Wikipedia:Teahouse

Finnusertop, a Teahouse host

Welcome to the Teahouse!
Your go-to place for friendly help with using and editing Wikipedia.

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

New to Wikipedia? See our tutorial for new editors or introduction to contributing page.
Note: Newer questions appear at the bottom of the Teahouse. Completed questions are archived within 2–3 days.

Help Wikipedia

Regarding pop-culture pages, but especially comics.

Hello, my user name is Sewnbegun and here we go! I am here at Wikipedia for editing various lists/tables (obviously not exclusively) regarding comics, tv series and films. Can you tell me which pages of Wikipedia rules and regulations I have to read before starting; and what common mistakes I should not do while editing those lists and tables. Sewnbegun (talk) 05:38, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Sewnbegun, if you're working on lists, Help:List, Manual of Style/Lists and Stand-alone lists might be helpful. But don't worry too much about reading every word of these. Just use them as references if you get stuck. Really, the best way to learn is just to get started and try to do what you see on similar articles. If you're not sure whether you did something right, you can always have someone else check it afterward. It's really easy to undo mistakes if needed. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:01, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

@Thebiguglyalien, thanks for helping me but I have one last question. As I said I'm more interested in editing comic, films and tv series pages; it would be helpful for me to know that which of the following mentioned can be used for reliable sources and which ones can't be:

• Comic Book Resources
• AIPT
• ComicBook.com
• Screen Rant
• SuperHeroHype
• Official website of Marvel (Marvel.com)
• Dexerto
• Gizmodo
• GamesRadar+
• Bleeding Cool News
• IGN
• Popverse

Sewnbegun (talk) 09:11, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

@Sewnbegun You should look at the archive search box at WP:RSP, which also gives instructions for how to start a new enquiry about a source you want to use but are unsure about. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:25, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Michael D. Turnbull, I searched the above mentioned sources in that list and was surprise that only two (Screen Rant and Gizmodo) are considered as reliable source, for one (Dexerto) is advised to find alternative source while others are missing. After some time, I will definitely start a new enquiry about some sources that constantly tells about comics (CBR and Aipt). Sewnbegun (talk) 17:56, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

@Sewnbegun A couple of guidelines that might help you - anything that can be edited by anyone (like fandom Wikis or IMDB) will not be accepted as a reliable source. English Wikipedia is very good at keeping articles reliable, but many other user-contribution sites are not. Meanwhile, websites of the companies that own the characters/comics/franchises are primary sources and should be avoided if possible. Good luck in your search for reliable sources and happy editing! StartGrammarTime (talk) 08:18, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

@StartGrammarTime, so what if you have only the primary source for the edit you are going to do but one editor is reverting your edits on the basis of no reference, so can I include that appropriate primary reference into that article? Sewnbegun (talk) 08:32, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

@Sewnbegun It may be that the information is only available from the primary source, so what I would personally do is be bold, add the citation, and see whether that satisfies the other editor. If it doesn't, then have a look at Bold, Revert, Discuss as your guide to how to proceed. Always keep in mind that Wikipedia functions on consensus, and edit-warring is very much frowned upon, so if someone reverts your addition then you need to start talking to them (ideally on the article's talk page) so you can hash out a compromise together. Hope that helps you! StartGrammarTime (talk) 10:16, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

@StartGrammarTime, thanks! it did helped. Sewnbegun (talk) 13:59, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

@Sewnbegun I'll also note that some of the sources you listed are at WP:VG/RS. For example, IGN can be a reliable source (but Make sure news items are not user-submitted info or blog postings; blog postings from site staff are most likely acceptable. Articles submitted by N-Sider should be avoided. TLA^tlak 02:43, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I want to improve an article so is there any way I can get my proposed improvement of that article/page reviewed by someone? Just like what we do reviewing drafts for creating new pages. Sewnbegun (talk) 06:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

New article by a new editor

I noticed that, as a new editor, I cannot create a new article from scratch. I know that I can publish a draft. And still, what are the criteria for publishing a new article? Neville the long 1 (talk) 10:59, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Creating a new article is the most difficult task to attempt on Wikipedia. You will greatly increase your chances of success by using the new user tutorial, and spending much time editing existing articles, to learn how things operate here and what is expected of article content. This will include things like notability, the test for a topic to merit an article.

If you would still like to create a new article now, please read Your First Article and then use the Article Wizard to create and submit a draft. 331dot (talk) 11:06, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

OK, understood. And yet, could you please elaborate on the requirements an editor should accomplish to be able to start a new article? I tried using the translation tool, and it didn't work either. Neville the long 1 (talk) 11:25, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

You must be autoconfirmed, which means your account must be at least four days old with 10 edits or more, to be able to directly create articles. This is highly inadvisable for new users without experience to do.

You mention the translation tool, are you attempting to translate an article from another language Wikipedia to this one? Each Wikipedia is separate, with their own editors and policies, and what is acceptable on one is not necessarily acceptable on another. 331dot (talk) 11:29, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Neville the long 1, and welcome to the Teahouse. The technical restriction allows you to create a new article directly when you are autoconfirmed - that is, your account has existed for four complete days and made ten edits.

Trying to create an article directly after four days and ten edits is an almost certain recipe for disappointment, frustration, and disillusionment. Would you enter a major competition four days after you first took up a sport? Or start building a car when you had just decided to start studying engineering?

I always advise new editors to spend at least a few months learning how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles, before even trying the challenging task of create a new article. Once they have learnt about concepts such as verifiability, reliable sources, neutral point of view, and notability, they can read your first article and create a draft.

I would also point out that creating new articles is not the only way, and not necesarily the best way, to contribute to this vast resource. ColinFine (talk) 11:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

That said, it's apples and oranges, no? If someone's interested in creating an article, presumably they see a legit opportunity to do so, and suggesting they edit existing ones instead could be seen as, well, sniffy, though I know you're not really like that. 😉 – AndyFielding (talk) 10:37, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Neville the long 1, 331dot has pointed you to information that should be useful to you. Which part of it needs a further explanation? Or what is not explained? (And translation from which language to which language?) -- Hoary (talk) 11:28, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Refer by first or last name?

In any Biography or non-biography article, should we use the first or last name while referring to the person again and again? ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 15:55, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

That'd depend on whether their last or first names are used elsewhere to refer to different people on the page. Usually I'd use last name, but if that's used elsewhere on the page to refer to a different person I'd use first name (like if brothers or members of the same family are on a page). If you get incredibly unlucky and both the first and last names are used for different people on the page, just use their full name. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 15:57, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

It is customary not to refer to a person by their full name. It is considered derogatory to call by surname only TindDIrving (talk) 04:10, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Please see the section of Wikipedia's manual of style about surnames mentioned further down. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:46, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

After the opening of the lede, where the subject's full name is shown (or their more widely-known professional name, should the article have that title), it is WP (and general encyclopedic) style to use the subject's surname only, except where you must use their given name to distinguish them from others of the same surname (e.g. family members, relatives).

Also, please, once you've used the surname in a paragraph—especially the start of a new section, where it's especially warranted—it's much less cluttered- and more professional-looking to use the subject's preferred or appropriate pronoun (e.g. he, she, they) rather than using the surname over and over, as though one were writing for amnesiacs. (Okay, I can dream, can't I?) – AndyFielding (talk) 10:53, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Are their any guidelines for this one? ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 16:13, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography#Subsequent use. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:22, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

There is a guideline: Please see MOS:SURNAME. You should never use a person's given name unless there is the possibility of confusion (such as two or more members of the same family being referenced in the same paragraph) and then only use the given names to the extent necessary to avoid confusion in that limited portion of the article. Referring to people by their given names is unencyclopedically overfamiliar. For example, in an article about Kirk Douglas one might have to say "Kirk" in a sentence in which his son Michael Douglas is referenced and there might be a possibility of confusion (but see the second sentence of Michael's article, in which it is clear that "Douglas" refers to Michael, not Kirk... and this sentence itself illustrates the type of circumstance I'm referring to), but for any parts of the article without any other Douglas family members mentioned, he should be called "Douglas". - Julietdeltalima (talk) 19:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Uploading images to Wikipedia

Hello,

Can anyone tell me how to know if an image is copyrighted? I found one online I want to upload to Wikipedia. The photo does not seem to have any known author, date taken, or copyright symbol. In this case, is it safe to upload?

If you would like to see the photo for yourself, it is this photo. I hope that link works.

Thank you, CallieCrewmanAuthor (talk) 16:04, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Our rule-of-thumb is to assume that any image found on the Internet is copyrighted unless there is a specific statement to the contrary (which might be to the effect of it having been released under a Wikipedia-compatable license: see Wikipedia:Copyrights and Creative Commons license). There are exceptions, such as images created by US Federal employees as part of their job, but none will apply here. In general, copyright issues are complicated, and subject to various international laws which Wikipedia must be very careful not to infringe, for obvious reasons. Hope this helps. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 176.24.45.226 (talk) 16:17, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Are images someone posted on social media platforms copyrighted if it's just, say, a selfie of themselves on a trip? CallieCrewmanAuthor (talk) 15:13, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

@CallieCrewmanAuthor Yes, as above. You may think something is "just a selfie" and hence unimportant but that is merely your opinion and gives you no right to license the image for use elsewhere. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:23, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

B-Class article

Hi there, i was revamping this article Hunza–Nagar Campaign to meet article criteria for B class article. Now that the reviewer stated the area's which needed improvement in Talk:Hunza–Nagar Campaign, I have improved most of those areas except one which i cant figure how can i improve it, which was of story telling and non-neutral article. I dont know much about how can i fix that problem. Is there any guide or advice i can get on this issue. Rahim231 (talk) 15:23, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Rahim231, it's hard to give instructions about tone and neutrality in articles. It is something one usually learns one example at a time as one gains experience. That said, there's WP:BETTER. Please see if it and other pages it leads to are of help to you. Best, — Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:50, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I've re-written a page... what next?

@Nick Moyes a couple of weeks ago (or so!) I asked about when it's ok to re-write a page, and you suggested doing it in my sandbox. I've now done it and want to know a) if it's acceptable and b) what I should do next! My sandbox page is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ARuthhenrietta%2Fsandbox&wvprov=sticky-header and the original article is here Antony Gibbs & Sons Ruthhenrietta (talk) 15:36, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

@Ruthhenrietta I haven't had a chance to go through your revised version in detail. But it looks pretty good, and I've fixed a few formatting errors for you.

I do have concerns that you have copy pasted a number of small paragraphs from other sites. These need to be removed and be rewritten in your own words, please, as we do not permit use of other people's copyrighted text. We have a tool to identify such issues. See HERE.

Because you are citing some printed books, please ensure you've not made the same mistake with these, too. In addition, I recommend citing individual pages, rather than expecting a user who wants to VERIFY a statement to read the entire work. You don't need to redo the citations; just use the {{rp}} template to add the appropriate page number after each reuse of the single citation (and remove any page numbers within a multiple-use citation, as this will cause a conflict)

OK, so, once you've sorted that, I suggest going back to the article talk page and adding a new thread to state that you've now re-worked the page; link to it (perhaps pointing out major differences and errors you've fixed); and propose that the article is replaced with your sandbox revision; and seek feedback. Looking at the page history, I don't see any major contributors in the past that would merit 'pinging' - especially as the original article creator was blocked long ago. You could go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Companies and link to your thread, and seek comments to be made there, too. Wait a week or two for any feedback or comments. If no, simply WP:BEBOLD with a nice clear WP:EDITSUMMARY explaining the revision coming from your sandbox (include a link). Hopefully, that'll be job done. Does this all make sense? Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:47, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Nick Moyes, yes, that's really helpful - I love the earwig copyvio detector. I'll do as you suggest. I've read the BEBOLD page - not quite clear if I literally delete all the old article and put mine in, or do I do it paragraph by paragraph... or how?! Ruthhenrietta (talk) 10:34, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

@Ruthhenrietta It would probably be best to do a paragraph by paragraph replacement. That way, if someone feels your changes are not an improvement, they've only reverted one bit. (But there are few people watching that page, TBH). I would probably wait a day or so between replacing edits unless you feel it's all really very non-contentious.

I must apoliigse that I am currently too busy IRL to do a line by line comparison to offer more detailed help, Nick Moyes (talk) 13:18, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

that is helpful - thank you Ruthhenrietta (talk) 14:04, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

How do you report a vandal?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:91.196.30.232 This user has been told multiple times by others to stop their actions, but continues to be a disruption. ZestyBurrito (talk) 17:25, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi ZestyBurrito! If they are vandalizing or spamming, and they have been warned, you can follow the instructions at WP:AIV to report them. If it is less clear and may require some discussion, you may report them at WP:ANI. Hope this helps, v/r - Seawolf35 ^T--C 17:42, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

@ZestyBurrito You can also use tools such as Twinkle to warn and report vandals far easier. You can also use it to welcome people to the platform. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 14:11, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Cite source error

So I added an archived link of a news article on this page University of Massachusetts Lowell#Alumni and notable people but I can't figure out how to get rid of the error. Anyone know what I did wrong? Soafy234 (talk) 21:02, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Lemme take a quick look at it. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 21:07, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

 Fixed Hello, as you can see in my edit fixing the error, a <ref> tag was missing the </ref> tag for it, I have fixed it. The error was in the source code for the page. Geardona (talk to me?) 21:09, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing it. But now it includes un necessary information about the references/sources in the paragraph such as the dates and such. Soafy234 (talk) 23:27, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

 Fixed. The second reference didn't have ref tags, so I added them in. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:41, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't notice that the second reference didn't had the ref tags. Thank you for the assistance and have a great rest of your week. Soafy234 (talk) 00:28, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

help with Wikipedia page publishing

Hi Teahouse! I am looking for help with/guidance in improving sources for a Wikipedia page submission I am trying to get approved. I am wondering if you would be able to help me with navigating successful revisions for this page to make it a better submission for wikipedia publishing. Thank you in advance! Cratedcube82 (talk) 22:21, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

This may be about Draft:Pablo Rodriguez-Fraile. If it is, there are two ways you could improve the referencing:

1. Where there are unreferenced claims, add references for them, or remove them.
2. Where there are uncontroversial statements with multiple references, remove most of those references, keeping only the best. A good source is reliable, independent, and has etensibve discussion of the subject. Maproom (talk) 23:12, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Translate from another Wikipedia pages (es and fr)

Hi, I would like to contribute this time by translating (making some modifications and adjustments) the Wikipedia page (actually in Spanish and French) of Spanish born author, photographer and former journalist Ruth Baza, who is also on the news worldwide for a couple of months, due to a dramatic event she lived in the act of service as one of the youngest and more respected former correspondent, aged 23, ill but strong and determined, in 1995, with a celebrity in Paris after interviewing this man for one of the most important film mags of Spain, Cinemania. According to WOMEN PRESS FREEDOM and The Coalition of Women in Journalism: "Ruth Baza has bravely come forward with her allegations against Gérard Depardieu. Her courage in speaking out about a rape that allegedly occurred nearly 30 years ago is not only commendable but also essential in the ongoing fight against sexual violence and the culture of silence in the media and entertainment industries. We believe that Ruth Baza's decision to file a criminal complaint, despite the significant passage of time and the legal hurdles, is an important step towards achieving justice, not just for herself but for all survivors of sexual assault who have felt powerless against influential figures. By coming forward, Baza has reignited critical conversations about sexism within the film industry, particularly in France, where recent reports have shed light on deeply ingrained misogynistic attitudes." This is an important step and a stormn in France and the Film Industry. Her career is very interesting as she belongs to the Generation X as author of a book that marked a generation, several stories, her way of writing in journalism and also her work as photographer (mostly rock stars). I will probably need help.... Or if any of you, editors wish to translate itor make your own version based on the existing pages and the hundreds references, I will be pleased to help . Thank you! Sylvie Siminovich (talk) 23:33, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to create "Draft:Ruth Baza". The summary for your very first edit that incorporates material from the French-language Wikipedia should say this (and should specify the page); the summary for your very first edit that incorporates material from the Spanish-language Wikipedia should say this (and should specify the page). Do not depend on machine translations (such as Google Translate). Do not incorporate long quotations (even if these are equipped with quotation marks). -- Hoary (talk) 23:50, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! One question: how to specify the page (French and/or Spanish) Sure, I won´t depend on machine translations since they are far from being "perfect". I prefer to make any mistake and being corrected by an editor rather than depending on a machine. Besides, my english is good enough to write long texts or stories; so, no problem with that. Of course, I may make mistakes but will do my best and not put a burden on pro editors. Sylvie Siminovich (talk) 00:04, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

You can link to a page on a different language's wikipedia site by prefixing the link with its two-letter language code, delimited by colons. So you could say "translated by me from [[:fr:Ruth Baza]]" and it would appear as "translated by me from fr:Ruth Baza". DMacks (talk) 04:06, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

And, as the other perhaps-useful example, "translated by me from [[:es:Ruth Baza]]", which would appear as "translated by me from es:Ruth Baza". ("Fr" and "es" are slightly unusual as being not only language codes, which are what you want, but also nation codes, which are irrelevant here: by contrast, "ja" is Japanese-language and "jp" is Japan.) -- Hoary (talk) 11:24, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Can you create a page on MAPTO ?

Hello friends, can someone create a draft company page for mapto.com? I'm new here and the page I opened was instantly deleted. I hope it would be better if a third person opens it. With my thanks and good intentions Eartechnic (talk) 00:14, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Eartechnic, it almost never happens that someone else creates an article for you upon request. It's especially unlikely they'll do so for a business. I am not an admin, so I can not tell yout whether you were close to demonstrating notability. Please consult WP:NORG and/or WP:NWEBSITE, and try again if you determine the company may be notable. It usually is not, so you may be wasting your time. Wikipedia is not the place to promote a nascent business; its purpose is to document/summarise information about topics that are already very well-established. Best, — Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:28, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

@Eartechnic, in addition to Usedtobecool's comments, if you're going to recreate it make sure you write it in a WP:NPOV (neutral point of view). But make sure to use sourcing that is WP:RELIABLE, WP:INDEPENDENT, and WP:SIGCOV before submitting for review. TLA^tlak 02:38, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Here's the opening paragraph: Mapto.com is a global business directory platform that has been connecting industries since 2008. With a mission to serve millions of companies and suppliers worldwide, Mapto stands as a premier resource in the business development landscape. (And it continues in the same vein.) -- Hoary (talk) 12:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

@Eartechnic, it's important to understand, the will never be a "company page for" mapto or any other company. If mapto is or becomes sufficiently notable that it is extensively written about in reliable sources independent of mapto, then someone might write an article here about it. It won't be anything like a "profile" that the company might post on any of several other sites, and it might or might not be to mapto's liking.Uporządnicki (talk) 12:47, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Do photographs help establish significant coverage in notability refs?

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Teahouse § Do photographs help establish significant coverage in notability refs?

 – —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:20, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:GNG requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", where

"significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail...Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.

This doesn't give sufficient conditions for significant coverage, so I wonder if references that

• cover the subject as the main topic and
• include photographs of the subject

provide significant coverage (in particular, this would exclude trivial mentions).

A case in point - Dmytro Kushneruk, where notability concerns were raised. Thank you

~~ Trzb (talk) 00:10, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Trzb, did you have a specific source used in that article in mind? There's too many there. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:21, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I would say no, absent some special circumstance. Since the photo would be attached to an article or similar material (I can't imagine why any publication would publish a photo of a person with no accompanying context at all, except as "Left to right, X, Y, and Z"; in that case Z would definitely not get notability from just that.) I think you'd go with just the text. Newspapers throw in photos of people into articles, it doesn't make them any more notable than what the accompanying text does. (You have got enough material to meet the GNG anyway, it seems, three articles about him (and that's not looking at the other 12 refs). Herostratus (talk) 07:21, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Agreeing with @Herostratus, unless it's a notable magazine cover or something (possibly). I read the New York Times, and they often tell stories by using the story of a non-notable person (in the context of Wikipedia), and they can end up having a paragraph or two about them as well as a photo in the NYT, which Wikipedia regards as a top source. TLA^tlak 08:03, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

 Note: Just going to move what Nick Moyes responded with over at WT:TEA into the box below:

—Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:09, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Handling sock/meatpuppetry

I recently nominated an article for deletion, and some users, in response to that nomination, edited the article I nominated. From reading WP: AFD, I'm aware that this is (usually) normal. Unfortunately, I have reason to believe that the edits made are inorganic. I believe that multiple accounts are coordinating to save the article, and I have reason to believe that at least one of these accounts belongs to someone with an undisclosed conflict of interest.

How should I report actions which I think breaks both WP: COI and WP: SOC? The AfD in question is here, in case more context is needed. It's my first AfD nomination and I'm aware that these aren't light allegations, so I want to make sure I do things the right way. I also deliberately haven't put the evidence here, because my question is about where to send the evidence. Thanks! HyperAccelerated (talk) 00:43, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

What is meant by an "inorganic" edit? 126.254.227.110 (talk) 00:58, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

All those comments somehow read as if churned out by a "large language model". 126.53.182.81 (talk) 01:02, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi, you can go to WP:SPI to open a sockpuppet investigation, there are step-by-step instructions there. (I'd be more helpful if I could, but I haven't personally opened one) Shaws username . talk . 01:06, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Understood, thanks. HyperAccelerated (talk) 01:14, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

@HyperAccelerated: Is this about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jiabao Li? If so, I'm suspicious too. Those accounts have hardly made any edits outside of that "realm" and I would say that it's very likely they're violating WP:SOCK. What you should do is go and create an investigation at WP:SPI (and if you want, I can do it, although it would be a great learning experience for you) and show "diffs" of edits you find strange, along with other evidence. But I would say that this might even pass the WP:DUCK test and doesn't even need to go to SPI. In that case, I would go to WP:ANI for (much) quicker action. It's your call. ‍ Relativity 01:09, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

It is, yes. I wrote in my original question that "The AfD in question is here", linking to that AfD, but I guess it's easy to miss. I will reply again if I need more help, but I think I've got it from here. Thanks for looking! HyperAccelerated (talk) 01:18, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

And, I would bet $100 that the AfD defence is made by ChatGPT. TLA^tlak 02:36, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Just got warned..

I recently moved a page, Nippon Telegraph and Telephone to NTT and got warned relatively quickly after, and was told that I was "moving a page disruptively". I have read the WP:s regarding moving a page and don't believe I have done anything wrong. May someone explain to me what I did? Formyparty (talk) 01:42, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

You moved several pages many times within a short time span. That's disruptive because it creates a mess out of the move histories and makes it hard to tell what the page names should be. My suggestion is to make requests at the technical move requests board and avoid moving pages yourself. The regulars there can tell you if the page moves are allowed or if they need someone with advanced page mover permissions. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 02:08, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Formyparty, to me, it just looks like you made one bold move, although it did involve moving other pages around too. I see nothing to justify a final warning, or even a warning actually. The encyclopedia that anyone can edit also means user talk pages anyone can edit, and sometimes, it can mean unpleasant things like this happening. You've already asked why; at this point, the best thing may be to wait for an answer. Best guess is, they thought you were one of those editors, who sometime show up, move a whole bunch of pages everywhere in a short period and leave, and it is not even technically possible for ordinary editors to undo the moves. Best, — Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:16, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Moving to draftspace

How to request for a move to draftspace? I once moved an article to mainspace draftspace, and it's creator and some other editors agreed to make the article better as it was written in a certain POV, and not in an encyclopedic form. The article is Delhi Sultanate-Mewar conflicts. Creator intentionally made an article to push Mewar POV by creating an infobox and a wikitable, full of Mewar victory. As discussed in the talk section, the infobox was cleared. Though the wikitables are still present. It is misrepresentation as the viewers might assume all the military conflicts between the both parties were won by Mewar, which is indeed a misunderstanding. The user who moved the draft article to mainspace is blocked due to edit warring, and has a history of disruptive editing. Imperial^[AFCND] 07:17, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

It's a poorly-written article. The map in the infobox shows neither the Delhi Sultanate nor Mewar. The lead has some greengrocers' apostrophes. Maproom (talk) 08:00, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes. That's why some of ours decided to make an entire copyedit for that article, but a user moved it into mainspace without even leaving a messege in talk section. How can I request for a move to draftspace? Imperial^[AFCND] 09:14, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Moved as requested. Maproom (talk) 11:25, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Now at Draft:Delhi Sultanate–Mewar conflicts David notMD (talk) 12:00, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Is this something to be worried about?

I have just completed Su Zhu (businessperson) an hour or two ago. I don't think it's indexed, but now, if you search up Su Zhu, the disambiguation page Su Zhu shows up and it's rather odd on Google. Under Su Zhu's "knowledge panel" it says Su Zhu, birth name of Hua Guofeng (1921–2008), former Chairman of the Chinese Communist Party. Zhu Su (1361–1425; Chinese: 朱橚), scientist, physician, botanist. Su Zhu (businessperson), a founder of cryptocurrency hedge fund Three Arrows Capital in the 2010s..

Obviously, there are many people who do not particularly like the Chinese Communist Party, so it might affect the image of a public figure at mass-scale, as I'm sure this same thing probably happens every day. I'm assuming if Su Zhu (businessperson) was indexed it would be fine, but I'm not autopatrolled, and many other editors aren't. Just worried it might affect the public image of some person online, especially if a page isn't reviewed in a while. TLA^tlak 07:53, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Some people may dislike the Chinese Communist Party, others certainly dislike the man responsible for Three Arrows Capital. But that's not for us to worry about: Wikipedia aims to reflect what is written in reliable published sources. Google will not be aware of the existence of a new article until it's been assessed as suitable for indexing, or six months have passed, whichever is sooner. Maproom (talk) 08:10, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

That's true. I would imagine Su Zhu isn't the most liked person in the world. Okay, sounds good, thanks I will forget about it for now! TLA^tlak 08:16, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

There's always the feedback button, which doesn't always not work. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 11:38, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I got declined

Hey my image that i took of famous 'Adam Bobrow' was declined when i attempted to add it to Adam Bobrow's wiki page Ijijijbigy (talk) 08:33, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

User is now blocked. 331dot (talk) 09:12, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

"What links here" false results

I have noticed on numerous occasions that the "What links here" search function appears to contain results that don't actually link to the page in question. Quite often, the number of such spurious results seems to vastly outnumber the number of actual results. As an example, check the "What links here" results for Bhadarwahi language. There are 287 supposed results, but going down the list, none of at least the first several pages (such as Hindi, Indo-Iranian languages, Marathi language etc.) appear to actually link to Bhadarwahi language.

If I am mistaken, can someone show me, for example, where in the Hindi article there is a link to Bhadarwahi language? If I'm right, what's the explanation for such a basic functionality being so broken as to be borderline useless, and are there any workarounds? Brusquedandelion (talk) 10:36, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

The link is in the navbox {{Indo-Aryan_languages}}. Therefore it is not immediately seen when Hindi is opened, as the navbox is collapsed, nor is it found in the source of the article, as it is brought in by a template. Nonetheless, the link exists. I use User:PrimeHunter/Source links.js to pick out only those links that are explicit in an article, and ignore links brought in by templates. -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 10:47, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Is there really no way to use the default search functionality to exclude links that only appear due to template transclusions? And why does the "Hide transclusions" checkbox seem to not actually this? Brusquedandelion (talk) 11:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

(e/c) I agree this is a pain, but those links are invariably in one of the navboxes at the bottom of the article. The boxes are often collapsed by default so you may not immediately see the wikilink. The Hindi article inevitably has many of these navboxes. In that case the link to Bhadarwahi is within the Indo-Aryan languages navbox. Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:47, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

But shouldn't "Hide transclusions" exclude such entries? It doesn't seem to. Brusquedandelion (talk) 11:27, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I think "transclusion" here refers to links made with {{:Bhadarwahi language}}. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 11:37, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

It would be useful to search for only direct links. If the word or phrase of interest is rarely/never used other than as a link, I usually just search the raw wiki-text. So for example: Special:Search/insource:"Bhadarwahi language" gets me 35 hits that all look to be that actual link. DMacks (talk) 13:08, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Spelling convention

Hello all, recently, I noticed edits in an article where "organization" was changed to "organisation." I understand both spellings are acceptable, but I'm curious if Wikipedia has an established preference for American versus British English spelling. Can anyone offer guidance on this? HerBauhaus (talk) 12:10, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

@HerBauhaus: Not across all articles, no. However, in articles closely related to a specific country, that country's variety of English should be used, and regardless of the article, the English variety should be consistent, ideally. Some articles will be marked with a template at the very top of the page that says which variety to use, too. Otherwise, generally the guidance is to simply leave it how it is. MOS:ENGVAR has the full details. Tollens (talk) 12:17, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

AfD article

I listed an article for deletion (AfD) to which only two people have contributed. I don't want to lobby in any way as that's obviously out of order, but is there any legitimate way to encourage editors to take a look (regardless of whether they agree with me or not)? Thanks, Emmentalist (talk) 12:53, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Emmentalist, there is. WP:AFD has instructions, right after instructions on how to create AFDs. You can leave notices to user talk pages of people who have previously edited the article (in this case, no one). You can also leave neutral messages to talk pages of relevant wikiprojects (see WP:CANVASS first). That's allowed but I wouldn't bother. it's sufficiently advertised. There just aren't many people interested in deletion discussions. Two participants are two more than in many other AFDs. You should not worry too much about how it goes. AFDs always leave some people unhappy; sometimes the unhappy one is you. In this case, I see it was created by PamD who's a valuable contributor. And it's about a "museum". It's unlikely to amount to a huge disaster whichever way the AFD closes. Best, — Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:15, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

This is super advice, @Usedtobecool. Thanks so much. I didn't realise AfD discussions often had no/few contributors. I'll leave it at that, then. I think you're still cool, by the way! All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 20:09, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Right back at you, Emmentalist! BTW, the AFD did get a few extra visitors after you posted here[1] — Usedtobecool ☎️ 01:48, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

How great! And also a very cool chart I had not learned about! Emmentalist (talk) 22:13, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Mobile view displays infobox before lead on article?

I added an infobox on Draft:Kane Pixels, but for some reason, on mobile view, it displays before the lead. I tried checking the source code and could not understand why it wouldn't move. I found this discussion on help desk where someone had the same issue, however I could not find a solution that worked. This has also happened on other articles where I have inserted a userbox. For example, my own user profile does it.

Is there something in the source code that I am missing? If so, what can I do to fix this &/or prevent this from occurring? Thanks. Not0nshoree (talk) 14:03, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Not0nshoree. In the app, I'm seeing the lead before the infobox (in fact, all the AFC boxes are between the lead and the infobox), but in a browser on a mobile I see what you say. I don't know why. My guess is that it is because of the shortness of the lead, but that is only a guess, and I may be wrong. (Remember that on web pages generally, the browser has to make decisions about how to fit items together, and depending on the sizes of the items and the window, it may make surprising choices). ColinFine (talk) 15:56, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Is it possible that even with the same source code in pages in draft- or userspace will display the infobox first, and those in articlespace will display the first paragraph of the lede first? Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 19:35, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

@Not0nshoree: Infoboxes are before the lead in wikitext and also in the generated HTML of desktop pages which can be seen in a narrow window. In a wider desktop window the infobox is displayed to the right as a floating element which allows the following text to be displayed to the left, so the viewer doesn't discover that the infobox technically comes first. The mobile site has special code which moves the infobox HTML to after the lead paragraph but this requires that "the lead paragraph" can be identified. Draft:Kane Pixels has so much stuff before the lead that it's hard for a program to tell what "the lead" means. Don't worry about it. If it's moved to an article without all the review stuff at top then the infobox will be moved down as normal in mobile. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:28, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Bayodata of a Realtor firm owner

There is a business man owner of Rebridz Realtors who contacted me, and he wants his profile to be added on Wikipedia. How can he do that. Kaundinya Fashion (talk) 14:28, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

If he wants a profile on Wikipedia, all he has to do is register for an account. As for a Wikipedia page to be made about either him or Rebridz Realtors, it doesn't look to me as if the company is notable enough due to a lack of sources and thus couldn't be made.

Additionally, if I'm getting this right from the title of the section, a biodata of said owner isn't really what Wikipedia does, see WP:NOT for more on that. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 14:38, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Kaundinya Fashion. I recommend you read WP:BOSS, and show it to your boss.

If you are going to continue editing Wikipedia (which you are very welcome to do, but preferably not on articles where you have a conflict of interest), you need to change your username, because names which suggest that the account is representing an organisation are not permitted. See WP:UNP. Since you have made no other edits, it is easiest just to abandon that account and create a new one. ColinFine (talk) 15:59, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Can someone reupload this?

I have an image getting nominated for deletion cause I used the copyright thing wrong but could someone reupload it? Blackeyedpea2 (talk) 15:41, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

By the way https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Caption_world.png Blackeyedpea2 (talk) 15:41, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

You need to take this up on Commons, not here. But since you say that the image is dated 24 April 1985, your claim that it is PD because it was published before 1929 makes no sense. Unless you can positively show that the image is either PD, or has been explicitly licensed by the copyright owner with a licence acceptable to Commons (such as CC-BY-SA) then you may not upload it to Commons.

On a related subject, I cannot see how User:Blackeyedpea2/sandbox can possibly be consistent with the purposes of Wikipedia. Please see WP:NOTWEBHOST. ColinFine (talk) 16:05, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

well I guess I’m gonna have to find a new image but that’s fine I already took pictures of it so atleast I have it in my memory delete for gods sake i don’t care Blackeyedpea2 (talk) 16:32, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

But what copyright do I choose??? I know it’s not before 1929 I just didn’t know how it worked jeez Blackeyedpea2 (talk) 16:34, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Blackeyedpea2 If you took the image, you can choose whichever license you want as you are the copyright owner. If the image is copyrighted and unlicensed, then you cannot upload it to Commons. Instead you need to upload it locally to Wikipedia under WP:Fair use. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 17:05, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

But Wikipedia's rules on non-free content say (among other things) that non-free images may only be used on articles, not drafts or user pages. Since the contents of your sandbox have zero chance of ever being accepted into Wikipedia, there is no way that you may upload or use that image, unless its use on Fandom (where I presume you found) explicitly licenses it under CC-BY-SA or similar.

I'm sorry to say it, but everything looks as if you are not here to build an encyclopaedia, but to engage in alternate history. There is nothing wrong with that, but Wikipedia is not the place to do it. ColinFine (talk) 18:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Well what’s the use for the sandbox then????? Blackeyedpea2 (talk) 23:05, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

@Blackeyedpea2: Welcome to the Teahouse. The sandbox (both your personal and the communal ones) is intended to be used to test edits that benefit the encyclopedia and/or draft articles. You can read more about this at Help:Sandbox tutorial. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:12, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Also if Wikimedia images are supposed to help wikipedia then how is this image helping https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=world+war+three&title=Special:MediaSearch&type=image Blackeyedpea2 (talk) 11:49, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

See all the country all images? That’s not helping wikipedia Blackeyedpea2 (talk) 11:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Ball not all Blackeyedpea2 (talk) 11:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Aside from the whataboutism exhibited, several of those countryballs images are actually being used on someone's userpage over on PTWiki. Commons is accessible across all of Wikipedia. Another image is used on ITWiki for an article on Countryballs that may be deleted due to a lack of notability, a lack of sources and potential copyvios due to a lot of the information apparently coming from a Fandom site; that would make it largely sourced from user generated content, something disallowed on Wikipedia.

If you wish to call into question those images and whether they and other images like them belong on Commons, please take your noble fight there. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 12:10, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

How to insert translated quotes into an article

Hi guys! I am working on a article about the Forchtenberg Tower Clock, which is the oldest dated clock in the world. I want to use a quote from the owner of the bakehouse where it is located. Firstly,do I need to ask permission to use a quote that is on the Internet, and secondly, since the quote is in German, can I put a translated quote into my article?

This is my first time ever starting an article from scratch, so any help would be highly appreciated!! 3602kiva (talk) 16:57, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

@3602kiva You don't need permission to put short quotes into articles provided you cite the source, as you will be doing. Many of our standard citation templates such as {{cite web}} allow for parameters such as |quote and |trans-quote. See the linked template page for the details. As a new editor you should also read H:REFB. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:29, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

In the image below someone made a button that you click and are taken to a random page of that category how do I do that but with a different category?

for the question.

In the image below someone made a button that you click and are taken to a random page of that category how do I do that but with a different category? DMPenguinTheJewishPenguin (talk) 17:19, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

The user linked to Special:RandomInCategory, and specified the category by replacing "..." in the following: Special:RandomInCategory/.... The user also put that in a {{Clickable button 2}}. If you want a copy-paste version, see below, replacing the parts in the angle brackets. Happy editing!

{{center|{{Clickable button 2|Special:RandomInCategory/<article goes here>|<text goes here>|class=mw-ui-progressive}}|style=margin:1em}}

~ Eejit43 (talk) 18:07, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. DMPenguinTheJewishPenguin (talk) 18:25, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

So how would I do that for a random page that needs editing for grammar/spelling? DMPenguinTheJewishPenguin (talk) 17:02, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

This is probably what you want:

{{center|{{Clickable button 2|Special:RandomInCategory/All articles needing copy edit|Random article needing copyediting|class=mw-ui-progressive}}|style=margin:1em}}

It gives:

Random article needing copyediting

~ Eejit43 (talk) 17:20, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes thanks. :) DMPenguinTheJewishPenguin (talk) 17:49, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Perfect! :) ~ Eejit43 (talk) 18:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Gaming the system

I saw someone gaming the system by making useless edits (adding and removing new lines) repeatedly on a new account. While they have been banned because their name was offensive, what should I do in the future so that moderators can be aware of this problem or similar behavioral issues?

Here's the account in question: Special:Contributions/Charlie_Ugly_Fail_Poor_Protituteee

Therealteal (talk) 17:35, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! In the future, if users are not acknowledging messages on their talk page and are continuing to make disruptive edits, the appropriate venue is WP:AIV, the "Administrator intervention against vandalism" noticeboard, which contains instructions for adding notices. Happy editing! :) ~ Eejit43 (talk) 18:02, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

looking for an article

im looking for a certain article (links to butterfly effect in the see also) about a guy going to the hospital that also caused the fall of a country 216.100.95.82 (talk) 19:08, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. You've not given us much to go on, nor is the Teahouse help forum the right place to answer your question. (We're here to help users having problems editing, not finding articles). However, you could work backwards from "what links here" to the article Butterfly effect. There are 363 article titles that might jog your memory (see HERE). Regards Nick Moyes (talk) 19:16, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

The Đorđe Martinović incident? The man in question went to the hospital and The collapse of this taboo [against open ethnonationalism] in the coverage of the Martinović case heralded the growth of nationalism that was to lead to [Yugoslavia] the country's collapse in 1991 (Mertus 1999). And yes, butterfly effect is linked in the See also section. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 19:53, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

@Rotideypoc41352 Well sleuthed! The incident caused the fall of a country? Wow - that must have been a bit of a bummer! Nick Moyes (talk) 22:30, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! I must admit that this was less sleuthing and more serendipity—I happened upon a joke about the Martinović incident with framing similar to IP's question. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 23:21, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Can I write an article about a musician?

I noticed on German-language Wikipedia an article about a British musician - Alison Janet Bentley - who recently died. I knew the musician well and there are several factual errors. I decided to write an English-language page for the musician with more accurate information. I feel that she was quite well-known and there should be a record of her career somewhere for future reference. I created an account and wrote an article in my ‘sandpit’ with 4 citations, but it gets deleted. I suppose this is because I’m attempting to write new stuff as opposed to collating previously published stuff, so should probably forget about Wikipedia for now and look at other sites for publications – or am I missing something? OpellaDFlush (talk) 19:16, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Your sandbox still exists at User:OpellaDFlush/sandbox, and you can continue working on it there. What was deleted was your userpage at User:OpellaDFlush. Just a note: different language Wikipedias work independently of each other, and they each have their own set of rules. Writing about Alison Janet Bentley here will not necessarily correct errors at her German Wikipedia (de-wiki) article—you'll have to ask the de-wiki help forums for instructions on correcting errors. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 19:45, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi @OpellaDFlush, welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia is not the place to record things that have not been recorded elsewhere; in fact, exactly the opposite - we're only supposed to record things that have already been recorded in reliable sources. Have you seen WP:Alternative outlets? 57.140.16.57 (talk) 19:46, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

The draft can only contain information that is verified by published articles, used as references. David notMD (talk) 21:16, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

RE: my WP page submission: a simple reference tool for readers of the novel Infinite Jest.

Yesterday my article (linked below) was immediately flagged as, it was suggested, not being notable and not having already been the subject of publication by reliable and independent sources.  

Less than an hour later I was told that I was in violation of WP:NOTDATABASE "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" and that it was proposed for immediate deletion.

My source of the content of this page, page numbers and endnote numbers, is the two main print editions, hardbound and paperback, of the novel Infinite Jest. I have provided for the readers of the book a handy cross-reference for navigating between the pages of the novel and the many endnotes that constitute essential creative content inextricable from the main body of the novel. Losing one's place in the 1000 page book is not very difficult, but thanks to the cross-reference one can easily find the page number on which the relevant endnote number appears in superscript, and thus its context in the narrative.

After creating this cross-reference tool for myself I found it an invaluable resource while reading the novel myself. I believe that many other readers of this popular book will benefit from this reference as they too navigate its 1000 pages. My hope was to include it in the See also section of the Infinite Jest page, which includes information about the importance of the endnotes.

In submitting my first Wikipedia page I obviously went about it the wrong way. While I do intend to go methodically through the tutorials and help guides to understand the protocols, standards, and policies of Wikipedia content creation, I am anxious to make this reference resource that I have prepared available to Wikipedia users interested in this major work by the late David Foster Wallace. If this is absolutely not appropriate content for Wikipedia, I will respectively abandon what I, with the best intentions, had hoped to share.

I was inspired and encouraged to create this page specifically reflecting on how much I benefited from the index of Doctor Who episodes that Wikipedia contributors had prepared, viz., List of Doctor Who episodes (1963–1989) and List of Doctor Who episodes (2005–present). My contribution is much simpler, yet powerfully useful to the reader of the novel.

I am a great fan and financial contributor to Wikipedia, and that my contribution is at odds with its spirit and purpose pains me significantly.

I appealed the immediate deletion and rather than being deleted my page was designated a personal essay and moved to user space:

User:Puzzledrat/Page-Endnotes Guide for Infinite Jest

After first posting a starker original version of the page (I was thinking concise) and receiving notices that it would be flagged for deletion I made edits to provide greater clarity and define the page's purpose better.

I do still intend to work to revise it after I have educated myself with all the recommended tutorials and help guides, even if it is not ever destined to be suitable for Wikipedia's main space. The reason I created a separate page in the first place was because the columns of numbers would obviously be obtrusive on the main Infinite Jest page (notwithstanding that the content itself, I now know, doesn't comport with Wikipedia's SOPs).

I thank everyone for the feedback, support, and resource recommendations.

Sincerely,

Nicholas Mitchell

Puzzledrat (talk) 20:09, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Puzzledrat. I recommend that you read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, which is policy. That will help you understand why this content is not appropriate for this encyclopedia. Cullen328 (talk) 21:16, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I will check that out first. Puzzledrat (talk) 01:40, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

article suggestion

Hi, I tried to create an article for the company I work for, Labthink International in Medford MA and it was rejected. Could I suggest the editors create an article about Labthink? I think it would be of interest in the engineering field. The company has created patents to many testing instruments that ensure the safety of medical and food packaging. Labthink instruments have been used and referenced in many scientific studies. Thank you for your consideration. Lisa Lisapaulinet (talk) 20:32, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

@Lisapaulinet: You can add it to WP:RA but it may be a long time before someone acts on it. RudolfRed (talk) 20:43, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for your help. Lisapaulinet (talk) 20:57, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

@Lisapaulinet: By "it may be a long time..." understand that to mean never. There is no group of volunteer editors dedicating to creating articles suggested by others. If you intend to try again, remember to put that PAID notification on your User page. David notMD (talk) 21:20, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Lisapaulnet. Unfortunately, nothing you have said in the first paragraph contributes to what Wikipedia means by notability, which is broadly that enough has been written about the company (not its products) in indepedent sources to base an article on.

I'm not saying that it is not notable (though must companies are not); but it appears that you are looking in the wrong place for ways to establish this. ColinFine (talk) 21:41, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Why did my article get declined?

Hello I wrote an article and I am wondering why it got declined? Rpaul1650 (talk) 20:55, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Because there was no evidence of notability and the tone was laughably inappropriate for an encyclopaedia. Theroadislong (talk) 21:01, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

It'd be better to ask the person who denied the page for a reason why. From what I can see on what I assume is the draft, Draft:TJ Atoms, with a very quick skim read, the page has no inline citations and two general citations, which reads to me as not notable enough to be moved to mainspace.

The page also needs a massive tidy-up in regards to the Manual of Style as it's formatted much akin to a page in a book rather than a Wiki page. I'd advise going to WP:FIRSTARTICLE to get some good tips on, well, how to make your first article. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 21:04, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. The absurdly promotional language is counterproductive. People will take "multifaceted creative luminary" as meaning "overhyped bullshitter". But the total lack of citations is the biggest problem. Maproom (talk) 21:43, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Like a page in a book? A book from a vanity publisher, perhaps. 126.205.249.189 (talk) 21:56, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Rpaul1650, and welcome to the Teahouse. People who attempt the challenging task of creating a new article before they have spent time learning how Wikipedia works, often have a frustrating and miserable time. Would you set out to build a car the day after you started studying engineering? Or enter a major competition when you have only just taken up a sport.

I always advise new editors to spend at least a few months making improvements to some of our six million existing articles and learning how Wikipedia works before they even try creating a new article: in particular, learning about verifiability, reliable source, neutral point of view, and notability. ColinFine (talk) 21:45, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

where did my sandbox contents go?

I edited the page about me, which I did not create. I used the sandbox to do it, using "source" and it took me forever. I hit publish as directed, but evidently it went to my talk page. Now I can't find it. I want to ask permission to edit the page, because it is blocked. I have a conflict of interest, being the subject. My editing consisted of some rewording of "career" section, correction of a misspelling, and additions to list of publications, which originally was sketchy. The first thing I need now is for someone to tell me how to get to the file I made in the sandbox. I can't get to my sandbox.

With all the days I have put into this, it may be simpler to request my page be deleted from wikipedia and then try for a correct one. I prefer not to do this, because volunteer editors made the original page better, just not complete. What do you think? CorbettPOE. THANK YOU CorbettPOE (talk) 22:19, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy links: User:CorbettPOE/sandbox, Carole W. Troxler, and previous discussion at Talk:Carole W. Troxler#Carole W. Troxler Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 22:48, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

@CorbettPOE: Your sandbox is at User:CorbettPOE/sandbox. For making changes at Carole W. Troxler, your best bet (since you have a conflict of interest) is to make one or more edit requests on the talk page of that article, being very specific about what wording should be changed and what it should be changed to. You may want to read WP:AUTO#IFEXIST. Deor (talk) 22:50, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you 99.118.250.119 (talk) 01:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution for controversial issues -- how does it work?

How does wikipedia resolve controversial ontological associations like Far-right politics ? Talk:Far-right politics has a big debate over whether it's equivalent to Nazi-ism . And there are biographies e.g. Blake Masters & Marjorie Taylor Greene with edit warring over associating those Persons with "far-right" . So the end-to-end result is tying specific polticical candidates to nazism (e.g. the Swastika renders directly on a candidates article page

What is the process for establishing the bar for associating someone with a controversial / undue label like "far-right", "far-left" , racist etc? Are there certain ontologies or categories that have a high bar ? is there a way to be more explicit about who gets associated with a category / concept? Is there an escalation process for resolving disputes?

This isn't a question about the specific "far-right/far-left" ontology . It's a question about the process for establishing a high standard for ontological definitions on wikipedia. Tonymetz (talk) 22:33, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

References

If you're talking about Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Joe Kent, you're already at the right place for determining consensus, given previous discussion at Talk:Joe Kent itself. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 03:14, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Sure the early process is clear ("post on Noticeboard") but the late part is less so. there are larger debates on big topics or big political articles -- but it's unclear how those get resolved.

Perhaps someone could share an example of a larger controversy and it's resolution.

Did someone senior or paid staff step in?

how does the adjudication process work upon stalemates? is there an escalation? Tonymetz (talk) 17:08, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

@Tonymetz, please make test edits in your sandbox. Paid staff is not going to step in over a content dispute. You linked to WP:Dispute resolution above - that is where the options are listed. For large-scale issues, the final step is often an RfC, which gets publicized in various places around Wikipedia so more folks are aware of it and can weigh in. For behavioral issues, there's ArbCom. 57.140.16.57 (talk) 17:20, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

thanks on both counts -- i moved over tot he sandbox while i figure out a tagging issue.

If you can think of a notable controversy that will help.

We can mark this as #resolved. thanks for the guidance. Tonymet (talk) 17:25, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

@Tonymet, the most recent controversy I had any involvement in (I stay away from contentious topic areas, since I'm an IP editor) was the Vector 2022 kerfuffle, which resulted in this massive RfC (among others, and among many other discussions in various places). 57.140.16.57 (talk) 17:34, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

this is very helpful thank you i'll read more into it. and if you have context on being an IP editor (vs anon vs named) id be curious about that too.

(and sorry for the name switcheroo i've been debugging push notifs) Tonymetz (talk) 17:39, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

@Tonymetz, "IP" and "anon" are largely interchangeable terms for the same thing: someone whose edits are tied to their current IP address, because they have not logged in to an account. WP:IP editor covers the basics. 57.140.16.57 (talk) 17:44, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Article Help

Hello team,

I am trying to create a page for myself on Wikipedia. I am a writer and would love to have some of the work that I did published as well as my carrier, for some reason it seems like my first try did not work out, so I need assistance on this. Thank you! Matheoscoelho (talk) 22:41, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Matheoscoelho; please see WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. Sdkb ^talk 23:11, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Need support with this article. Feedback would be appreciated :).

Dear Expert Editors,

I am resubmitting my draft article on Swami Bhai after implementing revisions based on the feedback provided from @Drmies (thanks very much) during his/her previous review. Here's how I've addressed the key suggestions:

Notability: I've researched and incorporated additional secondary sources, including news features and published works.

Neutrality: I've revised the language to eliminate any promotional tone.

Secondary Sources: I've made an effort to prioritize secondary sources.

Before resubmitting, I would be grateful for any further guidance you could provide to make this article even more aligned with Wikipedia's standards. Thank you for the support. Franciscoevan (talk) 01:10, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

It appears you have not resubmitted it. I added the template for you. Any feedback on the draft will arrive with the review. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 02:06, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

@Franciscoevan As the draft currently stands, it will be declined again. It is full of statements like He describes his early life as...., Swami Bhai reports that..., Swami Bhai states that..... Wikipedia is not interested what a person says about themselves (except in limited ways described at WP:ABOUTSELF). Articles must be based on what reliable, independent, published sources said: these don't include interviews because these are not independent. This is summarised at this guidance and this. Read these carefully and start again. If you are the Francisco Tomás Verdú Vicente mentioned in the draft, then you also need to read WP:COI. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:07, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Article Help

I'm working on an article about sociologist and professor Aaron Shaw (see my drafts), but it got denied due to insufficient citations. Can someone help me understand why? It might have something to do with the "cite journal" thing at the end, but I don't know how to get rid of that. Thanks! Gnat8 (talk) 01:44, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Gnat8 are you Aaron Shaw by any chance? If so, you should read the Conflict of Interest guideline.

Other than that, there are no independent sources in the draft, which automatically mean Shaw does not pass the general notability guideline. The notability guideline for professors is not met either. The reviewer (User:Brachy0008)'s decline reason might have been in error but I would endorse the decline review. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 02:00, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

As an addendum to what has already been said, please read carefully the notability guide. Currently the page includes no evidence that he has made an impact on the national/international field. Without this there is really zero chance that he will pass a review, just being a Prof is not enough. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:03, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Incorrect title of my article

I used a Wiki widget to create my article. On my first successful publishing of the piece I noticed that instead of "The Lynching of Giovanni Chiesa" the title read "Draft: The Lynching of Giovanni Chiesa." How do I eliminate the word "Draft." Here's the article: Draft:The Lynching of Giovanni Chiesa WarrenRicheyKid (talk) 01:55, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

WarrenRicheyKid you can simply move the article into mainspace, but you should really format it with sections, filled in citations, etc before doing so. Make sure it is also notable. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 02:03, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your helpful criticism and advice. Firstly, how do I format the article with sections. Is there a template? I don't understand what is meant by the suggestion to fill in citations. WarrenRicheyKid (talk) 02:23, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

You use this.

==Section== Brachy08 _(Talk) 02:31, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! WarrenRicheyKid (talk) 02:36, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

WarrenRicheyKid, I am not sure there's enough to support a standalone article separate from Coal miners' strike of 1873. Half of the story appears to be your original research. We are not supposed to do that. We only summarise what's in the sources. We don't write up conclusions about what's in the sources or try to piece together a story of our own theories based on what's not in them. You can add some information that is in the sources to the original article, and then create redirects to that article from Giovanni Chiesa or even Lynching of Giovanni Chiesea. Best, — Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:38, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

When is it appropriate to fork a new article for added coverage?

I am new here. I am working on an article where the group of editors working on it are much more experienced than I am and they seem to have a fairly specific and narrow goal for the article I'm working on, so they have removed and minimized my contributions. That's fine, because I can understand that their goals might be different from my own, but I do think I have valid knowledge to contribute to the subject, specifically on its history and important personages who were involved with the subject and cotemporaneous. Unfortunately I don't think they see eye to eye with me, even after attempting to explain why I think my contributions are valid. I am wondering if it would be appropriate to create a "History of Subject" page which their page could link to (or which could link to theirs) so that they could work their work and I could add to the subject without stepping on their toes for the vision they have of their article.

On the other hand, I can imagine how this might be seen as less than useful or even downright underhanded if I did it incorrectly, or did it for the wrong reasons. Any advice you can provide for me would be helpful. Eschaton1985 (talk) 03:10, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

What you are suggesting is called a WP:POVFORK - they are not accepted on Wikipedia. You should work with the other editors to reach some sort of consensus. Taking content that has been edited (or even rejected) to another page title will generally not help the situation. MrOllie (talk) 03:18, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, I will review that now. What are those "history of" links I see on some pages, where another page covers one specific aspect of the subject, but with the same POV as the parent article? The other editors and I don't have a disagreement over POV, just what content is appropriate for the article. Eschaton1985 (talk) 03:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

They are generally a product of an article split - sometimes an article gets so long keeping all the content on one page becomes impractical. The article you were discussing is relatively short, so that would not be appropriate there. MrOllie (talk) 03:32, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you again. I'll go back to the original article. Eschaton1985 (talk) 03:34, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Adding logos to a page

Hello. I recently added a few logos to update a college’s wiki page. They were almost immediately taken down although they are 100% correct and should be there. I have now been blocked from editing that page as well. What gives? Mainerlife (talk) 03:36, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

It likely has to do with the reasons already brought up on your talk page, as well as Talk:Thomas College. Remsense诉 03:44, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

So I can’t add information without being blocked? How can others do this and I can’t? Mainerlife (talk) 04:14, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Mainerlife, we can't help you if you are not willing to listen. No one can. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:33, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

The block log explains the reason "Repeatedly adding images of text instead of searchable, editable text". When another user left a message for you about it, you said "I don’t mind that it’s out of your manual of style. I will continue to add it as an image. I am the Creative Director for this college and I would like it on our page." Please understand that it is not your college's page, it is a page about your college, and as an employee if you intend to edit it, you need to make a WP:PAID and WP:COI disclosure. It is highly advisable that as someone with a conflict of interest, instead of editing directly, you request the change on the article's talk page. If you would like to appeal your block, there is guidence at WP:UNBLOCK. Shaws username . talk . 04:40, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I have to imagine that posting images of text has to contravene some part of MOS:ACCESSIBILITY. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:30, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

From my interpretation of them, it would be of images #3. While I haven't seen the images because they've been deleted from commons, it's the impression I get from the messages on the talk page of it being described as a list. Shaws username . talk . 05:39, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy link: WP:ANI#Text as a graphic Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 07:09, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Bias

The description of Donald Trumps presidency is completely false and inaccurate. It says he was the worst president in history. as we all know that is a lie. Donald Trump was and will be again, the best president in history. Who ever put that bias lie on Wikipedia needs to be fired for placing a bias false opinion when wiki is supposed to be a comparative encyclopedia, not a left wing bias unethical, no decorum or professionalism personal activist platform giving non truths as a factually correct definition of a former President of the United States of America’s term. Put CCP BIDEN as the WORST illegitimate President to ever disgrace this country in 250 yrs if we’re talking truth. Change that about Trump NOW!!!! 2603:9000:B900:491E:A452:8669:2A3A:F587 (talk) 07:25, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, 2603:9000:B900:491E:A452:8669:2A3A:F587. I think you must have misread what Presidency of Donald Trump says. It doesn't say he was the worst president in history but that "Trump had historically low approval ratings, and scholars and historians rank his presidency as one of the worst in American history". Do you think that's an incorrect summary of his approval ratings and what historians have said about him? Cordless Larry (talk) 07:29, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

2603:9000:B900:491E:A452:8669:2A3A:F587 If you want to change the article, then propose a specific request in the format "change X to Y" with reliable sources cited. Otherwise you're just kvetching, which is not productive to our goal of improving Wikipedia. If you want to live in your bubble, Conservapedia is → thataway, and you might be happier contributing there. Wikipedia reports, without bias, what reliable sources say about a topic. If you don't agree with reliable sources, that isn't a problem for Wikipedia. ~Anachronist (talk) 08:05, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Tragically, Wikipedia follows reliable sources, not internet rants. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 13:19, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

People wihout accounts are not able to edit 'locked' articles (the lock symbol, upper right). That is why Anachronist mentioned that a path open to you is to use the Talk page to suggest an article change. At the Talk page, protests about possible bias have been raised many times (see the Archives for multiple earlier discussions). Article content about expert rankings of him being a bad president has not been overturned. David notMD (talk) 20:47, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Deleting a redirect

Hello there. Just a small issue. The to-do list on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who currently links to a redirect called Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who/to do. I wanted to know whether this redirect could be deleted, and instead ensure that the to-do list link as featured on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who could link to Wikipedia:WikiProject Doctor Who/to do directly, without having to be redirected first. Reply by VisualEditor is fine. All the best, Lotsw73 (talk) 13:32, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Lotsw73, did I do it? Is that what you meant? — Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:11, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Usedtobecool, yes, you did it. Thank you very much! Lotsw73 (talk) 09:29, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Visual editing and source editing

What it means about visual editing and source editing? Can somebody help me to know it? Arief Azazie Zain (talk) 14:25, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Arief Azazie Zain, welcome to the Teahouse. See this guide and this one for introductions on editing in both ways and the differences between the two. You can almost always switch between them at will when editing Wikipedia, though the Visual Editor does not work in some areas (such as talk pages). 57.140.16.57 (talk) 14:45, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Any way to fix this?

When I undid an edit on the page Discipline, when linking to the reason why I undid it (WP:DICTIONARY), I accidentally published the edit without including part of the link. I think that would be misleading if the person who had done the edit had seen the reason. So what I wanted to ask is, is it possible to change the reason, even if it isn't me who changes it? ~Fuffi-Marie~ (go talk) 14:59, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi @FuffiMarie welcome to the tea house! Edit summaries are not themselves editable. If you think you've made a mistake in your edit summary large enough to be worth fixing/noting, but please see dummy edits since they are generally see as a fine thing to do in this case (which probably doesn't need a dummy edit with summary but would also be fine to do). Skynxnex (talk) 15:07, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! ~Fuffi-Marie~ (go talk) 15:42, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

IP check

How do I ask the administrators for an Ip check. There was an editor that was blocked this month for sockpuppetry. I noticed one of the new editors in an article I'm regularly editing, joined the day after that blocked editor lost their editing privileges. I find it highly suspicious and I'm seeing the similar behavior from the new editor. By the way, I have asked directly the editor about this.[2] Hotwiki (talk) 16:37, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Hotwiki see WP:SPI. In my opinion the comment you linked is... aggressive. CheckUsers will only check IP's if necesssary, and not whenever you want. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 17:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Article Reject

Why the hell did this happen? Chillalbert25 (talk) 16:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

We try to be friendly and civil here on this page, please. Your draft was deleted as unambiguously promotional; I examined it and must agree. Wikipedia article should have a neutral point of view and not talk up the subject, summarizing what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose to say about it, showing how it is notable. Please see Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 16:53, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not promoting anything. I'm just writing. Like... And even then. Why would you delete it? Chillalbert25 (talk) 17:03, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

@Chillalbert25 Because an admin, User:Nick Moyes agreed it was unambiguous promotion. See message on your Talk Page. Wikipedia forbids WP:PROMOTION. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:53, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not promoting anything. I'm just writing. Like... And even then. Why would you delete it? Chillalbert25 (talk) 17:04, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

@Chillalbert25 What you wrote was totally unrelated to the purposes of Wikipedia. This site is not a free webhost for you to write any old childish nonsense you want to. Go do that somewhere else, please, if you aren't genuinely interested in helping to build a world-class encyclopaedia of notable things. See WP:NOTWEBHOST for why I deleted your page. I hope that answers your question as to 'why the hell' that happened. See also WP:NOTHERE for why admins like myself block users who don't appear to be attempting to contribute positively to Wikipedia. Nick Moyes (talk) 17:09, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Chillalbert25, I am also an administrator, and I agree with 331dot and Nick Moyes. Your draft was promotional, unreferenced and not appropriate for this encyclopedia. Please read Your first article and pay attention to what it says. Cullen328 (talk) 18:23, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I believe that thousands pf drafts/articles are deleted every week. Encyclopedias have a requirement for neutral point of view and reference requirements. David notMD (talk) 20:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

COI editor not responding

Hi, I've proposed a COI change here Talk:Geotab#Update request for introduction section and was being helped by a Wikipedian. He's not responded for the last month, however, so is there a way to get an alternate Wikipedian to help? Minura at Geotab Inc (talk) 16:56, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Minura at Geotab Inc. Please be aware that Spintendo is a volunteer who has not edited in 3-1/2 weeks. Perhaps the editor is on vacation or is ill. I do not know. I suggest that you make a fresh edit request formally, and hopefully another editor will respond. Cullen328 (talk) 18:32, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

How to make Wikipedia editors stop taking out your edits because you don’t have citations? I don’t know how to put in real citations that they approve.

I’ve added a few edits to some articles, but only a few of them have been accepted because I don’t know what you mean by citations. Help. Nolan1scool (talk) 16:58, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. All information on Wikipedia needs be cited- which means that we need to know where the information is coming from. For example, you made this edit which has good information, but you did not include a source for the information. Please read Referencing for Beginners to learn more about writing citations. 331dot (talk) 17:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

@Nolan1scool I see that @331dot gave you a link about how to add references. But I notice that you may have been using our 'Visual Editor' - one of two choices of editing tools that user have. That guide ralted to those people preferring to use our Source Editor.

So you might find this shortcut link to a different help page of some use if you are using Visual Editor: WP:REFBEGINVE. Hope this helps. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 17:13, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for the clarification. What do you suggest I add for citations for the …And Justice for All edit I made? Nolan1scool (talk) 17:43, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Citations are basically where you got your information. For example, in your edit at '...And Justice for All', you mentioned about it selling 9 million records. Using '< ref >' and '</ref>', you can add where you found the information from (using a hyperlink to the article containing that 9 million figure). A personal example of what from me would be this edit:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sukhoi&diff=prev&oldid=1210072251, although I'm sure someone might be able to give a much better example as this was a hard subject to source. ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 18:22, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Does the reference need to be directly from Wikipedia or can I use other websites for citations as well? Nolan1scool (talk) 22:49, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Nolan1scool, the reference cannot be from Wikipedia. Please read WP:CIRCULAR. The reference must be to a reliable, independent published source with editorial control and a reputation for accuracy. Cullen328 (talk)

@Nolan1scool: If you like, you can discuss this at the article's talk page: Talk:...And Justice for All (album), where you can tell explain where you got the information from, and other editors could help you add the information appropriately (if there is consensus to do so). Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 23:37, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Debug tools for watchlist notifications

I've set up my watchlist and notification settings. but often edits to my watchlist pages are not coming through -- both on web wikipedia and via email.

Is there a tool to debug or see a log of watchlist notifications? I'm trying to figure out why some watchlist changes are not being received Tonymetz (talk) 17:06, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't believe you get push or email notifications of stuff changing on your watchlist, you essentially have to have a tab open on that at all times.

As for why some changes don't come through on your watchlist, that'll be down to the filters you set up on the watchlist page itself. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 17:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

ok thanks i better understand watchlist now.

as for replies, those still seem to be inconsistent -- some replies push a notif and some don't. any tips on debugging that? I've been testing with an alt account. Tonymetz (talk) 23:16, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

@Tonymetz What notifications you get by email are set in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-echo. Your main and alt account could be set up differently. See also Special:TopicSubscriptions which lists the threads you have subscribed to, which trigger notifications but not emails, unless you set up your preferences to do that as well. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:09, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

i think i found the bug. it was a global setting "show cross-site notifications" = off . "show cross site..." = ON fixed it. now i see reply notifs (like yours) Tonymetz (talk) 15:26, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Exact copy of refused draft added direct to mainspace

An article I made a while back, Draft:Syria at the 2024 Summer Olympics, was recently put into the mainspace. As the creator of the draft, I am very confused as to why it was refused then (in spite of special guidelines existing on the subject about approving such articles). ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 18:08, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

ASmallMapleLeaf, it looks like your article was copy-pasted by another editor to mainspace. They were not supposed to do that, especially not without providing attribution. The thing to do is to request WP:HISTMERGE and make the editor aware that they did wrong. As for why AFC declined it, there's a category of articles that are hard to approve through AFC but it's not worth it to seek deletion if they somehow make it to mainspace anyway; this article would be one of those. Best, — Usedtobecool ☎️ 18:29, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

u.a./[u.a.]:

What's the meaning of u.a.: which appears in some references, eg. Durham, North Carolina [u.a.]: Duke Univ. Press; Jefferson, N.C. u.a.: McFarland? Mcljlm (talk) 20:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

@Mcljlm If you could link to precisely where you see this, we might be able to help you better. In my mind, UA means a Unitary Authority, but I wouldn't expect to see it within a citation. Is this when you're viewing a page that is not being edited, or when you're actually editing a page? If the latter, which of our two editors are you using? Nick Moyes (talk) 20:48, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Other examples at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witchsmeller_Pursuivant#References, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Archbishop#References and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Queen_of_Spain%27s_Beard#References; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgian_Armed_Forces#cite_ref-25 Mcljlm (talk) 01:01, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

The only u.a. I'm aware of in a bibliographical context is und andere or unter anderen, which is used in German as an equivalent of et al. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:53, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Search for insource:"north carolina u a" found a single result Maharaja Nandakumar - see ref 4. At a guess, it's a typo for USA? -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 21:31, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Tenryuu's meaning sounds correct. Here is a previous discussion about it: Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 2#What does [u.a] mean? DMacks (talk) 09:15, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

That wikilink doesn't work owing to the [ and ], so navigate to Help_talk:Citation_Style_1/Archive_2 and look for the correct section. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:59, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Fixed. Wow, that's an annoying one. DMacks (talk) 15:57, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm inviting the still active participants in the archived discussion - Jason Quinn, Redrose64, and Alarics to join this one.

Since this is English WP and u.a. doesn't appear to be a generally recognised English abbreviation I suggest it should be deleted from English WP references. Mcljlm (talk) 18:43, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree. It serves only to mystify and confuse. Alarics (talk) 22:10, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

coraline jones?

Where is the page for Coraline Jones? Oreooo333 (talk) 20:23, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Coraline (film) EvergreenFir (talk) 20:24, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Oreooo333, we also have Coraline about the novel. Cullen328 (talk) 23:15, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Regarding Image Use

I am in the process of creating an article about the oldest dated tower clock in the world, in Germany. Unfortunately, I don't live in Germany, so I cannot get any photos myself. There are a few photos online, but I am unsure on whether I can display them on a Wikipedia page without consent. Are there any rules regarding this?

Cheers, 3602kiva (talk) 20:46, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Yup, mostly in relation to copyright. If you go to Wikimedia Commons you can find the upload wizard, the first page on there will give you the generalised rundown of how you should and should not upload images.

There is, however, another choice: you can go to the WikiProject Germany photo requests page and ask them very nicely, maybe someone will head out and take a picture for you. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 21:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Got it. I will take a look at the upload wizard, and also send a few emails out to gain either consent for existing photos or get new ones taken.

I appreciate the swift response, 3602kiva (talk) 21:12, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

No worries, if you need any more help with it then you know where to find us. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 21:43, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

commons:Category:Turmuhr Forchtenberg has 33 images of it, in varying levels of focus on it vs marginally-visible, interior vs exterior, perspective/direction, etc. If you can read German, the de:Turmuhr Forchtenberg article on German Wikipedia could be a source of inspiration for content. DMacks (talk) 09:12, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Question

Is there somewhere where I cam find suggested pages to edit? Thank you very much and kind regards 14 novembre (talk) 21:34, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, there's a couple different methods. One of them is to just click "Random Article" and go mad. Another is to take a look at the Task Centre and see what tickles your fancy.

I'd personally advise doing citation hunting (you can find that in the Fact Checking section), which will get you used to how citations and reliable sources work which will help you on your way to potentially making your first article some day. You may also find some random article that you want to improve in general if it's looking a little worse for wear. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 21:42, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

@CommissarDoggo Many thanks. 14 novembre (talk) 22:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

MazdaFan404

I’m new here! I am a fan of Mazda because I am getting the CX-5! MazdaFan404 (talk) 22:35, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

@MazdaFan404: Welcome to the Teahouse! You may be interested in updating articles in Category:Mazda and its subcategories and/or joining Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 23:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

MazdaFan404, it is fine to be a fan, but please be aware that any content that you wrote must be written from the Neutral point of view, which is a core content policy. Cullen328 (talk) 23:52, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Embedding citations

How do I embed a citation next to a claim? I'm having a hard time understanding the entire process. Cystidia (talk) 23:00, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

@Cystidia: Welcome to the Teahouse! I suggest watching the video at WP:EASYREFBEGIN. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 23:25, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Cystidia (talk) 23:31, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

New Here - Fair Usage Questions

Hi - this is in regards to the article of deceased person. Would it be fair usage to upload too wikipedia a portrait of that person, which was used in a newspaper? If you can please advise! HCR24 (talk) 23:02, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, HCR24. If no freely licensed photo of the deceased person exists, then the answer is yes, with certain limitations. The policy language can be found at WP:NFCI #10. You must follow the entire policy very carefully. Cullen328 (talk) 23:21, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for that. Perused WP:NFCI HCR24 (talk) 01:57, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Need help with my first article

Need help with my first article Wikinoobrider (talk) 23:09, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

@Wikinoobrider: Welcome to the Teahouse! Are you referring to Draft:Nikita S? If so, please be aware that IMDb is not considered an appropriate source per WP:IMDB. Hope you can find additional independent published sources that provide significant coverage of this person. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 23:20, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Assistance needed with submitting a page

Hello,

I have started working on my first page about a conlang I am developing. Today I decided to submit it, but it was declined because "In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are: [in-depth, reliable, secondary, independent of the subject]".

What should I do if this article is about a topic that has no sources?

Article: Draft:Shared Alliantic

MyNamesIs 55 (talk) 23:13, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

@MyNamesIs 55: Welcome to the Teahouse! All Wikipedia articles should be created based on multiple independent published sources that provide significant coverage of the topic. If there are no such sources, then there can be no article. If you haven't done so already, please see Help:Your first article. GoingBatty (talk) 23:17, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

MyNamesIs 55, please read Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Cullen328 (talk) 23:24, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: Thank you for your reply! I am sorry if I caused any inconvenience, I will publish this article somewhere appropriate and remove the draft once I'm done. Have a good day!

55 (talk) 23:26, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

To tag the draft for deletion by an Administrator, put Db-author inside double curly brackets {{ }} at the top of the draft. David notMD (talk) 23:28, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Submitting New Draft Page for Review

Hello, I built a new page for a non-profit here is the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Kiss_The_Ground I can't seem to publish it and get it submitted for review.Any help would be appreciated! Jamesborland43 (talk) 01:57, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

@Jamesborland43 I have gone ahead and submitted it to Articles for Creation for you. In the future, you can follow the directions at WP:AFCREVIEW to find out how to submit it. The reviewing process will take some time since we have 1818 drafts currently to review, so it could take up to two months. ‍ Relativity 01:59, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Okay, thank you! Jamesborland43 (talk) 02:02, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Is a photograph without findable attribution "Free Content"

There is the photograph of a deceased person, which I'd like to add to that person's article. No attribution for this photograph seems to be findable anywhere online and the photograph is used many times on many pages online, but always without attribution. Would that make it safe to assume that this photograph is "free content", as wikipedia understands it and that it is safe to upload? HCR24 (talk) 02:06, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Precisely the opposite: lacking any information to the contrary, we must assume that rights holder retains the copyright and has not released the photo under a license compatible with Commons. As Cullen328 pointed out to you above (#New Here - Fair Usage Questions), an upload of a photo of a deceased person must carefully follow our WP:NFCI policy. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 02:47, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

HCR24, I agree with Rotideypoc41352. You absolutely cannot make such an assumption. Modern copyright law is very clear on this point, although many aspects of copyright law are highly complex. Copyright notices are no longer required. When a photo is published, it is automatically copyright protected for 95 years by the act of publishing it. Unless there is solid written evidence that it is freely licensed or in the public domain, then you must assume that it is copyright protected. Other websites may use copyright protected images under the legal concept of fair use. Not Wikipedia. We have much stricter standards because our educational goal is to maximize free content which can be used and reused by anyone for any purpose without permission and without fear of being sued for copyright infringement. We are the #7 website worldwide and #1 in originally written content. We have much higher standards than other websites, and those standards are enforced. Cullen328 (talk) 03:22, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Citing a WP:CIRCULAR?

I'm currently getting to work on a few G5/G11 speedy deleted drafts. Right now I'm working on Draft:Bitget, and I can see some content that could be used from this copy of the now-deleted article on a Wikipedia mirror. How do I give attribution to this? Obviously can't use as a reference.

Do I attribute to the creator sock (I think its Antonio Vinzaretti) or is there a way to see the contribution history? TLA^tlak 03:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

If I am reading WP:ATTREQ correctly, you can link to the page at HandWiki, if that site is complying with the license and shows the author. I am not sure if it does. But, that article is quite short and has already been deleted ten times. I suggest just rewrite from scratch. RudolfRed (talk) 04:25, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

RudolfRed, perhaps WP:ATTREQ needs rewriting to be clearer because later on that same page, WP:RUD says Deleted articles may not be recovered and reused from Wikipedia mirrors, online archives, or the view-deleted administrator right. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 04:30, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

That page you link also says unless attribution is otherwise provided. I don't see why we can't use CC licensed text even if it was previously deleted, that makes no sense to me, but I don't make the rules. RudolfRed (talk) 04:35, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

That was helpful, thank you. It doesn't seem to attribute the authors, so I think I'll just rewrite it from the groundup and disregard the mirror. The Wikipedians on Discord seemed to suggest the same thing. TLA^tlak 04:37, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

How does a WikiProject get revived?

So WP:APPS has been semi-active for quite some time now. At what point does it become fully active? TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 04:08, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

When enough people are actively involved! I really don't see any sign of an increase in involvement on the Talk page. -- asilvering (talk) 04:11, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Plain date or (Start date) template?

On the page M11 (Istanbul Metro) the infobox is very wide and personally a bit visually appalling. This is due to the usage of the {{start date and age}} template. I was wondering if it is appropriate to remove the tag as it is a metro line that is not a historic line, and frankly takes up too much space. Or if there are other alternatives, such as using <small> to reduce the size of the stations that were opened at that date. Thanks in advance! ~eticangaaa (talk) 05:58, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Moved to Talk:M11 (Istanbul Metro) § Plain date or (Start date) template?

How to make a note/footnote, and can the same note/footnote be used multiple times in the same article?

I want to make a note/footnote saying:

"The Royal Albion Hotel was damaged by a fire in July 2023, so only 63 of the 64 hotels are operational as of February 2024"

Preferably including a reference talking about the fire in the note.

Obviously I'm wanted to add it to the 3 places on the Britannia Hotels article which says there's 64 hotels, as only 63 of them are open. Danstarr69 (talk) 06:46, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Does this answer the "multiple" part of the question? As for the "note" (as opposed to, though perhaps including, a reference), try Template:Efn/doc. (Incidentally, I'm surprised to hear that an article on a hotel chain has to say three times that there are X hotels, whether X is 64 or 63.) -- Hoary (talk) 07:48, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Hoary I don't know what the first part has to do with notes/footnotes, however I managed to add the same note 3 times without a reference using the "named references" bit of the efn/doc template.

The reason why the number of hotels is listed 3 times, is because they're listed at the start, they're listed in the infobox, and they're listed at the start of the table.

However what I can't understand, is why all 64 hotels aren't listed in a single table, as all it does is cause confusion.

Right now there's 2 tables, 1 containing 38 uniquely named hotels, and 1 containing 26 hotels which is split into 3 sections for hotels which have the same name in different towns/cities.

It took me ages to figure out that the reason a Bradford hotel was missing, was because a Manchester hotel had been added twice (once to each table). Danstarr69 (talk) 09:22, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

BARE URLs

Can someone please explain or supply me materials regarding bare URLs, what makes a URL bare in the first place and/or the characteristics of same. I'd be most grateful. Thank you.

Kind regards, Anoghena Okoyomoh (talk) 09:50, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Bare URLs. Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:58, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much.

Kind regards, Anoghena Okoyomoh (talk) 10:20, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

@Anoghena Okoyomoh, I’d like to thank you for brightening up my day with this term. The concept of a Bare URL — completely new to me — sounded rather naughty! 😅

Even though I’ve looked the term up and now understand both its meaning and its associated problems, I think the grand naming academy that originated the term might have come up with something less open to double meanings … and thus less likely to distracting editors with amusing possibilities for humorous comments. Augnablik (talk) 11:04, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

True, very true. I'm glad I brightened up your day and thank you for making my day as well, it's not so often other contributors are this fun when speaking with me. I look forward to many interactions with you.

Kind regards, Anoghena Okoyomoh (talk) 12:45, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Augnablik, please read the Merriam-Webster definition of bare. This is not a "naughty" word at all. Cullen328 (talk) 19:28, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Resolving naming discrepancies

Hello! There is a conflict of info between these pages: Heart Internet - Wikipedia & 123 Reg - Wikipedia

The first says the company was founded by Tim Brealey and Jonathan Brealey. The second one says Jonathan and Tim Beresford-Brealey. One of the citations on the second page says Jonathan Brealey and Tim Beresford.

I did a Google search and it looks like those same people went on to found a company called 20i according to their About Us page. Heart Internet and 123 Reg, along with the dates those companies were founded are on there. This page says Tim & Jonathan Brealey.

Which one would be the best one to go with? They look like busy people, so would I be better off doing more research and putting together a sort of biography page to mention the different businesses that they founded? Thanks so much!! Majortony866 (talk) 10:52, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

It's clearly the same situation as Robbie Hunter-Paul and Henry Paul.

Robbie got married and included his wife's surname.

Henry didn't.

Timothy James Mark Beresford-Brearley took his wife's surname.[3]https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/officers/YXXunGOF8pNm2FhWSD3eZhiJeLg/appointments

Jonathan Robert Eric Brearley didn't.[4]https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/officers/xheQ7-bqs2cemvxjoMgwvNehJq0/appointments Danstarr69 (talk) 11:30, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion Heart Internet should be nominated for deletion for lack of references that confirm notability, as existing refs are either brief mentions or HI's own website. That would solve the problem. David notMD (talk) 12:55, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Before i create this article, can someone assert the notability of this artist?

As a daily newspaper reader, i often discover topics of importance and try to find the topics on Wikipedia to see whether i can Improve them. i made about 24 organic edits under my IP address over the last 2 years., im 54 years old so im not that good with the latest technology and social networks but i love typing and writing especially in my notebook.

i just discovered this Artist in a Newspaper i read every morning which was published in the Newspapers yesterday..

He seems like somebody who has made an impact in his field https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=c0f11d7a5002bdc2&sxsrf=ACQVn0-jQ_pEAvKNmNs9XqF8g0sfLhSZ5Q:1709211124788&q=B+Major+SA&tbm=nws&source=lnms&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiOk8HPy9CEAxUYQEEAHcSJDakQ0pQJegQIYhAB&biw=1366&bih=607&dpr=1

so i was curious to search him up on google and found a knowledge graph of the Artist with a Wikipedia page linked to it, i went into the wikipedia page and discovered there is no page or it was deleted. - https://www.google.com/search?q=B+Major+SA&sca_esv=c0f11d7a5002bdc2&sxsrf=ACQVn0_SCuOxnhWsYtYP5BUSOI0cvjB84w:1709211127281&source=lnms&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiFvdnQy9CEAxUaTEEAHSLFBfoQ0pQJegQIBhAC&biw=1366&bih=607&dpr=1#ip=1

i than did some reading about creative musicians and notability and found this https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:ARTIST&redirect=no im thinking that the topic meets number 1 and 2 at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:ARTIST&redirect=no but not really sure thats why im at the teahouse.

Also i found the newspaper i read yesterday morning online today in the google news section - https://www.google.com/search?q=B+Major+&sca_esv=c0f11d7a5002bdc2&biw=1366&bih=607&tbm=nws&sxsrf=ACQVn0_SCuOxnhWsYtYP5BUSOI0cvjB84w%3A1709211127281&ei=933gZcXlEJqYhbIPooqX0A8&ved=0ahUKEwiFvdnQy9CEAxUaTEEAHSLFBfoQ4dUDCA4&uact=5&oq=B+Major+&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LW5ld3MiCEIgTWFqb3IgMgoQABiABBiKBRhDMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAESNsNUL4CWNsDcAB4AJABAJgBxAKgAdoGqgEFMi0yLjG4AQPIAQD4AQGYAgKgAuMEwgIHEAAYgAQYCsICBhAAGBYYHsICCBAAGBYYHhgKmAMAiAYBkgcFMi0xLjE&sclient=gws-wiz-news

i created this wikipedia account because it said to create the topic page i need to sign up.

i also discovered more newspaper articles about the topic which covers the topic in detail and his significant impact he has on the youth in Cape town, also working with a Notable Musician.. i read that notability cant be inherited so working with notable people doesn't make him notable automatically..

but i'm just curious before i start a draft page for this topic, can a reviewing person or admins assert that this person is notable enough to have a standalone article? should i create the draft? and how do i create the draft? if this topic is notable enough how do i start a draft or article? that part im still trying to figure out.

here is a list of the articles i found in my Google news app by searching B Major or B Major SA.

1 - https://www.plainsman.co.za/entertainment/martins-matters-of-the-heart-is-mitchells-plain-bjorn-and-bred-6e69bf9b-4ba1-48b4-b50b-ae288ca89c79

2 - https://www.dailyvoice.co.za/lifestyle-entertainment/entertainment/listen-its-a-matter-of-the-heart-for-b-major-in-his-debut-album-5c65e7c1-d3ea-43f0-bf36-6a511d9272ea

3 - https://www.dailyvoice.co.za/lifestyle-entertainment/major-hit-in-the-making-mitchells-plain-muso-drops-new-album-2507039b-a202-4425-b9df-2a576989517a

4 - https://freepressinfo.com/b-major-sa-sunday-morning-nominated-song-of-the-year-at-the-cape-town-artist-awards/

5 - https://hypemagazine.co.za/music/mitchells-plain-music-producer-b-major-sa-nominated-for-producer-of-the-year-at-the-021-music-awards-2021/

Im new to writing articles but i will try my best to create something decent. that is if it can be created.

any feedback would help

Thecapedoctor (talk) 13:21, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Thecapedoctor, and welcome to the Teahouse. In my opinion, the only one of those which even might contribute to establishing notability is no. 4: it appears to contain significant coverage of B Major; however, I'm not convinced that it is actually indepedent, as it may well be the case that all the information in it comes from B Major himself. All the others have only a line or two about him, and then a quote from him - and I got the impression that they are all from the same press release, though I haven't been back to look.

You need to find sources which meet the criteria in golden rule - even if you use one of the special notability criteria like WP:NMUSICIAN, you still need the sources to verify the criteria are met. ColinFine (talk) 14:33, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

i left a list of articles which are new and published in this week, all about the topic and are not just mentions but seems to be about him and his music check it out here -

1 - https://www.plainsman.co.za/entertainment/martins-matters-of-the-heart-is-mitchells-plain-bjorn-and-bred-6e69bf9b-4ba1-48b4-b50b-ae288ca89c79

2 - https://www.dailyvoice.co.za/lifestyle-entertainment/entertainment/listen-its-a-matter-of-the-heart-for-b-major-in-his-debut-album-5c65e7c1-d3ea-43f0-bf36-6a511d9272ea

3 - https://www.dailyvoice.co.za/lifestyle-entertainment/major-hit-in-the-making-mitchells-plain-muso-drops-new-album-2507039b-a202-4425-b9df-2a576989517a

4 - https://freepressinfo.com/b-major-sa-sunday-morning-nominated-song-of-the-year-at-the-cape-town-artist-awards/

5 - https://hypemagazine.co.za/music/mitchells-plain-music-producer-b-major-sa-nominated-for-producer-of-the-year-at-the-021-music-awards-2021/

the first two articles were published by independent and different newspapers basically writing about the same topic? how do i assert notability because now im confused! (laughing out loud) Thecapedoctor (talk) 14:40, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Would you be kind enough to go through the articles carefully? Thecapedoctor (talk) 15:03, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Thecapedoctor. I am a Wikipedia reviewer with thousands of reviews under my belt. Let's go through those five sources above:

1. plainsman: This is an interview with Martin, and interviews can't be used to establish notability.
2. dailyvoice: As above.
3. dailyvoice: As above.
4. freepressinfo: This works as a source.
5. hypemagazine: Not a great source as it's mostly a reproduction of his comments about the award, but could be used to source the fact he had the award.

We'd need two or three more sources like #4 which are independent of Martin (not an interview), reliable, and secondary to show notability. Qcne (talk) 17:57, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

hello to you too ColinFine! Thecapedoctor (talk) 14:41, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

i been reading plainsman newspaper for 25 years now and they are publishers with a reputation for facts checking. Thecapedoctor (talk) 14:43, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't doubt that they are reliable sources. But those articles, apart possibly from number 4, are not independent, which is nearly as important as reliability. 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.

I'm not sure why you have repeated the five URLs, but no, I'm not going to go through them again.

If you want to write a draft based on them, go ahead. Maybe other editors will disagree with me. But in my opinion, if you don't find better sources (ones which meet all three criteria of being independent, reliable, and having significant coverage) you'll be wasting your time. ColinFine (talk) 16:05, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Qcne ColinFine Thecapedoctor definitely not notable imo, even if he did get nominated for an award from his own city.

• He has 57 followers on Spotify. His most listened to song has 2,700 streams.
• He has 31 subscribers on Youtube. His most watched video has 231 views.
• He has 11 subscribers on Youtube Music. His most watched video has 28 views.
• His Topic on Youtube has 12 subscribers.
• He has 76 followers on Twitter. He follows 151 himself.
• He has 676 followers on Instagram. He follows 645 himself.
• He has 4,400 followers on Facebook.

Now, lets compare to some random musicians from my city, and surrounding areas.

• Late last night a tiny music producer, who's in his late teens/early 20s, from my city who makes music in his bedroom, uploaded a music video by 2 teenage rappers I've never heard of, containing music he produced. Immediately they make it clear where they're from, which is a town a few miles down the road. Already that video has 2,500 views. One of them who has 125 subscribers on a new channel he set up 2 weeks ago (he has 284 subscribers on another channel), put the same video on his new channel 5 days ago, and currently has 4,600 views. Yet neither of them have Spotify, Twitter, Instagram or Facebook accounts/pages.
• A relatively unknown rapper from my city in his late 20s/early 30s has: 20 followers on Soundcloud, 57 subscribers on a Youtube account containing just 1 short freestyle with 3,300 views; 415 followers on Facebook, 6,866 followers on TikTok, and he doesn't even have a Spotify account. However he has a video from Jan 2020 with 54,282 views, a video from Oct 2023 with 283,000 views, and another video from October 2023 with 489,000 views, on other practically empty channels.

Basically what I'm saying is, even unnoteworthy people can get 100s or 1000s of views/listens in just an hour or two, and can have 100s or 1000s of followers/subscribers, yet this apparently notable musician, struggles to get 100 of anything. Danstarr69 (talk) 21:19, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

While that does suggest that he's not going to make the grade, Danstarr69, a corollary of "fame doesn't equal notability" is "lack of fame doesn't equal lack of notability". It makes no difference to Wikipedia whether he's got two followers or two million: if people have written about him, then he is notable, and if they haven't he's not. ColinFine (talk) 22:29, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

World Championship Results

This one individual is saying that World Championship Results are not important enough to be provided in Wikipedia and keeps deleting them from this article. Bog snorkelling. I would argue that they are very important and should be included in Wikipedia. If you agree please go to the article and reinstate the results, and let this person know that it is perfectly ok to have these results in this encyclopaedia, and should not be reverting them.Dickie-bow-tie (talk) 17:33, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

12:48, 29 February 2024‎ MrOllie talk contribs‎  9,292 bytes −3,472‎  Restored revision 1198496398 by 14.201.126.176 (talk): This is not the purpose of Wikipedia - you should post this on your own website undothank Tags: Twinkle Undo

curprev 12:47, 29 February 2024‎ Dickie-bow-tie talk contribs‎ 12,764 bytes +3,472‎ Re-established results: These are not just results, these are World Championships results and should be respected as such. One persons opinion should not effect thousands who train for years to enter this event. References will follow. undo Tag: Reverted Dickie-bow-tie (talk) 17:33, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Dickie-bow-tie, and welcome to the Teahouse. When you and another editor disagree on how best to present an article, you should discuss it with them on the article's talk page (see BRD), and if the two of you and any other interested editors cannot reach consensus, dispute resolution tells you how to continue. Appealing to people on the help desk or Teahouse to tell the other editor off is not part of the process. ColinFine (talk) 17:45, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Dickie-bow-tie, the proper place to discuss this matter is Talk:Bog snorkelling. Unsourced or poorly sourced content is not appropriate for Wikipedia, according to our core content policy Verifiability. Please be prepared to address that issue. Cullen328 (talk) 19:14, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

As suggested I have placed my thoughts on the Talk page, lets see what response we get. Dickie-bow-tie (talk) 22:37, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm writing an article on a company, and I'm somewhat confused.

Draft:Spiro Spathis Here's the draft I'm working on. Every time I submit, it gets rejected. At first I only had the company's website as a source. Then even when I had trust sources it still got rejected. I don't understand, does using the company's website as a source give a reason to not promote the draft? I find many articles on a company use the company's website. Also, as we're talking about the draft, are there any other problems with it or is this the only reason it's not an article yet? Thanks for your gracious time, Gentle users. Moe the Alexandrian (talk) 18:09, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

@Moe the Alexandrian The company's website can be used for uncontroversial information: explained at WP:ABOUTSELF. However, to show that the company is wikinotable, you need about three sources that meet the golden rules by being reliable, independent and with significant coverage. Technically your draft has not been rejected (which would mean you would have to give up) but only declined, which may mean it can be improved and re-submtted. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:28, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I indeed meant declined, and thank you for helping me! Moe the Alexandrian (talk) 18:31, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello amd welcomed. Note that your draft was only declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in the submission process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. The main issue with the draft seems to be that you are using primary sources, which include the announcement of routine business activities like the release of a product or the company talking about its own products. We want to know what independent reliable sources choose on their own to say about a topic. 331dot (talk) 18:28, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the advice, I'll defeantly try to add more reliable sources then. Moe the Alexandrian (talk) 18:33, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Please also understand that what happens on other articles is not relevant, as these too could be inappropriate and you would be unaware of this. See other stuff exists. If you want to help us, please identify these other articles you have seen for possible action. We're only as good as the time people take to help. 331dot (talk) 18:31, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I'll try to make sure to find the article I mentioned that has the company website as a source, and thanks for notifying me! Moe the Alexandrian (talk) 18:34, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Google search linking to Talk page

Hi! I created a new article on wikipedia. However, when I try and google search it leads me to the talk page instead of the article itself. Is that because the article has not been assessed yet? Or did I do something wrong? 1983ArtLover (talk) 19:34, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Directly created new articles are (usually) blocked from web crawlers (that index things for Google and other search engines) until either they have been reviewed by the New Pages Patrol, or 90 days have elapsed.

If instead of moving it (from Draft) or directly creating it yourself, you had submitted it as a Draft for approval by the WP:AFC process, I believe (but may be mistaken) that if approved it would have been indexable immediately, though of course Wikipedia has no control over when the crawlers will actually find it. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.126.225.254 (talk) 19:51, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

1983ArtLover, how long ago did you create it? Anyway, Google ought not to be looking at or directing people to its talk page. It sounds like Google did something against its own policy. Maproom (talk) 20:35, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

It wasn't created that long ago. I only was able to move it over to the article page like 9 days ago. I know about the 90 day rule though. I had originally submitted the draft for review, but once I was able to move it over myself I moved it from draft to article. 1983ArtLover (talk) 20:56, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Google indexes talk pages and is allowed to do it by Wikipedia. Non-talk pages usually appear earlier in search results but in this case the non-talk page has noindex, telling search engines to not index it. The talk page does not have noindex. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:59, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

So there is nothing I can do to change that? 1983ArtLover (talk) 21:14, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

@1983ArtLover: You have to wait for the article to be 90 days old (after Mishkin Gallery was moved to mainspace 20 February), or be reviewed by a user with the required user right. It sometimes happens soon after an article is mentioned here but it varies. Reviewers are volunteers who can choose where to work. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:47, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Okay, thank you! That's what I thought. 1983ArtLover (talk) 21:53, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I can confirm that when I google for "wikipedia Mishkin Gallery", its first hit is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mishkin_Gallery. Maproom (talk) 20:39, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Draft Submitting

How long does it usually take to get my drafts accepted or reviewed? Nickkontek (talk) 21:10, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. As noted on your draft, "This may take 7 weeks or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 1,842 pending submissions waiting for review." It could be faster than that, but it could be longer too. There was a point where the average wait was measured in months, but it has come down significantly recently. 331dot (talk) 21:21, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

While you're waiting, Nickkontek, you might attend to the murky copyright status of the photographs you have uploaded for Draft:Mark Nuccio and other drafts/articles. -- Hoary (talk) 00:21, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, Nickkontek, you cannot upload copyright protected photos to Wikimedia Commons. Unless you are the photographer, you cannot claim any photo as your "own work". Cullen328 (talk) 02:03, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Why aren't my pageviews counting?

I've definitely had views on articles I've done major edits on but they aren't showing up on my profile. Nolan1scool (talk) 23:10, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

They won't, I don't think they will anyway. Head over to MW:XTools and click on the external link at the top of the page, from there you can see all sorts of information. What you're after is "Page History", then just type in the page you're trying to check. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 23:14, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi Nolan1scool. Are you referring to Special:Impact/Nolan1scool? Clicking the clock icons will say: "Pageviews have not yet been calculated. Check back tomorrow!". PrimeHunter (talk) 23:55, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Oh damn, I never even knew that existed, that's really cool. Learn something new everyday. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 00:03, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

It's part of Special:Homepage when "Display newcomer homepage" is enabled at the bottom of Special:Preferences. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:08, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Comment

I made a mistake when typing out a comment for a edit, is there any way I can change that or no? 24.215.67.78 (talk) 23:38, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Do you mean in your edit summary? You can't change those once you have entered it, but you can make a dummy edit (like adding a space after a period) with a comment explaining your previous summary. 🇺🇲JayCubby✡ plz edit my user pg! Talk 23:42, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

An article with no citations

What do I do if I see an article without references, or almost none? I have noted this on the Talk page of the article, which is for musician Jesse Kinch. Nothing personal! Just curious about new articles. In the same context, who is responsible for adding "citation needed" to a sentence or paragraph in an article? Any editor? --PaulThePony (talk) 01:01, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

What do I do if I see an article without references, or almost none?

Be bold and add some! Wikipedia is a volunteer effort, and that's what inline tags like {{citation needed}} and banners like {{No citations}} are meant to eventually accomplish. However, if uncited claims, especially those about living persons, seem dubious or harmful, they should probably be removed immediately. Generally, the greater question is "what helps the article more"? If information seems like original research, i.e. it can't be verified in a reliable source, then it should be removed. If the information doesn't help the article, it should be rewritten or removed. But it's also unhelpful most of the time to remove information simply because it's currently uncited—one should try seeing if a citation can be added first.

who is responsible for adding "citation needed"

Anyone can add maintenance tags where they are appropriate! No one is required to maintain any specific article, but the norm on Wikipedia is that the burden is on the editor who added content to back it up with a source if challenged, or the content can be freely removed.

Hope this helps, cheers! Remsense诉 01:49, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Can I create a permanent link from a sandbox article?

Can I create a permanent link from a sandbox article? Eg. [(special: Permalink/120907079-Dr_Shawn_Nance)]

If so where do I go to create this link. So that I can practice on a new article. Thanks in advance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ChichiMovies/sandbox ChichiMovies (talk) 00:48, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi ChichiMovies, welcome to the Teahouse. I'm not sure what you mean but you are missing the final 1 in Special:Permalink/1209070791 which leads to a revision (currently the most recent) of User:ChichiMovies/sandbox. The link will continue to work if you change the content of the sandbox but maybe you would prefer to have multiple sandboxes. You can for example make User:ChichiMovies/sandbox2 and User:ChichiMovies/sandbox3, or a page like User:ChichiMovies/Shawn Nance. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:18, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

How can I create an article?

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Teahouse § How can I create an article?

 – Remsense诉 01:41, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

How can I create an article? Jovita Medina Posada (talk) 01:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi! I recommend reading the page Help:Your first article, which will help you decide whether your subject should have an article on Wikipedia. Remsense诉 01:38, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

@Jovita Medina Posada moved this to the right page, pinging to make sure you see it! Remsense诉 01:42, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Jovita Medina Posada you have so far been editing for one (1) day, during which you haven't contributed substantially to even a single article. Please work to improve existing articles. When you've done quite a bit of such work, successfully, then consider creating an article. (You could of course skip this and dive straight in to creation of an article, but doing so is very likely to be a waste of your and others' time.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:10, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Help regarding Vandalism of a Page

Hello! This is the article in question: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlachs

The article is entirely rewritten by two hungarian users, CritiKende and OrionNimrod. These users are removing any and all mentions of the "contiunity theory" (i.e that Romanians lived above the Danube before hungarian arrival) and replacing it with the "Immigrant Theory" (that the Romanians came to modern day Romania only after Hungarian arrival). This is unacceptable and the entire article has been compromised, with over 54% of the entire thing being written by just them two without anyone elses input. Multiple important details were outright removed like: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1208658409 (Vlachs traveling to Mount Athos in the 8th Century)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1198006497 (Removal of an entire paragraph about Volohoveni, who are thought to have been Romanians living in modern day Ukraine)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1182790311 (Entire paragraph about Proto-Romanian being spoken in the 6th century being removed)

These to just name a few, OrionNimrod is much the same, if not even worse. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1182605334 (Entire section about Romanians in the 9th century being removed)

This is, at least to me, really urgent since they already got away with an insane and baffling amount of edits. Any and all help is welcome!! YoursTrulyKor (talk) 03:25, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @YoursTrulyKor! An issue like this can be raised at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, where other editors will be able to take a look and make changes if needed. Sdkb ^talk 03:32, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! YoursTrulyKor (talk) 03:32, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

@YoursTrulyKor: See WP:VANDALISM for what Wikipedia considers vandalism. What you describe is not vandalism. You should start a discussion on the article's talk page, and if you and the other editors cannot get consensus, then try WP:DR to help resolve the dispute. Please try to assume good faith in other editors intent instead of assuming malice. See WP:AGF RudolfRed (talk) 03:36, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! I apologize if it doesn't fall in the category of vandalism, it just seems so since information is cherry picked and they decide to put whatever fits their narrative best. I did not assume malice, not at first- but by checking their edit history (quite a few i have already linked) alongside PAST reports and COMPLAINTS which are visible here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1073#User:Borsoka_and_User:Fakirbakir

I have reached the conclusion that what they are doing is indeed malice. YoursTrulyKor (talk) 03:38, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

@YoursTrulyKor: That noticeboard discussion is 30 months old and does not mention either editor you mentioned here. Do not cast WP:ASPERSIONS RudolfRed (talk) 03:46, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

The noticeboard, while old, is still very much accurate and indeed does not mention either editor, but does mention one i forgot to add. Borsoka, who is still very much active on the page (he undid one of my revisions 30 minutes where i removed the PERSONAL OPINION of a Polish Historian who was added as a SOURCE to the Article). If anything, that noticeboard stands as a testament to this years long, still ongoing, spectacle. YoursTrulyKor (talk) 03:50, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I've started a discussion for you and the other editors on Talk:Vlachs, I recommend you engage constructively there. Remsense诉 03:51, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Erminia Passannanti

Hey, I was looking at the New Pages Feed and trying to see what I can do there, as it's my first time actually looking into it. I was looking at the Erminia Passannanti article, and I feel like it falls under CSD A7 (I checked its references, looked at WP:CSD, WP:CCS, and this diagram, and used the Earwig copyvio detector to help me out). However, I am unsure if I should tag the page considering how new the article is (as it was created on 22:01, 29 February 2024 (UTC)), and generally because it feels like a big thing. Any suggestions? — Alex26337 (talk) 04:17, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Good call, Alex26337. I "draftified" it, to Draft:Erminia Passannanti. -- Hoary (talk) 04:57, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Draftifying is fine with me. Alex26337, please be aware that CSD A7 does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance. The one sentence stub is certainly in poor shape, but it says that she is a poet, literary scholar and critic, translator of English poetry, film critic. Those claims of significance and importance are credible, so therefore the article (now a draft) is not eligible for A7 deletion. My recommendation is to search for reliable sources that you can use to expand the draft article and improve its referencing. Cullen328 (talk) 05:12, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

@Hoary: Cool. Two questions though:

1. Does this mean you're going to delete the page's main namespace counterpart?

2. Relatively unrelated, how do you mark a new page as reviewed? — Alex26337 (talk) 05:15, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: I see from the Draft's history that the article was moved by Hoary to draft, but somehow it still exists as an article with only you shown as making contributions. Not sure how that happened. Can you take a look? RudolfRed (talk) 05:38, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

RudolfRed, it happened because DarkNight0917 GoingBatty inexplicably made it happen. I have just now moved their creation to User:DarkNight0917/Sandbox [but see the comment below], though I would have no objection if somebody deleted it. I encourage any or all of Johanna-Hypatia, Alex26337, DarkNight0917 to forget about it and instead to improve Draft:Erminia Passannanti. Currently the pair seem to be identical. -- Hoary (talk) 06:50, 1 March 2024 (UTC) ... amended -- Hoary (talk) 07:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh, hello, it seems that I screwed up. I shouldn't have attributed the unnecessary extra version to DarkNight0917 and sent it to them; I should instead have attributed it to GoingBatty and attributed it to them. This Primefac has done. It's at User:GoingBatty/Erminia Passannanti. But I encourage GoingBatty too to forget it and instead to improve Draft:Erminia Passannanti. The pair of drafts are the (underwhelming) same, or "as near as dammit". -- Hoary (talk) 07:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

@RudolfRed, @Hoary: I don't understand what happened. I added some categories and made some layout changes to the Erminia Passannanti article that someone else created. I agree with having this at Draft:Erminia Passannanti (where I remade my changes) and requested speedy deletion of User:GoingBatty/Erminia Passannanti. GoingBatty (talk) 08:04, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I would suspect an edit conflict - the page move and the edits being made nearly simultaneously, they wouldn't have necessarily been flagged as an edit conflict. Primefac (talk) 08:14, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

GoingBatty, Primefac, yes, I'd guessed that something like that had happened. Everyone meant well. And all's well ... except for the surviving draft. Now, if a certain subject for an article is problematic in the Wikipedia of one language, this doesn't mean that it is, or should be, problematic in the Wikipedia of another language. However, the sorry history of the Italian non-article on Passannanti hardly inspires me to devote more time and energy to this subject. Your tachometers (or whatever) may vary. -- Hoary (talk) 09:13, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate that the deletion of User:GoingBatty/Erminia Passannanti was Fastily done. GoingBatty (talk) 14:45, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't take the Italian editors' deletion of the article to weigh too heavily against it. Italian Wikipedia is dominated by male chauvinists who dislike women editors and articles about women. Johanna-Hypatia (talk) 18:39, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Alex26337, your Q1. The simple but imprecise answer is yes. More precisely/pedantically, no. What I did was "move" (rename) it from "Erminia Passannanti" to "Draft:Erminia Passannanti". Standardly when one "moves" a page there's automatic creation of a redirect having the same title as the old title of the newly moved page. (Thus for example when I moved Draft:Judeo-Esfahani to Judeo-Esfahani I of course, yes, moved it; but I also created Draft:Judeo-Esfahani afresh, as a redirect.) One has the option of not creating a redirect; and when moving from article to draft one should take this option. (I'll let somebody else answer your Q2.) -- Hoary (talk) 06:59, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I had been meaning to create this article for years. I had been editing the list of Italian women poets, and somebody added a red link to Passannanti. I said sorry, only blue links here, and removed it, but ever since meant to make up for it. I put her on a Women in Red list of poets. I had just noticed that February was scheduled for the W.i.R. O–P alphabet run, and it was the last day of February. I just wanted to get something in quick before the month ended, thinking I could go back and add more later. Didn't imagine it would cause a kerfuffle. Thanks. Johanna-Hypatia (talk) 18:36, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

How to add new line in rint?

I, can not, for the life of me figure out how to add a new line to Template:Rail-interchange/doc/TR. Is the documentation bad or am I just stupid? ~eticangaaa (talk) 05:48, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

@Eticangaaa: Usually documentation will just show how to use a template, not how to edit it. In this case, the template is protected, so you will need to post your suggested change to Template_talk:Rail-interchange. RudolfRed (talk) 05:55, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. Guess its the second one then ~eticangaaa (talk) 06:18, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Wrong Song Lyrics

Hi I am from india and wanted to reply from india the song Raghupati Raghava Rajaram is wrong lyrics and has to be change because Gandhi ji given wrong or mixed up. anyone can edit this page with authority and knowledge. I don't have access to edit. Drakeshrao42 (talk) 09:20, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Articles about songs generally should not contain the lyrics, as most song lyrics are copyrighted and even when not that would normally be an excessive level of detail. I've removed them accordingly. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:57, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

How does the One Source template get removed?

I added details and citations to an article that has this template attached to it. How do I now remove the template, or flag it for someone else to remove? The specific article is Sansabelt but also I'd just like to understand this process a little better for any future time I come across it.

In the Edit view, do I just remove the second line {{one source|date=August 2015}} and that's all that's needed? Or does someone else need to verify?

Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 09:50, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedian-in-Waiting, generally speaking, once you have fixed the problem that a maintenance tag calls attention to, it is fine to go ahead and remove the tag. If another editor disagrees that the problem is fixed, then you would need to discuss that with them or get further input, but that doesn't seem the case here. And yes, you are correct on how to do so. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:02, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 10:13, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Wikipedian-in-Waiting. I dislike disagreeing with Seraphimblade but I must in this case. That tag was placed in 2015, and yes, it is no longer true that the article relies on a single source. However, there are way too many really bad sources used as references in that article. and far too few good sources. Things like five links to printed company advertisements, and then press releases, regurgitation of press releases, routine patent and trademark database listings, inteviews with executives and an archived version of the company website. Not a single one of these is independent of the topic, and most of them do not devote significant coverage to Sansabelt. What you need to do is find coverage in reliable sources that are entirely independent of Sansabelt that also devote significant coverage to Sansabelt. That type of source is like gold. The others more resemble sand. I recommend that you get rid of the poor quality sources and emphasize the golden sources. Cullen328 (talk) 10:18, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

The links to advertisements are to support the list of trouser brands and lines that were using licensing the same technique with notes in their ads giving the patent number. The press release was the sole official announcement of their plans before it went defunct again, although there's also the link to WWD which is an industry publication.

I won't try to defend the references, but would urge you to read the article instead of just scanning the list of references, so that it makes more sense why they are there (or not). If you'd like to revert my work, I'd urge you to at least remove the incorrect mentions of the inventor and original patent-holder, as that's been cited around the Internet now for years but is wrong. Before now, it has had no references except the incorrect information and a broken link to the defunct company website. *shrug* Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 10:26, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

If something (eg a brand, or an album, or a film, or a book) is sourceable only to the originator, i.e. no indepedendent commentator has written about it, I question whether it should be in the article at all. ColinFine (talk) 16:21, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Gotcha. I removed my contributions and reinserted the template so that it's like it was before. Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 16:33, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

While I removed my contributions (which were cited so people could see it was true, but not gold standard citations per this discussion), what's left and what's been there for 10 years or so unchanged, is pretty much entirely incorrect and uncited except for the "References in popular culture" section. If there's a template for "incorrect statements" someone might want to apply it because the effect has been that many others cite this wiki article in their own writings outside wikipedia and it diminishes a reader's opinion of wikipedia validity when incorrect content is allowed to stand for years. Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 16:39, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedian-in-Waiting, would it be an improvement if you reinstated your edits and replaced the {{one source}} template with a more appropriate alternative that highlights the remaining concerns, such as {{third-party}} or {{no significant coverage}}? — Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:06, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

My understanding is, no it would not be.

I'm new to editing wikipedia articles, and I started because I'd used wikipedia for many years but in the past few years I noticed with increasing frequency that articles were outdated, had dead links, and/or had incorrect information that had stood for years. So, I thought it was time for me to contribute.

I don't care too much about Sansabelt trousers one way or the other :) but saw that it had sat for more than 10 years with no citations and incorrect info. I tried to correct it by going to the heart of it -- for example, a claim was made about the inventor and a link was made to a similar but not correct patent, and so I change that to the correct inventors, a link to the correct patent, and a link to a news article in which the correct inventor was named by a museum worker whose museum was running an exhibit on the company.

Those sources (US Patent office, news article are not, per this discussion here, gold standard. They were "poor quality sources" that "should [not] be in the article at all". I'm unlikely to find another source for the patent that I think is more valid than the US Patent office. So....

A second example: I state that several companies and several lines that were actually held by the same company, licensed with the patent holder to sell trousers identical to Sansabelt in their main feature, and then I link to example ads for each in which they state the (same) patent number. In the 1970s and 1980s, nobody (that I can find) was writing about this relatively common practice in disinterested reporting, so the actual ads is the best I can find to cite that they subtly credit the same patent for their products.

All of that is just to explain with two examples what I was doing throughout the article - correcting misinformation and adding new information based on what will likely be the highest quality sources available considering the topic at hand. But that's not correct for what people are doing here on wikipedia, so it's probably best to just remove my work and let it remain as it has been for these past 10 years until someone finds high-quality sources. My work was not contributing to that goal.

I'm pretty frustrated with the situation because in my opinion it's leading to some decline in quality. That said, y'all have been at this for much longer and have a better understanding of wikipedia's goals and how to achieve them, and at the end of the day this is y'alls garden not mine. I'm not here to try to change how things are done; in fact, I came here specifically to make sure I was following any kind of process for having my work approved (or not) as adding enough sources to remove the flag.

And they're just trousers. It's not really important. Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 17:40, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

(Hey, don't hate disagreeing with me, and in this case I don't think you even are! I was giving more general advice, but your specifics are helpful as well.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:33, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Infobox image on city related articles

Hi, please refer to [5] and let me know if placing images in that particular style is accepted or not. Since, I have come across New York City and London having such similar design. 456legendtalk 11:28, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

@456legend: For the sake of hosts, could you explain that diff more, than just putting the link? It may help you get the answer faster. ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 16:37, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

@ExclusiveEditor I have placed images on the infobox of Hyderabad in the format of New York City and London. But it was later reverted saying that the format was gallery format and it is not accepted on Wikipedia. But I find many articles city related articles on Wikipedia with such format. That is reason I have come here to seek clarification for the same and also placed my point on the Talk:Hyderabad. I have received one reply saying thay it is not accepted then it that case shouldn't all the existing city articles with such format be changed? 456legendtalk 16:47, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Like to create a wikipedia page for myself

Hi Wikipedia team,

I am Murugan Manthiram, Lyricist, and Dialogue Writer in Indian Tamil Language Film Industry, Like to create a page for myself. Few years before without knowing the rules and regulations about wikipedia i have created a page for me. that is declined and deleted, now i like to create a page for me. i have written more than 50 film songs. help me to create my page and solve the issues already i have with wikipedia. 115.99.72.78 (talk) 12:41, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Murugan Manthiram, if anyone wants to create a page about themselves, they should do so in their own website, their own blog, LinkedIn, or similar. Not here. -- Hoary (talk) 13:28, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi, please see WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY and WP:COI, however we would welcome any other constructive contributions that you would like to make! Shaws username . talk . 13:35, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

The advice is strongly against - per the above notes - but not forbidden. All information in a draft you create must be verified by references to what people with no connection to you have written about you. Listing your film songs does not contribute to establishing you being notable. AGAIN, unless people are writing/publishing about you and your career, there is no path to an article about you. David notMD (talk) 13:38, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Refs in English would be preferred but Tamil publications allowed. IMDb, Spotify, Facebook, YouTube, etc. are not valid references. David notMD (talk) 13:42, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

It's very important to know, too, that even in the extremely unlikely event that you write something about yourself that passes muster, it will not be a "page for [your]self," or a "page for [you]," and most definitely not "[your] page." It will be an article about you--that anybody will be able to come in and edit, whether you like it or not. If someone puts in something that you prefer to leave out, and that something is relevant and well and reliably sourced, there will be very little you can do about it. Uporządnicki (talk) 13:59, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Teahouse hosts are here to advise, but not to be creators or co-authors. David notMD (talk) 14:26, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Portal:Maldives

Create or undelete Portal:Maldives For me. (Im new creting portals) so i don't know how to create portals MAL MALDIVE (talk) 14:28, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

@MAL MALDIVE: This is not the place to request undeletion. To request undelete, use WP:RFU. Hope it helps you. ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 16:30, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Maldives showed consensus to delete. I'm not sure if re-creating and maintaining the portal are worth the effort. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 17:47, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Adding Accurate Birthday

Hello editors. I am a COI editor working to update the article on behalf of Lynda Resnick as part of my work at The Wonderful Company. I am trying to include her accurate birthday, which is January 2, 1943. I have a third-party source for her birth year. However, I do not have a third-party source for the specific day and month. It is my understanding from studying the Wikipedia rules, that in very limited factual circumstances individuals are permitted to directly provide missing information (eg. day/month of birthday). Would it be appropriate for me to make this edit directly or is there any other suggested approach an editor can provide to include this more complete information? Thank you. RachelOstroff (talk) 17:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Primary sources may be used in this situation, though we still need something published somewhere, we can't just take your word for it. If this information was on a verified social media account that could work. 331dot (talk) 18:03, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Chandni Mistry

Is someone able to have a look at Chandni Mistry? Looks like an article, but when I try to edit it, I get the message that it's not an article but a disambiguation page. I'm not sure how to unpick this, but I'm sure someone here will. Many thanks, Tacyarg (talk) 18:18, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello world

Hello everyone on Wikipedia I am excite to start editing! Я пукнул (talk) 18:19, 1 March 2024 (UTC)