead is too short. It could use a paragraph on the history and another for a lightly detailed description of the trail (length, elevation gained/lost, difficulty, options for hiking just sections rather than all of it, etc. Existing refs can be used in Lead but not required. No content or refs in Lead that are not used elsewhere in article in more detail. David notMD (talk) 12:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Need help in improving page "REPowerEU"

Hi everyone, I am a student in Catholic University of Louvain recently trying to write article on "REPowerEU" need your guidance to improve it, if you could guide me that would be great. Regards Nadeem Afzal989 (talk) 14:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I will make some formatting changes, but I don't know enough about the subject to evaluate what text and sources you've added to REPowerEU in revision 1264112274.

For that matter, none of the Teahouse regulars know how your assignments are graded; in that respect, perhaps your instructor or any teaching assistants are the better people to ask? Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 16:06, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Changing my page name

I made my first page but it says USER : BLANK BLANK SANDBOX....HELP Blackmoonheart (talk) 07:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Blackmoonheart, your page is located at User:Blackmoonheart/sandbox. It is improperly referenced, promotional and not suitable as an encyclopedia article at this time. Please read Your first article to learn what is required. Cullen328 (talk) 07:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Do not submit for review until content is properly referenced. Delete all content for which references cannot verify. David notMD (talk) 11:49, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Blackmoonheart, the writing of this draft is pretty good, but there are a couple things that need to be addressed before it can be moved out of the sandbox into an actual article. First, make sure there are good sources about this person that can verify what you wrote about him. The links WP:GOLDENRULE and WP:BACKWARD help explain this process. Also make sure there's nothing promotional or celebratory about the writing. The article should be a neutral description of his career that doesn't "talk him up" in any way. Thanks for helping add new information to Wikipedia! Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:23, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Copy-Editing

Hi Teahouse, Quick question. Should an aircraft's name be in Italics? I wasn't able to find anything in the Manual of Style, In the article I am working on History of aviation it is inconsistent. Cheers, CF-501 Falcon (talk) 15:52, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

MOS:ITALIC says to italicize the proper names of aircraft. Schazjmd (talk) 16:04, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

@Schazjmd, Thank you so much! Have a good day. Cheers, CF-501 Falcon (talk) 18:34, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

SS War Criminal

Hello , My husband Paul Fulde and I are trying to do research into the activities of his Paternal Grandfather , Dr. Paul Fulde . We recently discovered in a book , "Himmlers Kinder" , written by Dr. Thomas Bryant that Dr. Paul Fulde of Schwerin-Lubeck was a favoured consultant to Heinrich Himmler . Furthermore that Dr. Paul Fulde was an Obersturmbahnfuhrer in the SS and was personally appointed by Himmler to head the Nazi breeding program of "Lebensborn" for all of North East Germany. Dr. Paul Fulde's high SS rank gave him jurisdiction over the Concentration Camps, Euthanization hospitals, Death Factories , Polish Slave Labour etc etc. His son , Dr. Heinz-Jurgen Fulde assisted him in some projects though he was a medical student at the time but still had to do his duty in the Wehrmacht. I know that he adored his father Paul and would go to the camps with him to choose laborers for their estates. The older Fulde daughters had married SS Officers who owned estates in the Schwerin-Lubeck region. Dr. Paul Fulde went into hiding immediately after Germany's capitulation and it was alleged that he committed suicide. His son Dr. HJ Fulde was a POW in Britain and was exonerated after 1945 when so many SS were set free and never brought to justice. Dr. Heinz-Jurgen Fulde practised medicine in Doncaster UK and after the Labour Party won the elections , Dr. HJ Fulde went to Nova Scotia Canada in 1967. He established his medical practice and practiced until his death in 1999. It took many years for my husband and I to do serious research. As the Patriarch , Dr. Paul Fulde was such an important adviser on Eugenics and "Racial Hygeine" to Heinrich Himmler we are surprised that so little is written about him and that he isn't featured in any documentaries about that era. We have contacted two prominent Jewish organizations and other researchers and yet there is hardly anything about Dr. Paul Fulde , Dermatologist , SS Obersturmbahnfuhrer , Schwerin Germany. We would greatly appreciated any assistance whatsoever. Sincerely , Christine and Paul Fulde 2001:1970:51A1:A900:352A:9469:F41D:949C (talk) 07:01, 20 December 2024 (UTC) redactions by asilvering (talk) 18:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello. All that intricate detail that you deposited above is not what the Teahouse is for. The purpose of the Teahouse is to ask and answer questions about editing Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not base content on family anecdotes, no matter how dark. Acceptable Wikipedia articles summarize the significant coverage that reliable, independent published sources say about the topic. Wikipededia editors are forbidden by policy from engaging in the type of original research you describe above. Please read Your first article for a more detailed explanation. Cullen328 (talk) 07:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia, an encyclopedia; and more specifically this particular page is one in which people may ask questions about their use of Wikipedia. Your task is very different, and I don't know where you might ask. -- Hoary (talk) 07:14, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I have no desire to look into these claims. I feel like they shouldn't be left here to be archived. We don't know if this is Christine and/or Paul Fulde making these statements...and even if it was, this isn't the place for them. --Onorem (talk) 18:36, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Christine and Paul, you may want to ask a (much abbreviated) version of this at WP:RD/H, where there are research wizards who may be able to help you, if there's anything about him in published sources. Please avoid describing so much of the family story when you do so. -- asilvering (talk) 18:42, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Moving an article

So, I saw an article that did not have any references or citations, and it was very short and not very descriptive. I want to move it from main space so it can be improved by whoever wrote it, but I don’t know how. If any of you want to check it out, here’s the link: El homaydat Yuanmongolempiredynasty (talk) 23:05, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Ok, never mind, it’s proposed that it will be deleted on Christmas. But, I still want to learn how to move a article from main space if it doesn’t have reliable sources Yuanmongolempiredynasty (talk) 23:31, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, if you wanna draftify a page regarding your description, then I suggest using WP:MTD. However, if I were you, I'd either suggest proposing/nominating the article for deletion or even try to improve the article. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 00:43, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

It is up for deletion, and I have messaged the creator, but I decided, “oh, maybe I could learn something from this,” so that’s why I came here. Thank You! Yuanmongolempiredynasty (talk) 11:37, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

No problem. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 14:22, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I think you meant you want to move draftify it as your description suggestion such article is not ready for main space. To move article, simply click on the three buttons after the edit button, then click on 'Move page ', you'd see different options like 'Draft, Article, talk etc' then you'd move to appropriate headings. For main space movement I.e from Draft or Sandbox to main space, You should click on 'Article' modify the title if neccesary or leave it as if is. Then publish.... Tesleemah (talk) 08:15, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Yuanmongolempiredynasty (talk) 11:39, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

But notice, @Yuanmongolempiredynasty, that not all inadequate articles should be draftified. See WP:DRAFTIFY. ColinFine (talk) 16:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I understand Yuanmongolempiredynasty (talk) 20:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

The technical problem here is that you will leave a redirect, unless you have certain privileges. So you have to nominate the redirect for deletion. On the whole it's probably better to use Wikipedia:Requested moves. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 18:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC).

Why does Sivapithecini redirect to Ponginae?

As far as i know, Sivapithecini and Ponginae are two completely different tribes. Why is it a redirect??? PersonOnAPlatform (talk) 14:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

PersonOnAPlatform: according to Ponginae, Ponginae is a subfamily, containing the tribes Sivapithecini and Pongini. Maproom (talk) 15:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I feel like we should give Sivapithecini its own article though, because it contains species like Sivapithecus. Maybe i could do that. PersonOnAPlatform (talk) 19:04, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

How do I change the title on a existing wiki-article

Here is the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBC_Protection_Military_Academy

Someone translated this article from Russian, using "protection" as the translation for "защита ". The correct term in English is "defense" not "protection". Condom is a protection, Airforce is a defense. I was able to replace "protection" for "defense" in the body of the article, but I cannot make the change in the Title. Any ideas how to change the title of an existing article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walter Tau (talk • contribs) 17:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

If you want, you can request a move using WP:Twinkle. Any autoconfirmed user can rename a page. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 17:31, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I moved the article to NBC Defense Military Academy as a WP:BOLDMOVE. That said, when you replace[d] "protection" for "defense" in the body of the article, you broke at least one image and one wikilink.

Please double-check your work and fix the errors. Thank you! Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 19:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Feedback on Draft?

Hoping this might be a place where someone might offer a bit of feedback on a draft to see if there are any issues, formatting or content related - or anything else that seems problematic.

If not please advise any alternative. Thanks in advance!

KoKo91361 (talk) 15:07, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

To get feedback you need to submit Draft:KarynO for review but I can tell you now that IMDb and Discogs are NOT reliable independent sources. Theroadislong (talk) 15:12, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for this quick note. Will have to eliminate/replace IMDb and Discogs links and citations then. A bit challenging since about 1/2 of our references come from them. Good to know this would be a problem though (in advance!) KoKo91361 (talk) 15:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi @KoKo91361, I am not seeing evidence from the sources you've provided that Karyn meets our criteria for inclusion for musicians, unfortunately. If these are the best sources you have, then it doesn't look like Karyn merits an article on Wikipedia at this time. qcne (talk) 16:43, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

A LOT of unreferenced name-dropping that all has to be deleted. For example: "She became a technical consultant and friend to many - including Christopher Cross, Stewart Copeland, Timothy B. Schmidt, Elton John (band), Jon Anderson, Ray Charles, Billy Corgan, Eric Carmen, Butch Vig, Al Schmitt. Bruce Swedien, Oscar Peterson, Stevie Wonder, and countless others." David notMD (talk) 20:08, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Categories

The article about Robert P.Black who died recently still has the category "Living person" at the bottom of his Wikipedia page. He died recently and that category should be removed from his page. How does one accomplish that? MadamArtz (talk) 19:19, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, @MadamArtz. Looking at the article, it doesn't look like it has been updated yet to account for his death, if he did die. Can you provide a reliable source (per WP:VERIFY) about his death so that we can add this information? Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 19:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

The article has already been updated to indicate his death. My question relates to removing the category "living person". MadamArtz (talk) 19:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

While it does say that Robert P. Black died (my bad), it still isn't sourced and a quick Google search didn't find anything. Can you find a reliable source? Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 19:36, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

There is an obituary for this economist here. StarryGrandma (talk) 19:46, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

@MadamArtz The category has been removed and Black's death is added with a source. To remove categories in the future, you can click "Edit" at the top right of a page (assuming you're using a computer), click on the box of categories at the bottom of the page, and remove the respective category. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 20:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

DRAFT PAGE UNIVERSITY PROJECT

Hello, i'm actually working on the draft page "Villa Fraccaroli" for a university project, i need the page to be accepted before the 31 of december, i was wondering if you could look at it, and if there's something to improve, i can work on it. Thank you in advance! Micol Liucmicol01 (talk) 16:12, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Liucmicol01 We cannot guarantee acceptance before a certain date- we have no deadlines on this volunteer project. and your professor has put you in a difficult position by making you do this. Your professor should review the Wikipedia Education Program materials to design lessons that don't depend on review by volunteers. Please show your professor this message. 331dot (talk) 16:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

This has been reported on the Education Noticeboard: Wikipedia:Education noticeboard#Teahouse query from Italian university class as a few other class members have posted queries.

@Liucmicol01 please tell your instructor they have set you an unfair task: new drafts are reviewed by volunteers in their own time, and the current wait time is eight weeks or longer. qcne (talk) 16:36, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Qcue's answer is not true. The system is not a queue. Any draft can be reviewed in days, weeks, or (sadly) months. Each reviewer decides what they want to review next. David notMD (talk) 20:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

For the curious, it has been accepted and is now at Villa Fraccaroli. David notMD (talk) 20:13, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Obviously good submissions can be accepted fast, and problem ones can be declined fast. But those in between that are difficult to evaluate may be left for someone else to check. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Suggestions for Monte Zovetto page

Good morning, everyone, My team and I recently finished our Monte Zovetto wiki page (a mountain in northern Italy) for a school project. It was approved, and we received a grade C.

We already made some improvements (also thanks to other editors), but do you have any suggestions on how we can improve it to achieve a grade B? Thank you!

LIUCsmarties (talk) 07:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC) LIUCsmarties (talk) 07:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I saw there are the pronunciation in "British English" indicated in "IPA".

Maybe someone can add it in "Italian" ? It is not a great improvement but it is a good one.

Why not add the pronunciation with IPA transcription in "Venetian language" ? Anatole-berthe (talk) 07:51, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Please see our response to your fellow student and to how poorly your instructor has designed the assignment and how that's putting you and your classmates in an unfair position and lots of unneeded stress. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 10:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

LIUCsmarties, you say "It was approved, and we received a grade C." I "accepted" the draft, promoting it to article status. I didn't give it a "C", and nobody else did either. I don't see anyone calling it "Start", "C", or "B". Do you mean that your teacher approved it and gave it a C, for university rather than Wikipedia purposes? If so, we people here who aren't affiliated with LIUC don't know either how grading is supposed to work in LIUC or what particular criteria your teacher uses in order to grade. -- Hoary (talk) 11:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

@Hoary Actually you did. However, @LIUCsmarties probably doesn't realise that these assessments are somewhat arbitrary and only good articles and featured articles go through a formal process here. I suggest that LIUCsmarties and colleagues relax after doing a good job of creating the article and focus now on the rest of their schoolwork. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, Mike Turnbull, so I did. Duh. (I plead senility!) Anyone (other than the author or their classmates) who thinks it merits a B is welcome to give it a B. And I have to say that though I'm usually unimpressed by class-assigned article creation, this set does impress me (in a good way). -- Hoary (talk) 12:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

@Hoary I recently reviewed the Assessments for many articles at WikiProject Mountains of the Alps. I would say this is a pretty complete article, easily meriting a B-class (which I have just given it). With some further careful work on sourcing and on WP:MOS formatting, it could well be put forward for a GA Assessment, though seeking more detailed feedback at WP:PEER REVIEW could be worthwhile. However, these further steps would need the commitment to see this through beyond the unfair deadline set by their tutor (Limelightangel), as discussed in recent threads from their other students. I think @LIUCsmarties and colleagues should be extremely proud of their work. It's impressive. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:14, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

LIUCsmarties Consider deleting the Legends section, as not clear it is specific to Zovetto (and perhaps adding it to Roana instead). David notMD (talk) 13:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

"&nbsp" tag appearing in some edits I make

I am curious as to why some of my edits lately include adding "&nbsp" tags when I am not intentionally adding them. Examples include [9], [10], and [11]. I corrected them with [12], [13], and [14], respectively. I wonder if pages that are prone to having the "&nbsp" tag appear when I intend to make a different change have some script or formatting issue that I do not know about until I make the edit. If anyone can help identify this issue, I would appreciate it. Z. Patterson (talk) 03:57, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Z. Patterson. That is just the code for a Non-breaking space. It prevents an unwanted line break. Cullen328 (talk) 04:22, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328: I understand now. Thank you. Z. Patterson (talk) 04:29, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Userpage question

I know I've already asked about my userpage before but I've done a lot of work on it since then. Does my userpage go a bit overboard, especially with the inline links? I joined the welcoming committee and I am expecting at least a few new users to come to my userpage from my signature on my welcome messages so I tried to leave a lot of inline links for them to click on and get a feel for the scope of the encyclopedia. ApteryxRainWing🐉 | Roar with me!!! | My contributions 15:13, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

@User:ApteryxRainWing Compared to User:EEng (takes awhile to load, and I don't recommend it as a role model), or myself, for that matter, I find your page quite respectable. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:24, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I feel I do the most good by being a warning lesson parents can point out to their children. EEng 15:45, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

if i learned one thing from you, it's that puns are the scourge of all things good cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 16:34, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

No, no, they've got a point. The reason we exist on this world is to get as many rules added to the book as possible. No one ever told me I couldn't add an inline link containing some sarcastic joke for every single word on my userpage, but I'm sure they wouldn't like it if I did so why don't we make it official? ApteryxRainWing🐉 | Roar with me!!! | My contributions 16:37, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

oh my that isn't a userpage that's a whole-ass userbook. I guess mine is better than I thought ApteryxRainWing🐉 | Roar with me!!! | My contributions 15:26, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

406,519 bytes, that's a lot. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:37, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

To put it into context, the largest article on Wikipedia has 975,504 bytes. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 15:59, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Wow, we have an article that's almost an entire gigabyte? Does it just have a lot of text or are images, GIFs, code spaghetti, and videos taking up some of that space? ApteryxRainWing🐉 | Roar with me!!! | My contributions 16:04, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

@User:ApteryxRainWing That's not a Gigabyte, only just below a Megabyte. The whole encycopedia can be downloaded at about 24 GB. See WP:SIZEWP. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:24, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

oh yeah sorry I forgot the ratios. I'm surprised Wikipedia is only 24 gigs, I thought 6 million articles would be closer to a terabyte ApteryxRainWing🐉 | Roar with me!!! | My contributions 16:25, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

As of February 2013, the XML file containing current pages only, no user or talk pages, was 42,987,293,445 bytes uncompressed (43 GB). The XML file with current pages, including user and talk pages, was 93,754,003,797 bytes uncompressed (94 GB). The full history dumps, all 174 files of them, took 10,005,676,791,734 bytes (10 TB).

As of August 2023, Wikimedia Commons, which includes the images, videos and other media used across all the language-specific Wikipedias contained 96,519,778 files, totalling 470,991,810,222,099 bytes (428.36 TB). CommissarDoggo^Talk? 16:28, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Text is very small, especially ASCII characters in UTF-8 (the majority of characters used on the English Wikipedia), which are one byte each. – dudhhr ^talk_contribs^she_her 19:10, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Interesting, per [15] that article has 2 words. And 1,541 unique references. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:12, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Looks great, especially the storm chaser part. :) E_F⁵ 15:26, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

what can I say, I just have zero sense of self preservation and I want to see the silly wind cones up close :D ApteryxRainWing🐉 | Roar with me!!! | My contributions 15:55, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I liked your userpage. Quite interesting username too. Girlwithgoldenheart (talk) 16:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! The "apteryx" in my name is the scientific name of my favorite bird, the kiwi, and "RainWing" is a reference to my favorite tribe from the book series Wings of Fire Apteryx!🐉 | Roar with me!!! 🗨🐲 17:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much for taking your time to let me know the real meaning about your username. You're a creative guy. Wishing you good luck. Girlwithgoldenheart (talk) 05:17, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Preference on editing style

I was wondering if it is prefered if, for consecutive edits/contributions for an article all written in the same edit period, that the edits be merged into a single large edit when publishing or if smaller but multiple edits are prefered. Thought 1915 (talk) on 22:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

@Thought 1915 It very much depends e.g. whether the topic is controversial and whether there are lots of other editors watching the article. We work according to a standard bold, revert, discuss process and if you add one large edit, another editor may dislike just one part (e.g. because it is not sourced) and decide to revert the whole edit. If, instead, you add short sections then another editor will be unlikely to revert all your work and can focus on just the edit(s) they object to. If you are making a new article as a draft or in your sandbox, then large edits would be fine. Mike Turnbull (talk) 22:19, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Thought 1915 Welcome to the Teahouse. I would suggest making relatively small edits and saving each one with a short, helpful EDIT SUMMARY. At the largest, I would write one paragraph based upon one citation, though usually much smaller. Should you lose power or forget to save your edits, you could lose them. If an article is likely to be edited by other people at the same time, then saving in shorter packets helps you avoid WP:EDIT CONFLICTS. If you describe each 'save' clearly, it also lets you go back through the 'View History' tab to find a particular edit that you had previously made - possibly to revert or review it easily. That also applies when working in your sandbox, where nobody else is going to be editing. Hope this helps and Welcome to Wikipedia! Nick Moyes (talk) 22:24, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

There's a bit of variation available. As Mike Turnbull says, ff you're writing an article from scratch, large bulk edits are probably fine, while for controversial topics smaller edits are preferred. However, I'd advise not to go too far in either direction. Many small edits clog the edit history and might obscure significant changes you make in with minor copyediting or the like, which makes it harder for other editors to review and process the changes. For article-writing, I find trying to cram everything into one big edit clogs up my thinking; I prefer to start with a stub and build it up over a few days. Cremastra ‹ u — c › 01:04, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

For large existing articles at which I intend to make lots of changes, sometimes as preparing for a Good Article nomination (see Vitamin D) I am always doing multiple edits. At most, I copy a section into my Sandbox, work there, then replace the original with my revised. David notMD (talk) 11:24, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Article Making

I am the grandson of Joseph A. Burgundy and I thought his life was interesting so I tried to make an article on him I don't have any other resources I can find except my father and he died in 2011 so I don't know what to do Doodledoo4 (talk) 02:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Doodledoo4:. On Wikipedia, articles are based off information that is already published. So you can search online, books, and newspaper indexes. But if the only information is from relatives, then it is not a suitable topic for Wikipedia. So if it is like that then you can choose to do something else instead. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:30, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

If you cannot find newspaper articles about your grandfather (for example, an obituary), then there is no path to your draft being accepted as an article. You can either ask that it be deleted or just abandon it, leaving it to be auto-deleted six months from now. David notMD (talk) 11:37, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Weird message on my talk page from IP user

an IP (2003:DE:E714:EA46:83D:9568:35AD:7CE8) left a weird string of gibberish on my Talk page. what should I do about it? I'm going to delete it, of course, but should this go to ANI or something? Apteryx!🐉 | Roar with me!!! 🗨🐲 14:01, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

@ApteryxRainWing Seasons Greetings from the Teahouse! I see you've already removed it, but, no, ANI would not be appropriate. This user made just two random edits - for what reason, we've no idea. Test edit? Error? Vandalism? You've reverted it. Great. That's all you need to do. I always check a user's contributions to see if they're doing it to others. tThis one isnt'. Nor is their IPv6 address doing it on the /64 range, which is always worth checking. So, just walk away and ignore it, unless it happens again. It's never worth feeding the trolls.

But, even then, this would be a case of disruption or vandalism, were the pattern to be repeated elsewhere. So, then you warn the user (Twinkle is a very easy tool for automating that process). Having warned them, check if they continue their behaviour. If they do so, warn them again, but with a higher level template and, if they still continue, report them at WP:AIV, not ANI, as that's the place for vandals to be assessed and blocked if they're continuing to be disruptive. I hope this helps. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:19, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

thank you Apteryx!🐉 | Roar with me!!! 🗨🐲 14:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

could it be that the user tried to literally "roar with you"? If you make a clever...(a good word for it escapes me right now)(your signature makes me smile everytime I see it) you must be aware of some unusual repercussions. 176.0.139.10 (talk) 11:34, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

sorry to say, but AGF doesn't apply here. After looking at it, it was most probably an attempt on Tagging (graffiti). 176.0.139.10 (talk) 12:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello. I would like to ask for help if it is possible to edit the title of my draft article?

Hello. I would like to ask for help if it is possible to edit the title of my draft article? Batoenonghistoryador (talk) 04:22, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

@Batoenonghistoryador You would have to WP:Move an article via the toolbar on the right side of the screen to do it, but only confirmed/autoconfirmed users can do it. If you would like, I can move it for you, as long as you can specify the desired title. Sparkle and Fade ^talk_edits 04:36, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello! Thank you so muchc much appreciated if you can edit the title and make it like "Atty. Howard Calleja et, al. vs. Executive Secretary et, al." Batoenonghistoryador (talk) 12:38, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Note that the specific title of a draft is not particularly relevant to the draft process. If accepted, the draft will be placed at the proper title. 331dot (talk) 12:49, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

What do I do with this article

I found this article called Kitakagaya Station and it doesn’t provide any citations and the only references are two Japanese websites that I can’t read. I really need help on whether I should draftify it or leave it be. I know absolutely nothing about Osaka or the train station, so for me I have no idea how to expand it. Yuanmongolempiredynasty (talk) 21:03, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Hm...marked as unrefrenced since 2011. @Yuanmongolempiredynasty, any chance you'd be willing to do a google search to see if there are references? If there are, you can add them. If there aren't, or if you just don't feel like doing that work, you could redirect to Osaka Metro. An attempt to fix is always best, but a unsourced article that's been tagged for that long, a redirect is a reasonable choice. Valereee (talk) 21:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Also, @Yuanmongolempiredynasty, be sure to study WP:DRAFTIFY thoroughly before moving any articles to draftspace. An article that is older than 90 days should not be moved to draftspace. Schazjmd (talk) 21:49, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Valeree, if I were to leave a redirect, where would I redirect it to? Yuanmongolempiredynasty (talk) 14:40, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I'd say to Yotsubashi Line? That article was also largely unreferenced, too, and both references were dead; I fixed them with the 'fix dead links' in the history.

Just FTR, we don't require references to be in English, and if you open them in your browser, you may be able to see the translation. Valereee (talk) 15:25, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

How do I request a move on Wikipedia?

WP:RM gives you a guide on requesting a move, but it isn’t clear enough for me to request. How do I request it? 143.179.74.165 (talk) 12:51, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Which page do you want moved to which title? PrimeHunter (talk) 13:23, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Sj-sound to Voiceless palatal-velar fricative. 143.179.74.165 (talk) 06:48, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

On a side note, always check for double redirects if the target page already exists. If not, check for broken redirects. 143.179.74.165 (talk) 07:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

The article is 19 years old, it has been moved before, and its title has been discussed on the talk page, so it should be treated as a potentially controversial move with the procedure at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting a single page move. The talk page is Talk:Sj-sound. Note Wikipedia:Article titles#Use commonly recognizable names which may be mentioned by opponents. Is that sufficient help? PrimeHunter (talk) 22:40, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Subject: Request for Guidance on Improving Draft Article

Dear Wikipedia Editors,

I hope this message finds you well. I recently submitted a draft article on Dr. Toula Gordillo and received feedback indicating that the references provided do not sufficiently establish the subject’s notability. I am eager to improve the article and ensure it meets Wikipedia’s notability criteria. Could you please guide me on the following: What types of references would be considered more appropriate or substantial to establish notability? Are there specific sources or types of coverage (such as academic publications or in-depth media articles) that would strengthen the article? How can I best demonstrate the subject’s significance using independent, reliable secondary sources? Here is the draft link for your reference: Draft:Toula_Gordillo I would greatly appreciate any advice or suggestions you may have to help improve this draft and make it suitable for full publication. Thank you for your time and assistance. Best regards, SyedTayyab560 (talk) 19:52, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

You need the independent, reliable, secondary sources that you mention above. (I clicked on a few of the links currently provided: not one of them was independent of the subject.) 60.65.102.66 (talk) 20:56, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. I understand the importance of including independent, reliable, secondary sources to establish notability. I am currently in the process of identifying and incorporating such sources to ensure the article meets Wikipedia's guidelines. I appreciate your time and guidance. SyedTayyab560 (talk) 21:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @SyedTayyab560. As the IP says, independence is the main issue. 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.

Check each of your sources against the triple criteria in WP:42. If they're not reliable, (eg Shadowwork Solutions), don't use the at all. If they don't have significant coverage of Gordillo, what are they even doing in the article? If they are not independent, then it is possible that they could be used to verify uncontroversial factual data such as locations and dates, but they will not contribute to notability.

Get rid of the media section - if the sources are valid to verify some information about Gordillo, then cite them, otherwise including them is pure promotion, which is forbidden. Ditto appearances at conferences: why does a reader of an encyclopaedia article care waht conferences she has spoken at? ColinFine (talk) 21:42, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your detailed feedback. I now better understand the need for independent, reliable, secondary sources to establish notability and avoid promotional content. I will carefully review all existing references and only retain those that meet the criteria outlined in WP:42. Moving forward, I will also remove sections that could be seen as promotional or irrelevant to an encyclopedic article. Your guidance is greatly appreciated and will help me refine the draft accordingly. SyedTayyab560 (talk) 21:49, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but please don't use a LLM ("AI") here. Thanks! 60.65.102.66 (talk) 23:54, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I would like to correct a page William John Swainson

•  Courtesy link: William John Swainson

This name is incorrect it should be William Swainson. He did not have a middle name of John. I have a copy of his death certificate which clearly has his full name as William Swainson, as does his grave stone and the memorial plaque of his first wife Mary Parkes. I have not sighted any books that he illustrated or wrote that had John as a middle name I have sighted newspaper articles and letters as well as places were he is referenced in the committees, Societies, and groups he was in. I have never seen any of his sketches signed William John Swainson or WJ Swainson or William J Swainson. Remember that there are also sketches done by his sons, including William John Swainson (Willie), and his daughters. Even the sources have him as WIlliam Swainson. Can anyone help me as this is the first time I have tried to do this. Thanks SwainsonTimbo (talk) 01:29, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

The formal place to propose a rename is on Talk:William John Swainson. Present your evidence. Various reliable sources do include the name "John", so you will ahve to counteract them. Also the page William Swainson is already a disambiguation page, so you would have to go to a different name such as William Swainson (botanist). Once a decision is made the page can be "moved" to the appropriate title. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I haven't looked through all the sources cited, but none of the ones I have looked at say "John" anywhere, including the DNB, and the obituary in The Gentleman's Magazine which is titled "William Swainson", despite it being cited as "William John Swainson". ColinFine (talk) 10:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

User "Judge Nutmeg" seems to have introduced the name John in this edit in 2007, with no citation to support it. The article was moved to the present title in August 2008. Which are the sources which support "John" @Graeme Bartlett? (These replies should be on the Talk page, but I haven't the time to create a discussion there now). ColinFine (talk) 11:07, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Some sources include [16] [17] [18] [19]. They are just input for a decision of the name and need to be compared with other sources that don't use "John". William Swainson (naturalist) could be a better name for our article. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:56, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

The first source points to William's son William John. The others point to say William John Swainson then talk about William Swainson. The last source is a newer one and probably got for Wikipedia? Any old source refers to William Swainson. I think that since the name was changed in 2007 - 2008 without any sources the new sources after that date may be invalid. How could I load a picture of his death certificate? I am really new to this so am struggling. I appreciate any help. I agree with the new name for our article SwainsonTimbo (talk) 22:43, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Probably a birth certificate is more relevant, but it was so long ago, they probably did not exist. There might be a christening record though. Anyway you don't have to prove via a death certificate, just a preponderance of sources. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:35, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

HELP

Kindly help me how best I can use this reservation system Dewclawsafaris (talk) 14:01, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

@Dewclawsafaris could you clarify what you mean by reservation system? '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 14:08, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Your account is blocked for name problems. Either stop using this account and start a new one with a name that does not imply a business, or else use the name change process described on your Talk page. David notMD (talk) 18:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I added "not" to the above sentence, since that's clearly what was intended. jlwoodwa (talk) 07:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Melbourne Shuffle Inventor

This later article is by a journalist about a witness to the creation of the shuffle https://www.warnaplus.com/maurice-novoa-mengonfirmasi-sifu-joe-sayah-sebagai-saksi-terhadap-penemuan-melbourne-shuffle/ and this other one is also by a journalist and the site says they do not take money as tips for stories https://radarkaur.disway.id/read/651452/menyelami-gerakan-halus-wing-chun-kung-fu-sifu-maurice-novoa-maestro-di-balik-fenomena-melbourne-shuffle Interesting how the video of Maurice dancing is at falls festival on big screens that's the biggest music festival in Australia based in Melbourne. Crazy pumpkin 123 (talk) 04:18, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, @Crazy pumpkin 123. This forum is used to ask questions about Wikipedia. Do you have a question specifically about Wikipedia? Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 04:50, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes sorry I was not clear, the Melbourne Shuffle article is being prevented for being updated as Maurice Novoa as its inventor for no reason other than the sources not being English. Crazy pumpkin 123 (talk) 06:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

That's a content dispute, not Teahouse question. It should be, and is being, discussed on the article's talk page. You are one of the participants in that discussion, in fact you started it seven months ago, and just restarted it. No-one has recently removed those references. No-one has touched the article in six weeks, no-one has attempted to add those references in the last year, and no-one has said that they are unusable because they are not in English. The article was protected for six months because of repeated block evasion by user: Australianblackbelt, who was attempting to add similar claims about the supposed inventor of the Melbourne Shuffle, but I don't see any edits reverted for having non-English sources. I do see some claims reverted for having non-reliable sourcing, but reliability is not dependant on language,and sources do not have to be in English. The article has not been protected for the last six months.

Your somewhat strange delayed claims and you picking up where Australianblackbelt left off suggests that you are the same user. Is this the case? Meters (talk) 08:01, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

User Novem Linguae's response is why I have not attempted to add the sources, I just wasn't sure Crazy pumpkin 123 (talk) 08:09, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

user:Novem Linguae said nothing about a problem with the sources not being in English. Neither did user: Canterbury Tail, who also replied to you.

And again, are you the same user as Australianblackbelt? Meters (talk) 08:23, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

No and if I was why not just edit the page like you said... I dont like where this is going so I am staying away from the Shuffle page. Good bye Crazy pumpkin 123 (talk) 09:13, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I edited an article, but there is only problem...

I edited the article, "Code injection" but my contributions don't show up in the real article, I am very new and can't quite figure it out. How shall I proceed?

P.S. I am a beginner so expect I know nothing about Wikipedia, and how to navigate. Detailed tips are very appreciated. XirMarvin (talk) 02:05, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

@XirMarvin welcome to Wikipedia. I'm assuming you're referring to this edit? It was unsourced, which is why it was reverted. If you need help, I'd recommend reading Help:Getting started. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 02:22, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

@XirMarvin: Hi. Your edit was soon removed in this edit. I'm guessing it was done because the content you added didn't look "encyclopaedic". —usernamekiran (talk) 02:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, @XirMarvin. To add onto CanonNi's comment, any editor can reverse another user's edit by reverting it. This is done when the edit was problematic, and in this case, it was because your edit was unsourced (please see WP:V. Source your content!). Please see our policies and guidelines for other rules we have around here. Remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia too. Thanks! Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 02:31, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @XirMarvin. As well as the things others have pointed you at, I would also recommend looking at WP:BRD: you can see that your edit and its reversion by somebody else are a normal part of how Wikipedia works. ColinFine (talk) 11:20, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

How do I experiment with my sandbox?

I was left some helpful advice to try and use my sandbox instead of editing in-line citations. How do I do that, and why should I do that? peeeeeee-yew! (talk) 11:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

First, as you are User:Skuncc, Skuncc should appear as your signature, not peeeeeee-yew!. David notMD (talk) 12:30, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Your Sandbox (top right menu bar) is a place for you to practice and create content that you intend to later insert into articles. You can create a citation there, and only when sure the format is correct, paste it into an article. On a grander scale, you can copy a section of an article into your Sandbox, revise and re-reference it, then use your content to replace the section in the article. Doing this work in your Sandbox avoids having a large number of small edits and missteps appear in the edit history of the article. David notMD (talk) 12:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Ohmy gosh thankyou! peeeeeee-yew! (talk) 12:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Adding a photo

My great grandfather has a Wikipedia page about him but no photo. I have a photo of him. How can I add it to his page? Mojogeorge (talk) 10:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

@Mojogeorge that's great. Since you own the photo, you can upload it at c:Special:UploadWizard and add it to the article by following the directions at Help:Pictures. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 10:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

If I'm right. Photos have to be uploaded on "Wikipedia Commons".

As I'm not sure about this information , I advise you to verify.

Do you know next informations :

1.Who did photographed your great-grandfather ? We need year of death of the person who photographed you ancestor if you know who did it.

Without means to know who's the author , it could be considered as a photography with an unknown author.

2.In which country the picture was taken ?

3.Year of the photo (When the subject was posing for this photography).

The answers to these questions can help to determinate is there are a copyright on the image.

You can own a thing without own the intellectual property. For example , you can own a DVD without own intellectual property on the content of this DVD.

I suppose the individual who photographed your great-grandfather is certainly deceased since more than 70 years old.

In the majority of countries in the world. There are no copyright in force if the person who photographed someone died since more than 70 years old.

If the person who made this photography died since less than 70 years old.

The heirs of the photogrpaher hold the copyright unless he/she did renounced to it during his/her lifetime with a legal document. Anatole-berthe (talk) 12:20, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

@Mojogeorge As your great grandfather is dead, en:Wikipedia allows photos to be used in the infobox of the article about him even if you don't own the copyright. It should be uploaded to English Wikipedia and documented as explained at WP:NONFREE, especially the part WP:NFCI, item 10. For an example, see the image File:Coral Bell in 2008.jpg which I uploaded. In that case the image came from a website but the principle is the same. Thanks for wanting to improve his biography. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:11, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Enquiry

this article Funmi Martins is about a deceased person, but its without image, i tried to find the image i could add for a proper recognition, but this is the only image of her i found online https://independent.ng/wp-content/uploads/Funmi-Martins.jpg, can i add it regardless ? Iamtoxima (talk) 14:29, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

No, @Iamtoxima, you probably cannot. When adding images to Wikipedia (or Commons), you need to make sure they are free of copyright. This file from the Independent is likely non-free, and therefore you cannot use it here on Wikipedia. win8x (talk) 14:32, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

hi, thanks for your response, this image in question is all over the internet, how do i know who to contact for license and how do i know if it has a free license or not? Iamtoxima (talk) 14:43, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Something being on the internet does not mean it has a copyright compatible with Wikipedia’s. I think that the media outlet that owns the copyright would be unlikely to release the image for use on Wikipedia, but you could ask them. 331dot (talk) 15:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

If the person is dead, you can upload a fair-use image locally here on Wikipedia (which for me shows up as an 'upload file' button under contributions in the left side of the page.) Valereee (talk) 15:27, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Iamtoxima, the policy language regarding use of a non-free photo of a deceased person when no freely licensed or public domain photo is available can be found at the policy Non-free images point #10. You need to carefully follow every step in the policy, because there are legal implications. With all due respect, Win8x, you are incorrect on the general point, as some non-free images are permitted on Wikipedia in narrow circumstances. Careful evaluation is needed regarding this specific image. Cullen328 (talk) 08:08, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Apologies. I genuinely did not know about NFCI #10, I guess you learn something every day. win8x (talk) 14:12, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Edit to template by blocked user

Hi, I'm not sure whether to be concerned, but a blocked editor has been using an IP range to edit & was on ANI recently. I saw that someone in the blocked range has removed hidden text from a template here. Is it something that needs fixing? I experimented with undoing it myself, but there are subsequent edits & I'm woefully inexperienced with templates. Can someone more experienced please cast their eye on the edit? Blue-Sonnet (talk) 01:39, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Blue-Sonnet. The hidden text that was removed is just boilerplate instructions for adding episode descriptions. Once a description has been added for an episode, there's no need to retain the instructions, so this edit is okay. Always good to check though, thanks! Schazjmd (talk) 14:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

@Schazjmd That's really useful to know, thank you! Blue-Sonnet (talk) 14:40, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Autoconfirmed

I wanted to know how to become a autoconfirmed user, like, is there a test you have to pass or a certain amount of edits or certain amount of years. I also ask this question about extended confirmed and those other ones. Yuanmongolempiredynasty (talk) 16:11, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Your account has to be more than four days old and have a certain amount of edits (how many, I can't remember, I think, like, 10-ish) Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 16:15, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

This link should help. Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 16:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, is there like a notification that you get because I have 513 edits and have been on for almost a month Yuanmongolempiredynasty (talk) 16:17, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, you are autoconfirmed. You can check here: [20] Cmrc23 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 16:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Wow, that link was cool and definitely helpful. Thanks! Yuanmongolempiredynasty (talk) 16:42, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

How do you put the autoconfirmed sign at the top of your user page, like the tiny Wikipedia globe that says your autoconfirmed? Yuanmongolempiredynasty (talk) 16:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

That is called a topicon (top icon)! That one is here Template:Autoconfirmed topicon but there are plenty of topicon templates out there. Cmrc23 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 17:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Ok thanks! Yuanmongolempiredynasty (talk) 17:01, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Am I able to edit the page that you showed me Cmrc23? In case it needs updating, like, the statistics page? Yuanmongolempiredynasty (talk) 15:13, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

My statistics page Yuanmongolempiredynasty (talk) 15:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Xtools updates automatically, and I do not think you can edit it. Cmrc23 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 15:23, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Ok, but there is one thing wrong about one part of it Yuanmongolempiredynasty (talk) 15:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Can you tell me what that is? You might simply be reading the page wrong Cmrc23 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 15:26, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

It says I got 0 thanks, even though I got 1 from someone some 10 days ago Yuanmongolempiredynasty (talk) 15:26, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Under "basic information", it states that you have been thanked one time. Under "actions" it states that you have thanked 0 users. They are in two different sections so it can be a bit tricky to notice! Cmrc23 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 15:31, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh, ok Yuanmongolempiredynasty (talk) 15:32, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

By the way, thanking in this context refers to the specific action of clicking the "thank" button on the relevant entry on a page's edit history. Cmrc23 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 15:32, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

How to thank a user

I had a friend who improved my article very much about a week ago, and I would like to thank him, how do you do that? Yuanmongolempiredynasty (talk) 15:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I think you figured it out Yuanmongolempiredynasty ;) ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:37, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes I did :) Yuanmongolempiredynasty (talk) 15:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

moving my draft page to mainspace

so previously when i created a draft, normally i submitted the draft for a review, then waited for other editors to approved it and moved it to mainspace. Recently i read that autoextended user can just moved it into mainspace themselves. does that mean i can move Draft:Angryginge myself without waiting for it to be reviewed first by other editors? or am i reading the rule incorrectly Http iosue (talk) 11:45, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

@Http iosue the Articles for Creation process is entirely optional for autoconfirmed users, so yes, feel free to move it into mainspace if you think it's ready. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 11:50, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

NOTE: Moved the following comment from where I think it was misplaced. David notMD (talk) 15:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

You can. But considering that a reviewer judged that it did not (yet) have adequate references, and you have made no further edits, it might not be a sensible thing to do. It might well get nominated for deletion. ColinFine (talk) 14:50, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

how can citations be removed completely from a submitted article?

Hi,

I have citations in my submitted article that need to be deleted entirely. I fail to see the process for doing this edit. Kindly advise. Thank you! PixelAlchemy (talk) 22:40, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Which article (or draft) are you talking about? Yuanmongolempiredynasty (talk) 23:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Appears to be Draft:Michael Garlington. David notMD (talk) 02:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Click on Edit at top. This opens the entire article for editing. Go to where those pesky citations are and delete. That will remove the citation from the list of references. David notMD (talk) 02:59, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

And it will update the numbering of refs that are used later in the article. David notMD (talk) 16:02, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Article review

Normally, articles that are submitted by an editor to Wikipedia for main space undergo an article review immediately and the page is curated. About four days ago, the article Beautiful captive woman was created and posted, but it has yet to receive a review by a qualified Wikipedean. Is there a reason for the delay?Davidbena (talk) 11:31, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

For all: The article was created on 18 December as an article, so this is not about AfC review, but rather WP:New Pages Patrol. David notMD (talk) 12:21, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedians are volunteers , therefore there are no delay to hold.

I don't know which duration it can take. Anatole-berthe (talk) 12:23, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Anywhere between a few minutes and a few years - currently the backlog is four years. They aren't reviewed in any particular order as such, but reviews of certain topics can happen quicker as their sources are easier to verify, there's some glaring issues or the question of notability is more clear cut. -- D'n'B-t -- 12:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I just assumed that new articles had to undergo an immediate review, and was worried that perhaps the language in this article was too strong and needed softening with "euphemisms". Again, thanks!Davidbena (talk) 13:54, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

@DandelionAndBurdock You wrote the backlog is currently four years.

Have we to understand it can take average a duration of maximum four years ?

I'm not certain I rightly understood therefore I prefer to ask to avoid misunderstanding. Anatole-berthe (talk) 13:59, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

@Anatole-berthe: currently the oldest article in the unreviewed pool is approx four years old. That does not mean that average review time is four years. (If articles were reviewed in the order they're submitted, you might estimate that the average would be around two years. But they're not.) There are nearly 15,000 unreviewed articles in the pool. Some get reviewed within minutes, others take months or indeed years. I don't know what the average (whether that's mean, median or mode) is, or whether you can easily get that information from anywhere, but I'm sure it's nowhere near four years, thankfully. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:06, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation. @DoubleGrazing when I'm talking about average.

I wasn't talking about a median but about "Arithmetic mean" for the maximum time it can take.

I had to admit a median would be better because we understand more easily when a median is involved. Anatole-berthe (talk) 16:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:New Pages Patrol reviewers review new articles. Articles considered suitable for inclusion are marked as 'reviewed', with a notification sent to the user that created it. There is a backlog numbering in the thousands. In theory, if a NPP reviewer does not get to an article within 90 days of creation it is auto-approved. David notMD (talk) 14:08, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Search engines such as Google can 'see' NPP-approved articles and thus identifiy those as responses to searches, but the timing of searchability is a function of the search engines, not Wikiepdia. David notMD (talk) 14:21, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

How to edit

I need to see a tutorial of how to edit an entry. It is my page; I'm the subject. My former assistant set up the page for me but I don't know how to update it. I tried to add references today. I wasn't successful. MGMKE (talk) 16:50, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Are you talking about an encyclopedic article ? Anatole-berthe (talk) 17:02, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

@MGMKE I hope that the ressources we advise you to read will be sufficient.

The community is there if there are something you don't understand.

We are there to guide you. I hope we didn't seemed to be aggressive. Anatole-berthe (talk) 17:53, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Mari K. Eder. Deor (talk) 17:09, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

If I understood rightly. You are '"Mari K. Eder" and you want to edit an article on yourself.

I'm sorry to say you that but accorded to rules in force in Wikipedia. You are in "Conflict of interests".

I know it can appear weird but rules are rules. In my knowledge , there are not possibility to get an exception.

Even if I was an administrator on Wikipedia. I could not have this power in my knowledge. Anatole-berthe (talk) 17:25, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

@MGMKE To expand on what has just been said, article subjects are given advice at this guidance page about what they may and may not do to biographies about themselves. We expect that you will suggest additions on the article's Talk Page at Talk:Mari K. Eder, where you can start a new section with suggestions. There is an edit request wizard to make this relatively easy. What you added recently to the article was not formatted correctly and I will shortly revert it to its previous state. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:32, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for pages shared with us ! I didn't knew these. Anatole-berthe (talk) 17:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

You can edit pages you do not have a conflict of interest with, and you should consider doing so! Make sure you read the guidance, I think you will find this can be a very enjoyable website to contribute to. Cmrc23 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 17:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

@Cmrc23 I liked your answer explaining the stuffs in a simple way. Anatole-berthe (talk) 17:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

A lot of the above is from other users, signed by their username. I would be happy to explain more wikipedia policies if you have any questions (though I'm nowhere near as experienced as some people here!), do know that you can always ask on the teahouse (here!) or on my talk page here, though I'm on and off - or you can even put the Template:Help me (listed on the page]] on your own user talk page to request help. Welcome to Wikipedia! Cmrc23 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 17:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I might be responding to the wrong person. Oops! Cmrc23 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 17:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi MGMKE, You can request edits to the article about you using an edit request (Wikipedia:Edit Request Wizard). You will need to include text that you want to change or add. You may need a reference for any changes you want to make. I will post a message on your talk page. Knitsey (talk) 17:31, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

[Edit conflicts] Hello, MGKME. Please note that if you are, as I suspect, the subject of the article Mari K. Eder, you yourself should not normally* be editing it because of your obvious Conflict of Interest. Rather you should place proposed changes (with any relevant references to sources) on that article's Talk page together with an Edit request template, so that a disinterested editor will be alerted to review the proposal and implement it if it complies with Wikipedia's principles, policies and procedures. (I'm afraid there are rather a lot of these.) This also applies to any of your work colleagues, relatives or friends.

* The main exception is that you (like anyone else) may remove additions by others that are not supported by cited references to Reliable sources. (Reading those linked Project pages should answer your question.) If something in the article is factually incorrect, but correctly summarises a cited source deemed reliable, you may not remove it, but may add contradicting information cited to other reliable sources. (For your interest, read the policy Wikipedia:Verifiability and the essay Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth.)

Please also note that it is Wikipedia's article about you, not 'your entry', and you cannot stipulate (though you can make requests about) what does or doesn't appear in it, provided that what does is correctly cited. Remember that this is an encyclopedia – see the essay Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not social media and the rather more voluminous Project page Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.

Finally, please carefully read Wikipedia:Ownership of content, and also Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (since you are one!). Hope this helps! {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.223.204 (talk) 17:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Anything I should make?

I don’t know if this is the right place to ask this question, but does anyone have any suggestions on an article I should make that isn’t already on Wikipedia. I just finished the article The Horde: How the Mongols Changed the World and want to make another. Please consider that I am good in history in the 1200s and 1300s in Mongolia and that I would gladly make a article in those subjects. Yuanmongolempiredynasty (talk) 16:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

You could check out WP:Requests for articles, particularly Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Social_sciences/History#Asia, although you're forewarned that the list is not curated for quality and the article prompts listed there are not guaranteed to be viable. You could also check out relevant WikiProjects, such as WP:WikiProject Asia and check out whether they manage their own requested articles lists, or alternatively see if there are existing articles in the low-quality categories to see if you can expand them. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:22, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

In addition to what the other commenter wrote, you can also work on improving existing articles under that topic area, for example expanding start-class articles, adding citations, and copyediting articles. The folks over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mongols might have some interesting pages for you to edit. Cmrc23 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 17:41, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Yuanmongolempiredynasty (talk) 17:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @Yuanmongolempiredynasty. Please, please, please, please, please, don't think that the only way to contribute to Wikipedia is by creating new articles! We have thousands, maybe millions, of articles that are really not very good, and need somebody to take the time and trouble to improve them (in most cases the main thing wrong with them is that they haven't got adequate references - by coincidence, this is often the most difficult and time-consuming part of working on any article).

I remember when I started editing Wikipedia, nearly twenty years ago, I so much wanted to find a new topic to add. But in that time I have only created a handful of articles. ColinFine (talk) 18:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I could add many tasks. I think for example about the task consisting to add internal links to Wikipedia in English in articles.
There are words that aren't in red that could need a link. Anatole-berthe (talk) 18:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:TASK is a good place to find a wide range of "things to do" on Wikipedia. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Article not visible on google

i created this article Vanskere 7 months ago, moved it to mainspace but still not showing on google, what could be wrong ?, please reply with either of the two editor Iamtoxima (talk) 13:15, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

@Iamtoxima The article was marked as reviewed on 31 August, so search engines could index thereafter. However, Wikipedia has no control over when they actually do so. There have been no edits to the article since that date. In my experience, if you make even a minor edit now, Google will pick it up very quickly. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:21, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Wow, thank you! This really helped, and I feel like I understand it much better now. we learn everyday. Iamtoxima (talk) 19:01, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

@Iamtoxima, please note that Wikipedia is not for promotion. The articles you created are written in a promotional tone, and I have tagged them as such. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 13:30, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

oh thanks for your contribution, i will check through again and fix it. Iamtoxima (talk) 13:40, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Removing four words from the short description does not magically make the article neutral. You'll need to rewrite most of the article, which contains promotional terms like significantly influenced, difficult to fit in due to his elaborate style, and more. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 13:44, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Further, @Iamtoxima, Who says that it "quickly emerged as a leading force"? Evaluative statements like that never belong in any Wikipedia article, unless they are directly cited to a reliable published source, wholly unconnected with the subject of the article. (And that is just one more example of the promotional language). 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. ColinFine (talk) 15:43, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. This page happens to be one of my first articles on Wikipedia, which is why I take particular interest in it. I would like to clarify that I am not affiliated with the individual or the company; I am simply contributing to the platform as others do.

The article was initially reviewed and approved. However, I have revisited, re-edited, and thoroughly checked the content based on your feedback. If there is a better approach to further improve it, I would genuinely appreciate your suggestions. After all, the purpose of this community is to collaborate and learn from one another.

I have implemented all the changes you highlighted, yet it seems you remain unsatisfied. I am open to constructive feedback, as learning and growing are integral parts of this journey.

Thank you again for your time and input. Iamtoxima (talk) 18:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia Timezone

Out of sheer curiosity, what Time zone does Wikipedia operate under? I'm in the Pacific Standard time zone, and the Did You Know... and On This Day... update at around 4:00pm every day. Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 18:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

@Shovel Shenanigans WP operates under UTC but you can change the defaults you see in your preferences. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:37, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

@Shovel Shenanigans If you need help to change this in your preference. I can help. Anatole-berthe (talk) 18:39, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

@Anatole-berthe That's okay, thank you! Honestly, the daily change at 4:00 helps me stick to my schedule. Since I almost always have Wikipedia open, I know it's time to take a break from my other computer-related work when the DYK and OTD changes.

@Michael D. Turnbull Thanks for the quick reply, and my curiosity has been sated :) Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 20:09, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

That's wonderful ! Anatole-berthe (talk) 20:31, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

This may be the wrong place to mention this

On the page Lowercase Sigmabot |||, there is a infobox; in that infobox lies an image of a supposed “plane” labeled “Lowercase sigmabot ||| archiving a discussion” or something like that. Is this a joke by the moderators of Wikipedia? Selectortopic (talk) 16:06, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

This is not an article but an Userpage. Humor is allowed on this kind of page.

If you click on my nickname. You could read my page. Anatole-berthe (talk) 16:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

No, @Selectortopic, it's a joke by whoever edited that page (actually the user, @Lowercase sigmabot III). We don't have moderators, and admins have no role in the content of articles (though the users who are admins may have, but not in their admin role) ColinFine (talk) 16:18, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

@Selectortopic: It's a humorous remark added by the bot operator [21] who is not an administrator. Many bot operators are normal users. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Someone know how to create a bot for a repetitive task ? Anatole-berthe (talk) 17:01, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

@Anatole-berthe See WP:BOTR page where you can make a request. There may already be a bot to do what you want and you need to explain in detail what you want and why. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks ! Anatole-berthe (talk) 20:59, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

How do I welcome a new user?

I noticed a new user that hasn't been welcomed yet. I've seen the templates used on other talk pages; should I just copy paste the source and adapt, or is there a welcome button I can use instead? guninvalid (talk) 22:13, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Guninvalid. There are a number of welcome templates to choose from. Also, if you enable WP:TWINKLE, it has a dropdown menu that lets you select the welcome message that you want to leave on a user talk page, much easier that way. (Twinkle has a bunch of other really useful functions as well.) Hope that helps. Schazjmd (talk) 22:25, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

@Guninvalid this might be of use to you, Wikipedia:Welcoming committee Knitsey (talk) 22:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Doesn't matter anymore, the user I wanted to welcome got blocked by the checkuser. I only wanted to welcome them because I posted them on WP:AN and I noticed they had never been welcomed. guninvalid (talk) 22:54, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Can I draft an article about myself and get it published on this site?

Hi Everyone,

I am new here and I want to contribute a page of my own life story, but it may not work with the management since they prefer to have someone else to write about it. That's my understanding, but what if a person wants to do what I want with integrity and facts? I am trying to establish just one short page on the topic to start later edits by other editors. Thank you, Allpeoplearepeopleofcolor (talk) 22:27, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi Allpeoplearepeopleofcolor. I suggest you take a look at Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything because it sounds like you might be misunderstanding some things about Wikipedia and how it works. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:33, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

To succeed, a draft submitted to AfC for review must have content verified by references to succeed. You are prohibited from creating a draft about yourself based on what you know to be true with the hope that other editors will provide the references (if there are any). David notMD (talk) 23:50, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, David notMD. Allpeoplearepeopleofcolor (talk) 20:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi Marchjuly, thank you for your suggestion. I've checked the contents you suggested me to look into and I gathered that there would be no chance for anyone to contribute their biography on Wikipedia. The only way apparent to me now is that other people who are willing to cover someone who are noted write a piece about that individual. Am I not misunderstanding now? Allpeoplearepeopleofcolor (talk) 03:12, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

In addition @Allpeoplearepeopleofcolor

I feel there is need for you to understand basic editing, See WP:Editing before creating articles as this can be very difficult for beginners who just joined the project. Tesleemah (talk) 05:24, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

You're not quite understanding. People who are truly notable can write biographies about themselves and have them published, and some have. But this is hard to do when you have a conflict of interest, as we all do about ourselves.

See WP:Golden Rule. That is what's required, in a nutsheell. Are there published reliable sources that are independent of you, providing significant coverage of you? If there are multiple such sources, then yes, you can write a biography citing them. The biography cannot use any information other than what is published, so you cannot write what you know, you must write what has been covered. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:43, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments and clarification. I do multiple have published reliable sources in English and Chinese that are independent of myself. I think I will tive i.rLetyme know if you have any more comments. I'd appreciate that. now? Allpeoplearepeopleofcolor (talk) 18:19, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I get it. Thank you. Allpeoplearepeopleofcolor (talk) 20:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

@Allpeoplearepeopleofcolor: As posted above, even though creating an article about yourself isn't expressly prohibited, it can be quite hard and those who try often end up feeling quite frustrated when they start running into problems while trying to do so. My suggestion to you would be to use the Wikipedia:Articles for creation process to first work on a draft for an article and then submit that draft for review when you think it's ready. If the draft is declined (even multiple times), the reviewer will explain why and otherwise leave feedback on what further is needed for the draft to someday be accepted as an article. There's no real deadline when it comes to drafts, and you can work at your own pace on it. The only thing you need to do is continue working on improving it and avoid submitting the same declined version over and over again; you also need to make sure you don't "abandon" the draft by not making any meaningful edits to it for six months because such drafts are eligible for speedy deletion. You're not required to start a draft per se, but once something gets added to the Wikipedia article namespace, pretty much anything goes and the page can be edited by anyone at anytime; this could mean improvements, but it could just as easily mean being nominated, proposed or tagged for WP:DELETION. Before pressing ahead, you might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Notability (people), Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest editing (particularly the WP:COISELF and WP:LUC sections), Wikipedia:Ownership of content and Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing because you'll have pretty much zero final editorial control over any article you create about yourself, and all of it's content will be expected to be in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, which in some cases might not be the same as what you want it to be. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Again, thanks for the thorough explanations. I have gained a lot more understanding now. So, it's the best for other people to write about someone else. I get it, but how about people have someone other than themselves write their biography, for example, people who know the topic person well, or hired writers? Allpeoplearepeopleofcolor (talk) 21:08, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

It's best to avoid COI editing, especially paid editing. It tends to attract hostile scrutiny.

Depending on who you are, there may be someone who would be interested in writing an article about you. Many editors specialize in certain types of biography: sports figures, academicians, scientists; the bios I write are often about chefs. But that would require you to disclose your identity, which you may not want to do. Valereee (talk) 21:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

@Allpeoplearepeopleofcolor: Any type of "paid" editing needs to be done in accordance with WP:PAID; it's not expressly prohibited to have an article created by paying someone to do it for you, but basically that's a contract between you and the other party that has nothing to do with Wikipedia. It's your money and you're free to spend it as you please, but there are lots of WP:SCAMs out there that promise all kinds of things that simply are impossible to deliver; so, if you do decide to take that path, you should make sure to ask lots of questions before giving someone your money because Wikipedia won't help you get it back if things go wrong. Other options to consider might be trying WP:RA (which seems to be more miss than hit) or asking on the talk page of a WikiProject that might be related to whatever you think makes you Wikipedia notable. Whatever you do, you're going to most likely find it hard to remain anonymous because Wikipedia operates in the WP:REALWORLD, and the way it's set up can make it easy for others to connect the dots and figure out who you really are.

Personally, I still find it a bit odd when people seek to either create Wikipedia articles about themselves or try to find/pay someone to create such an article on their behalf. That sort of indicates to me that said person might be mistaking Wikipedia for some type of social media site or other kind of online profile site, which it's most definitely not. The most natural way for someone to have a Wikipedia article created about them is for them to do enough Wikipedia notable things so that reliable sources start covering them to the point that someone completely unconnected to them wants to create such an article. Of course, since this tends to work better for really famous people like movie stars. musicians, pro athletes, etc. than it does for other types of people who tend to be ignored by main stream media sources, I can somewhat understand feeling "I've got to do this myself because nobody is going to do it for me". Still it comes down to someone wanting to have a Wikipedia article written about them despite the fact that they're pretty much going to have zero control over what that article becomes over time. There seem to be much better WP:ALTERNATIVEs these days for someone to establish an online presence that they'll have total editorial control over and be able to use to let the world know about all about themselves. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:23, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again. Did you mean that the persons (such as celebrities, known politicians) who have a page written by unconnected people is not able to edit that page which is about the very themselves? Allpeoplearepeopleofcolor (talk) 18:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

They can edit it, but anyone else is free to edit, too. Article subjects have no control over the articles about them. Other editors can add stuff you'd prefer not to include and can remove stuff you'd like to include. Valereee (talk) 20:23, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

@Allpeoplearepeopleofcolor: The subjects of articles can edit said articles, but they're going to be expected to do so in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines just like any other editor; the subjects of articles don't "own" the articles in the sense that they've got total control over what's written in the article, and they can't stop others from editing the article. When the subject of an article has a problem with what's written about them, Wikipedia has processes in place to try and help them sort things out as explained here; Wikipedia, however, doesn't do what the subject wants just because the subject wants it done. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

The general guidance is that the subject of an article can make minor corrections to grammar, spelling, numers, names, etc, can add citations to reliable independent sources, and can revert obvious vandalism. Anything more substantive than that should be proposed on the article talk page.

That's after the article has been published. While it's still a draft, the subject is free to make any edits to it, and a reviewer would either accept the draft for publicaiton or decline it. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:09, 23 December 2024 (UTC)