Wikipedia:Teahouse

Cassiopeia, 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

Where do I post ui bugs

I'm recently seeing an issue where I have two add topic buttons, one grey and one blue. Seems like an oversight in not hiding elements as the workflow changes. Where can I report this behavior? Very Average Editor (talk) 06:39, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Very Average Editor, you might start by going to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical), reading what's written at its head, and then deciding where best to bring up the matter. -- Hoary (talk) 08:26, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Very Average Editor (talk) 00:14, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Google search results in wiki talking readers to my talk page Talk:Lee Youn Chin

Hi Wiki helpers,

Problems 1) redirect issue? 2) Category Lee Youn Chin in red? 3)Google search shows Talk:Lee Youn Chin and not the article!

I'd appreciate to know how my new article on- Lee Youn Chin would not take readers to wiki talk page.

Please help what code I must put to redirect to the Article and not Talk.

I tried #redirect from the Talk page thinking it would fix, instead it now shows on my redirect Draft Talk!!!

Only by Clicking on the Article it will take you to wiki article on the subject.

I would be grateful for your help to fix this.

Thanks and have a great day!

Setwikirec0 (talk) 12:52, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

@Setwikirec0 As Lee Youn Chin died in 1991, I doubt that he is you. What Google does, you have to take up with them. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:56, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

... and the redirect on your User page can be removed by you at any time. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:59, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Mike for your prompt reply! Do I have to create my Userpage and redirect from there? I was reading Wiki User pages and right now mine is the default when I created the account. Its in here I create my info and then redirect to the article name? Thx Setwikirec0 (talk) 15:03, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

@Setwikirec0 I've blanked your User Page so it will no longer re-direct to the article. You can now easily add to it again by clicking on your Username and editing as normal to add material following the guidance at WP:UPYES. If you wish to declare your WP:COI with Lee Youn Chin, you can do so there also (you have already done so at the Talk Page of the article you drafted, which is fine). I'll add some comments about the article on its Talk Page in a moment. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:20, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi Mike,

I do not understand "blanked your User page so it will no longer re-direct to the article"

Kindly do not do that as not being able to publish my Article myself or no longer to re-direct is not agreeable to me. I think something is very wrong and need you to revert what you did. Pls excuse me for my language or disappointment here. Setwikirec0 (talk) 14:00, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

The article is available at Lee Youn Chin. Why Google is showing the talk page before the article, I have no idea, but redirecting the talk page is also not the right answer. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 14:07, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

It is simply that the new pages patrol have not yet approved the article, so it is not yet indexed by search engines. Meanwhile, goodness knows what Google have for that name. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:12, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Editing

Why are some factual edits removed? 71.43.129.106 (talk) 18:25, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! As posted on your user talk page, some good faith factual edits can be removed because they are not accompanied by a specific published reliable source for verifiability. When you have an edit that has been reverted, you may follow the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and post on the article's talk page (e.g. Talk:John Campea) to discuss your suggestions and come to consensus. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 18:42, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

In addition to what GoingBatty says, your edit to John Campea (which I guess is what this question is about) told the reader in Wikipedia's voice what Campea likes and doesn't like. That is not a neutral use of language, so it is not appropriate. ColinFine (talk) 19:04, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

You can't add an assertion like "John also promotes "vaping" on his show which is seen as a controversial thing" and then just cite his whole set of shows without even giving an episode number or a date. If a reader wanted to verify this (click here) you can't expect them to watch every episode until they find one that does so. One of your other edits to this article is similar in its referencing. Hope this helps. David10244 (talk) 04:37, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Overuse of [show] and [hide] content sections making Wikipedia too cumbersome to use?

Consider the following sample content article... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agile_software_development Note the sidebar at the right in which every few lines of information requires clicking the [show] link to view just a few elements of additional information. This makes Wikipedia too cumbersome to use and I wonder if there is a way to discourage this practice for new content by default? Mlegare16 (talk) 20:07, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Mlegare, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm not sure exactly what you're talking about, and it makes a big difference what you are looking at it on. On my computer I see no show/hide sections at all. On the Wikipedia app, I see just three instances in a long article: these are tables, which show normally on my computer, but are collapsed by default on the app.

If I look in a browser on my phone, I see that each section of the article is collapsed: is that what you're talking about? In that case, I'm afraid that there's not likely to be much you can do about that. Articles that are not divided into sections are awkward and unwieldy to read. ColinFine (talk) 20:30, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

They're talking about the sidebar. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 20:31, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I'm talking about the sidebar section in this example. Organizing into sections is great, but hiding just a few lines of content behind a control that requires user interaction to view seems to only waste time and focus. This is quite different from being able to skip to a relevent sub-section by having section links at the beginning of the article in long articles requiring scrolling to read since clicking is not required to see the additional content. Mlegare16 (talk) 21:13, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

The place to bring this up is Template talk:Software development process. It's definitely not normal for sidebar templates to have nothing showing by default. -- asilvering (talk) 22:10, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I've expanded the relevant section of the template. This is the normal way to display sidebars so I don't know if posting on one specific template's talk is the best way. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 22:15, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "I've expanded the relevant section of the template." can you explain? Mlegare16 (talk) 02:47, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion asilvering. I reviewed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Software_development_process but it is unclear to me how to present my comment using the relevant Template talk vernacular. Mlegare16 (talk) 02:06, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

The section "Paradigms and models" in the sidebar is now expanded so that you can see its innards: "Software engineering, Agile, Cleanroom, Incremental, Prototyping, Spiral, V model, Waterfall" :3 F4U (they/it) 15:42, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps these sections cater to smaller screens. If so, I hope a way the collapsed (hidden) content sections could be expanded automatically by default on larger displays to as not to penalize users with larger screens by requiring a lot of manual interaction to view each content element. Mlegare16 (talk) 21:17, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

@Mlegare16: Welcome to the Teahouse. You may want to switch the skin to Vector Legacy (2010) to get everything on the left-hand side without the need for context menus. To do so, go to Preferences → Appearance → Skin → Vector legacy (2010). —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:42, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I had already done that since I think the old layout (Vector 2010) was much better. Mlegare16 (talk) 01:50, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

@Mlegare16 - That’s great! Again, welcome to the Teahouse. Is there anything else we can help with? - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 01:59, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. If this is some default global setting for the editor that controls this behaviour (like a master sidebar template) ideally I'd like to post my comment to that team. Also, is any group out there advocating for a return to defaulting to Vector Legacy 2010 again, as Tenryuu's post reminded me that I have to login on each device I use (too many!) in order to control this preference. Mlegare16 (talk) 02:23, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

The RfC for defaulting back to the old skin has ended, and to my knowledge a closure review won't be available for quite some time. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:31, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Sad, but based on how much was in the RfC you refernced, I doubt a few more of my comments would have swayed the decision. Had I realized there was an RfC like that when the change was introduced, I definitely would have spoken up! Thanks for the info. Mlegare16 (talk) 02:44, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Number of editors over time

Why did the number of active editors on en.wikipedia.org increase exponentially until 2006, rapidly until March 2007, and then suddenly start declining, never having reached that level again? [1] 2601:640:4000:3170:D470:590F:B3D7:9D6B (talk) 20:37, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. Good question. The answer lies in the rapid, accelerating rise and interest in Wikipedia in the first few years of its creation and then a settling down into a more routine form of support, with editors coming and going after that time. This kind of initial spike and levelling out is quite normal, in my opinion. Bear in mind that the initial interest and enthusiasm was probably all about creating new articles, whereas nowadays it's more about adding to and improving existing pages with completely new topics somewhat harder to find and write about. Does that make any sense? Nick Moyes (talk) 20:52, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I think that helps to explain it. It's still weird that there was such a sudden spike and downturn. It reminds me of ecological graphs where rapid growth surpasses the carrying capacity and then crashes. https://effectivedemand.typepad.com/.a/6a017d42232dda970c01b7c718a48d970b-pi I've heard it referred to as J-curve. Oddly I couldn't find such a graph on Wikipedia. 2601:640:4000:3170:D470:590F:B3D7:9D6B (talk) 21:03, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I found some over on Commons. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 21:20, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

What I find interesting about this is actually how stable it's been for the past decade or so. -- asilvering (talk) 22:12, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree - that's actually quite encouraging. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:04, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: I find it discouraging, actually. Wikipedia is growing rapidly, there are millions more articles now than there were 15 years ago, Wikipedia is way more visible and ubiquitous than it used to be (top result in Google searches etc.), and yet the number of active editors has stayed the same. Therefore, the workload of monitoring and maintaining the site is increasing for everyone. The situation is even worse for administrators. I would find it more encouraging if the graph showed some growth in active users, to keep up with the growth of Wikipedia. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:04, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Given how arcane some of the policies and guidelines are here on (the English) Wikipedia, especially when it comes to dealing with what is considered notable by Wikipedia's definition, not to mention the minutiae of what's considered a reliable source, I'm not surprised that a portion of new users may be discouraged by this and stop contributing after being reverted or have had a draft declined. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:10, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

For a counterexample, I actually found the abundance of PAG on enwiki over other languages reassuring. Having many, precise guidelines is a prerequisite to and a result of collaborativly writing an encyclopedia with 6 million articles. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 05:58, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

In my opinion, the surge in editing in the 2006-2007 time frame was because Wikipedia was perceived as a fad in those days - the latest cool thing on the internet. So, people flocked here because there were unwritten articles about plenty of obviously notable topics. So, it became a social media bragging point to say, "Hey, I wrote a Wikipedia article!" but that is a less sustainable model than the World Hula Hoop Championship. I disagree that policies and guidelines are excessively arcane. Anyone willing to spend an open minded hour or two studying simple concepts like "notability" and "reliable sources" and "significant coverage" and "independent sources" can very rapidly develop into a productive generalist editor. The real problem is that far too many new editors are here to promote something, not to learn how this encyclopedia actually works. Cullen328 (talk) 07:42, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:39, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Anyone willing to spend an open minded hour or two studying simple concepts like "notability" and "reliable sources" and "significant coverage" and "independent sources" can very rapidly develop into a productive generalist editor.

This is exactly my experience, having started out about a year ago. It's only natural that to succeed as an editor, you need to put in the time and effort to figure out how things work over here. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 09:00, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

And you need to have the mindset that editing WP the WP-way is time well spent. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:07, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

As someone who signed up for the new editor mentor program, I am surprised but not shocked by the majority of new editors who make between one and five edits, often on the same day to one article, and are never again active. David notMD (talk) 11:35, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree with David. Most new editors don't make it past about ten edits and there never was a "spike" in those editors who made 25 or more edits. As the top graph shows, there was a ramping up which ended in 2007 and the number of "25+" editors has remained nearly constant since then. However, I'd like to see the figures updated to 2023 because I'm pretty sure that the pandemic will have boosted "25+" editors since 2019, when that graph ends. Maybe Timeshifter would like to provide the update? Incidentally, there's a fuller page of stats (ending 2019) at this URL. Mike Turnbull(talk) 12:59, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Michael D. Turnbull. I don't see any later charts (of the same style) than the current one here:

File:Active editors on English Wikipedia over time.png

Maybe there are some other graphs. I haven't looked in awhile. Someone with more time and better health might do so.

--Timeshifter (talk) 21:18, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I assume a lot of these people forget their login info and just start new accounts if they come back. You're not supposed to do that, sure, but someone who makes four edits and forgets their password before making any more is probably significantly more likely to be the kind of person who doesn't do any lurking in the policy pages before they start. (Of course, if you do do that lurking, you tend to get accused of being a sock.) -- asilvering (talk) 16:55, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Abandoning an account and starting with a new one, if not under sanctions, is fine, actually. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 17:01, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

A clean start is not the same as "serially creating new accounts". -- asilvering (talk) 17:16, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't realize that's what you're talking about, or that people do that. In re sockpuppetry accusations, I've only seen that at RfA, and having done the lurking myself, have gotten away with it not been accused of anything so far. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 17:37, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Forced language reform

Hello. I am a member of a minority language (not part of UNESCO yet) which has it's own Wikipedia space(Vikipedeja). Recently we experienced a split in society, caused by a few people pushing trough a language reform and getting it approved by the national language institute. As a result, half of the people write with rules approved 2017, and half with historical rules of 1933. Just as an example, the biggest change would be the erasing of the letter "ō" and replacing it with "uo". Now the new law permits the equal use of both, but it still remains unfair, as the new one is forcing out the old one. Same issue with the Wiki. Someone has converted all pages to the new writing style. For some it now feels hard to read and tbh (personal opinion) feels like an insult as well.

Is it possible to do something about this? Like split a separate page or separate language version? Tehnically, we could simply adjust the existing pages, but I am not sure if engaging into a "edit-war" would be wise. Thank you for the advice in advance.

instead of keeping in f useair, all pages have been 90.139.250.80 (talk) 22:23, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm not clear on if this issue is on this version of Wikipedia or another. We can't really help you with issues on another version. 331dot (talk) 22:48, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

This sounds like a discussion to have on Vikipedeja, not here. You could spin out an "old orthography" version if you wanted to host one, though - there's no prohibition against creating new Wikipedia mirrors as far as I'm aware. -- asilvering (talk) 22:48, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Welcome IP user to Teahouse. English Wikipedia isn't necessarily the most helpful place to ask for support, but as a feature it exists on other language editions, for example Chinese Wikipedia has both simplified and traditional Mandarin mapping, Kazakh Wikipedia § Features maps Arabic, Cyrillic and Roman characters. I also attached a link so others know what Wikipedia edition you are referring to.

 Courtesy link: ltg:Suoku puslopa

I think your best place for requesting support is meta:Requests for new languages#Wikipedia. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 23:23, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I think this is about one of the many language-versions of Wikipedia. The courtesy link provided about does not help me, as I can't read the language of the page it links to. I wonder if the language is one spoken in Ugandi, the south-easternmost province of Estonia. It might help if the OP would give the English name of the language. Maproom (talk) 00:24, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

The link is to the Latgalian language Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 10:26, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Putting a link twice

Hello. My question is, if a link to a page is already in a page, is it okay to mention that page (send a link to the page) later in the article? (Please use mobile and visual editor) 2600:1700:17C9:1020:9116:1C07:5DE0:AB42 (talk) 22:45, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Note that it shouldn't matter which version of Wikipedia other editors are using to respond to you. 331dot (talk) 22:47, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Usually articles are linked twice: once in the lede, and once again the first time they appear in the article body. -- asilvering (talk) 22:49, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I do sometimes also add a second link if it's a) an important one and also b) if it's a long page and the topic reappears right down the page. Oh, and sometimes I might also repeat the link in an infobox. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:06, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

And maybe image captions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:05, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

IP editor. You might like to read the guidance at MOS:LINK if you have not already done so. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:38, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Translation volunteer.

Helloo, I’m Brazilian and currently a translator student. I would like to know if it’s possible to be a volunteer on Wikipedia. That way I can train my translation skills and help disponibilize articles from English to Brazilian Portuguese and vice-versa. Dark Tea LK (talk) 23:51, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

@Dark Tea LK Welcome to Teahouse! Yes! In fact, most contributions here are made by bold volunteers like yourself. I will post on your talk page some introduction guidelines and policies you should be aware of before editing. Happy editing and learning! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 23:54, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello. Dark Tea LK. Please read WP:TRANSLATE and WP:TRANSLATEUS. Pay special attention to the legal requirement to properly attribute the source material. Cullen328 (talk) 00:03, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi...Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English needs some love too. Lectonar (talk) 09:08, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

@Dark Tea LK I'm sad to inform you that "disponibilize" is not an English word, though clearly it should be. -- asilvering (talk) 16:51, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Interesting. There is a Portuguese translation of Prince Harry's book Spare. I don't know what the title is (in Spain it's En las sombras ("In the shadows")) but it may well be Disponível. 2A00:23C1:E10D:BD01:A85B:4E3E:CAB3:30BA (talk) 11:46, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

regarding requesting for an edit

hello, i have been trying to change misinformation on article but site is denying my request because of lack of reliable sources? Sagarahir98 (talk) 02:33, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

@Sagarahir98: So what is the problem? If you're referring to your edit requests on Talk:Attack on Titan, you did not provide any reliable source to support your requests. Facebook, YouTube, and Quora aren't reliable sources. Anything with user-generated content cannot be used. You need to find published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:56, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Also, you are abusing the Talk page Talk:Attack on Titan by having made the same request ("mikasa isn't erens adopted sister") seven times. Per Anachronist, reliable source reference called for. David notMD (talk) 11:42, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

how am i abusing the talk page for stating facts from original source?one of the sourced of articl is sf encyclopedia i have already posted offcial site of kodansha japan but my source is unreliable,can i converse with someone who understand japanese and can understand my point Sagarahir98 (talk) 13:40, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

@Sagarahir98 I can't see where you included a link to "sf encyclopedia" with any of your edit requests. Maybe I missed it. And there might be several things named "sf encyclopedia". Does "sf" mean "science fiction"? Is that a Web site? A printed book? There may be several books with this name. Do you have a publisher's name or an author's name? Year of publication, if there was more than one edition? Page number? A reader needs to be able to find the reliably published reference that you are citing, and "sf encyclopedia" is not specific enough. If you assert that you read something in "sf encyclopedia", your assertion does not meet Wikipedia's requirements.

Your link to Kodansha points to a page offering the item (or some item) for sale. Unfortunately, that does not exactly back up the details of your assertion. Please read WP:REFB. Thanks. David10244 (talk) 05:05, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

AngelsAndOwls

This user has been adding categories indiscriminately for a long time, adding unnecessary categories to the categories.(Special:Diff/1129730778、Special:Diff/1131672435、Special:Diff/1129764643、Special:Diff/1146054992、Special:Diff/1146055177、Special:Diff/1146055286) 寒吉 (talk) 06:51, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I do not appreciate you coming to my talk page issuing me with ‘warnings’ instead of opening up a discussion on why you feel certain categories should not be linked. If you provide your rationale properly, and in an adult fashion, rather than start an edit war, that would be helpful. I feel that you are just removing categories from pages/categories at random, rather than understanding the rationale of why they were added and the important of that to the scope of the ongoing projects. Please stop issuing ‘warnings’ to fellow Wikipedians, it is sinister and intimidating. AngelsAndOwls (talk) 07:12, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

@Crowsus@Denniscabrams. 寒吉 (talk) 07:15, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

AngelsAndOwls, how well do you understand categorization, and how responsive are you to routine criticism of your edits? Issuing warnings is very far from "sinister and intimidating". Where did you cook up this uncollaborative wording? I really want to understand your motivation for this wording. Cullen328 (talk) 07:21, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Genuine question, how often do you start a rational and constructive conversation on something with ‘WARNING’? AngelsAndOwls (talk) 07:24, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

He wouldn't answer the question about categories.XD 寒吉 (talk) 07:32, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

That is a separate discussion I will come back to when we have first established why I find your leaving of ‘warnings’ first rather than opening up constructive dialogue on the talk page intimidation. A look at your archived talk page clearly shows you have a habit of opening up arguments, edit wars, being generally aggressive and turning Wikipedia into a battleground. All I asked for was civil dialogue first. AngelsAndOwls (talk) 07:40, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

You cann't accept a warning is your problem, I have right give you a warning if I want, and it's necessary. I am autopatroller, former new page patroller and former rollbacker in zhwiki, I don't need someone talk to me I cann't give you a warning, or teach me how to add appropriate category, that will be funny. 寒吉 (talk) 07:51, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

And there we have it. All I ask for is you use a little bit of common sense and common courtesy and open up a discussion FIRST on why you are taking an action. Primarily because educating fellow Wikipedians is more constructive for all, and secondly because open dialogue that is civil is generally nicer. But your response is basically ‘i have power, I’ll use my power’ and that’s fair enough. Go use your power. AngelsAndOwls (talk) 07:55, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Special:Diff/1146178882、Special:Diff/1146179100, genius. 寒吉 (talk) 07:31, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Why make such childish insults? Please be constructive and civil. AngelsAndOwls (talk) 07:41, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

It's not insult, it's praise. 寒吉 (talk) 07:53, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

No, it was an insult. And it’s childish. But here we go, for example, why couldn’t you open a talk page dialogue on why you remove Sports clubs established in 1890 but leave the other similar year categories? Constructive dialogue educates others. AngelsAndOwls (talk) 07:58, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

@AngelsAndOwls Hi, as in our previous discussion on the subject, these above are examples of overcategorization. Great Britain national baseball team people does not need to be in Baseball in the United Kingdom directly because it is correctly part of Great Britain national baseball team, which is correctly under Baseball in the United Kingdom. No need for Canadian expatriate baseball players in the United Kingdom‎ to be in Baseball in the United Kingdom directly because it (and the American one) are correctly in Expatriate baseball players in the United Kingdom‎ which is also correctly under Baseball in the United Kingdom. I can see you created most of these forks, and they are all valid as far as I can see (BTW is there really only 1 notable Canadian and 1 American who has played in the UK?), apart from then undermining the tree structure by adding its own parents. There is no need to be adding person categories to a team article just because they are on the same subject. As for 寒吉 removing the categories as I had done previously, I appreciate it can be annoying as it appears to be being done unilaterally, but in many cases when checking categories it is unnecessarily tedious to investigate which user added which categories (in some cases, mistakes go unnoticed for months or years due to low view numbers) and contact them about each contribution; as long as one feels they are in the right, I believe it would come under WP:BRD to remove what one feels to be an invalid category, but to bear in mind it may be challenged and reverted. Personally I don't ever do warning messages for anyone but it's fairly standard practice. Crowsus (talk) 07:58, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

As always, i 100% appreciate and understand your thoughtful and constructive feedback. This proves my point entirely, we all get along much better and Wikipedia is a much nicer place for all when we just talk it over in a civil manner. Thank you. AngelsAndOwls (talk) 08:02, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

AngelsAndOwls, we don't add a category to an article if the category doesn't already exist (unless perhaps we intend to create the category in a matter of minutes). That aside, I read: instead of keep undoing the work, raise the topic on the talk pages of those. If you believe that I am unwittingly (or deliberately) damaging a single article, you're welcome to address me either on that article's talk page or on my talk page. If on the other hand you believe that I am damaging a number of articles, and in a similar way (or the same way), then pointing this out on the talk page of each is wasteful, and my talk page is better. Starting a warning with "WARNING" is quite OK in this website. (Norms of communication here aren't what they are elsewhere.) -- Hoary (talk) 08:08, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. In this case the categories did/do exist and the removal of categories was for over categorisation, which would have been helpful to have been explained rather than just immediately throwing out a ‘warning’. As I’ve said, they do have a habit of combative behaviour as per their archived talk page. It’s fine, it’s dealt with, i just would appreciate more constructive and civil ways of operating than shown today. But if that isn’t the ‘norm’ then so be it. AngelsAndOwls (talk) 08:13, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Citing historical newspapers accessed via a subscription to the British Newspaper Archive

Can someone advise how I should correctly cite a historical newspaper accessed via a subscription to the British Newspaper Archive?

I have currently used this citation:

However, this refers non-subscribers to the website's registration page. Any suggestions would be very gratefully received!

WriterGP (talk) 10:55, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Sources don't necessarily have to be free. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 11:39, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

@WriterGP What you have is a typical WP:OFFLINE source (the newspaper itself) which you happen to have been able to look at via the archive. The inclusion of the URL is just for the convenience of (some) readers who could access it that way. One suggestion would be to include the page number of the piece, which would assist readers who might be verifying the content in some other way, for example via a library or alternative archive. Another thing you could do is to use the |quote= parameter of {{cite news}} to restate the actual words in the newspaper that back up what you say in the Wikipedia text, assuming the quote wouldn't be too lengthy. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:24, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Within wiki copyrights doubt

Hi, one month ago I created a page: Draft:Chief Ministership of N. Chandrababu Naidu which majorly includes the content from the page N. Chandrababu Naidu after when the page was vandaled by another user (user1) where the user removed content and further didn't respond to our notices for pov discussion. But another user(user2) came into consensus me and started making it neutral but since much of the matter was removed by the first user(user1) I thought to create this new article since this included the governance and chiefministership details during the tenure similar to other chief ministers. But what happened is the article got moved to draft for curation and I started expanding the article further in the draftspace and later informed by other user(user3) that a attribution needs to be given in the edit summary for any inter wiki copying and thus I also gave attribution to the main page that content was lifted from there in-fact the other user also gave the attribution on my behalf and I was educated that attribution is to be given in edit summary. Now my point is another user(user4) today restored the previously removed content by the first said user(user1). So am I supposed to request to delete my draft? since the originality of the main article is now restored by (user4)and will this draft be useless? But point to note is this draft also includes other topics on the governance but mostly aligns to the main page. I am really confused now. 456legend(talk) 11:37, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

can someone help me with this doubt please? 456legend(talk) 14:04, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

@456legend: Hello 456! I'm not sure what you are asking here. Could you possibly be a bit more specific with your question? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:34, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Blaze Wolf, my question is since the originality of the main page is restored is my draft noe useless and should I nominate to delete the draft or I am I at fault for creating the draft? 456legend(talk) 14:37, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

@Blaze WolfI am not aware about the technicality in wikipedia so I am having this doubt 456legend(talk) 14:39, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

@456legend: What exactly do you mean by "the originality of the main page"? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:39, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

@Blaze Wolf Originality here I mean the status of the page before the removal of content from the user 1. 456legend(talk) 14:45, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello, 456legend, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm not quite sure what you are asking either, but I'll summarize what I think is the information relevant to answering it:

1. Essentially all text in Wikipedia is licensed under WP:CC-BY-SA, which means that it may be freely copied or reused, within Wikipedia or elsewhere, as long as the source is attributed - which can be done in an edit summary or on the talk page. See copying within Wikipedia. # Whether the text was subsequently removed from its original place is irrelevant, unless it was removed because it was itself a copyright violation. In that case, it should never have been in Wikipedia in the first place, and a copy of it is also a copyright violation and must be removed.
2. I'm not sure whether you're also asking about whether it can be proper to include material in an article which has been deleted from another article. The answer is that it certainly can be, but it depends on the circumstances. If the text was removed from the first article because it was uncited, or original research, or not a neutral point of view, then probably not. But if it was removed because it was not thought appropriate in that article, it may be perfectly appropriate in another article.

ColinFine (talk) 17:01, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

@ColinFine Thank you, I think this answers my doubt. I can stay rest assured since there was no copyright violation in the content. And I was only confused whether to use the content within Wikipedia or not. And also I provided the attribution in the edit summary already. So thank you for the clarification. 456legend(talk) 19:05, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Updating Information

Greetings. Ref this page- Chris Barfoot

After several years of details being added and changed by interlopers- I decided to change and verify the information on the Chris Barfoot page- because 'I am Chris Barfoot'... I do not claim to be skilled as an 'uploader' or moderator and I don't understand a lot of the processes that have developed here- Some of the information on the page is not incorrect but is too raw- when considering the times we live in regarding fraudulent activity. I rewrote the page but the format has offended some of the moderators. I was more interested in updating the information. I suppose I seek a friendly moderator- to make the appropriate changes to my new biography- or I fear I shall be attempting this change till the end of time. It is not my forte... I am very happy for a brilliant moderator to make appropriate changes. I can verify that the information I have attempted to upload is true and correct. What next please? Thanks all. Chris. ATLANTEAN PROTAGONIST (talk) 11:54, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi @ATLANTEAN PROTAGONIST – a few comments:

1. We have no way of knowing who you are, other than your say-so.
2. If indeed you are the person in question, you should not be editing the article yourself, but should instead request edits. Even then, you need to cite reliable published sources to support your requests.
3. You also must formally disclose your conflict of interest (COI). A message has been posted on your user talk page to this effect; please respond to it.

Thank you, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:04, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks DoubleGrazing. Yes... I've been educated to that effect by C.FRED and get it now. Thank you. ATLANTEAN PROTAGONIST (talk) 12:09, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

@ATLANTEAN PROTAGONIST It may be surprising, but Wikipedia does not have moderators of its content, only a group of editors who try to create content in line with policy: for biographies, specifically as described at WP:BLP. Thus we create articles about topics, backed up by reliable sources meeting the golden rules. If we have an article about you, then for fairly obvious reasons we don't want you to contribute to it because you are unlikely to have a neutral point of view, one of the core requirements. Rather, we want you to use the Talk Page at Talk:Chris Barfoot to make your suggestions, as indicated by DoubleGrazing. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:11, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Chris Barfoot should probably be deleted, there is zero evidence that you are notable in Wikipedia terms. Theroadislong (talk) 12:12, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:BIOSELF might also be of some use here. Lectonar (talk) 12:13, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi. I was attempting to address to address that very subject and upload details about my career. I can see that this is not the way. If you wish to completely delete the page... please do so. Many thanks. ATLANTEAN PROTAGONIST (talk) 12:17, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

ATLANTEAN PROTAGONIST The article Chris Barfoot has been in existance, in various forms, since 2009. As you claim to be Chris, you should not edit the article directly. However, if you are truly not satisfied with the article as it now exists you may nominate it for deletion via the Articles for deletion process (see WP:AFD). After a week or so of comments by editors, an Administrator will make a decision. Or, just leave it, and hope that people with no paid or personal connection to you will try to improve the article. All the content and references you attempted to add - reverted - are visible via View history, so someone may use that to add content in Wikipedia's format (none of that bolding, no hyperlinks, proper reference format, etc.) David notMD (talk) 01:48, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I thank you for the information and advice David. Wikipedia is an excellent source of reference. I use it often and 'do' respect the processes... I just didn't know what they were... haha... I see now how Wikipedia has changed over the years, it was once hungry for information from any source- truth at any cost- it has grown, matured and is policed as it should be... protected.

Ignorance on my part led me to believe that I would be thanked for imparting a fresh and fuller accounting of some of my experiences and connection history, not for ego but for reference (ok, a little go in there). I would change much of the input I was attempting to bring to the table now- but of course that also means 'I wouldn't bring anything to the table, now', I was naive.

We have all led interesting lives, could all write a book... should, perhaps. My independent film career was hard fought and isn't over yet. It nearly was... There is much I didn't divulge, the decade of Cannes, the fights and hugs with Hollywood stars, the dinners and dances, finances and romances and desperation, the agony and the ecstasy. The business isn't just about the art- most indie filmmakers have to be astute industrialised bods, managers, producers, accountants, hundreds of skills that don't relate to telling stories at all- just so that stories can be told.

In youth, we dream of fame, immortality, wealth and being adored, respected, honoured. Now? Personally... I've done enough and seen enough and been enough to know none of that really matters. I've watched the powerful fall and icons disappear and history doesn't care, not anymore. I decided to openly amend the Wikipedia page in my name- because it didn't say anything about beating thousands of deserving people to the awards I'd earned, or the people I'd met, the privileged life I've so far had that at times cost me my family life and self respect to achieve, and where am I - being mildly persecuted for bothering to set the record straight.

I stuck to the basic facts, only touched upon events like when Dustin ate my business-card and my friendship with giants like Ken Russell. But, yes...if it hasn't been a public- publicised event- it belongs in that book... not on Wikipedia. I don't know why anyone would want to write about my endeavours? But people have. Writers and fans have humbled me. I just wanted to set the record straight- start that process anyway.

Every little film I cast and shot on S16 and 35 (in the old days) and then sold to broadcasters- was an amazing feeling, shooting commercials for companies like Pepsi Co, highly lucrative, but most of the time I had to work outside of the industry 'to survive'... still, I made it happen, I achieved the highest ever audience with NBC Universal's Sci Fi Channel and was a winner of Sky's Top Ten Short Films of all Time... little wins in the world- but mine.

I'm a writer but not I'm not Mr King, I'm a director but I'm not Mr Spielberg, do I need to be? I am proud of my successes- I have at times lived the dream. I feel like I'm on trial here a bit... (ellipses galore) but it is of my own volition that I waste my time imparting this crud to you- and now, you've earned peace... ;-) Many thanks. ATLANTEAN PROTAGONIST (talk) 07:42, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

@ATLANTEAN PROTAGONIST You say But people have [written about you]. Those are precisely the sources that Wikipedia can use: already-published material. If you make a well-formed {{edit-request}} on the Talk Page of the article, citing the relevant source, it will be considered and maybe incorporated. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:39, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks... there's quite a lot to learn- protocols etc. I appreciate your advice. Cheers. ATLANTEAN PROTAGONIST (talk) 17:34, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

How do you refer to the noughties?

Is it ok to say from the swinging 60s to the naughty 00s? i checked mosdecade but could not find an answer. I am referring to music. Thank you Bijou1995 (talk) 12:13, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Unless you were quoting, Bijou1995, that would be editorializing. How about "from the 60s to the 00s"? -- Hoary (talk) 13:19, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

thank you i will use that Bijou1995 (talk) 13:47, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Just to clarify, is it ok to use abbreviated years as i have been told off for that? I think i remember mosdecade saying its ok if you use the swinging 60's etc, i have put this..... from 1970s, 1980s, 1990s to present, is that acceptable? Bijou1995 (talk) 13:55, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Bijou1995, I suppose that the MoS is necessary; and yes, it is at times obviously beneficial. But I for one don't worry about it so much. There are MoS fanatics. If you write "60s" and somebody insists on "1960s", they can fix it themselves. If they take the trouble to point you to a prescription somewhere in the MoS for "1960s" in preference to "60s", then fair enough, from that point on use "1960s". Meanwhile, if you have a question about MoS, better ask it on an MoS talk page, which will be populated by people who know MoS well (and who, I hasten to add, aren't all fanatics). -- Hoary (talk) 14:03, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

That's excellent, thank you very much, I wasn't aware of MoS talk page. Bijou1995 (talk) 14:12, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Technically in the case you described above, it would be better to simply say "from the 1970s to present" without the need to list all the decades in between since "to" implies it includes the intermediate decades. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:31, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Bijou1995 (talk) 15:00, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps mistakenly, I took "the naughty 00s" to mean the period from 2000 to 2009, or possibly one year later. Even if it's as late as 2010, this is not what I, in 2023, would call the present. -- Hoary (talk) 22:39, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes my mistake, you are right it is up to 2010. I haven't heard any nicknames for 2010 onwards so I have no idea what they are called. Bijou1995 (talk) 09:48, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Copyvio

I noticed that in one article, some of the content was just the content from the sources that were translated from Google Translate and copy pasted. If the original text is translated into another language via google translate, is this considered copyvio? Shadow of the Starlit Sky (talk) 12:31, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

The translation is considered a derivative work, and any copyright on the original work applies. If the original source was in copyright, then this would be copyvio, yes. (And even if it were not in copyright, unless it were properly attributed it would violate WP:PLAGIARISM – in particular WP:NONENGPLAG.) Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:56, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Information regarding quick review of my new Page.

Hi

I want to create a new page related to Indian politics. The page will feature a liberal political party from India it is the topic I think that is not much available on Wikipedia. So in accordance with wikipedia motto of being a useful encyclopedia I decided to account that information here.

But i have solid information that Wikipedia Indian Politics reviewers are "infamous" for talking their time in reviewing new pages.

Question to sincere creators on wikipedia Indian politics topic:-

1) What is average time taken by reviewers to review your new page?

2) What tricks you can use to make them review faster?

3) And Why there is so much backlog of pages to be reviewed especially in Indian politics section?

42.105.74.199 (talk) 13:54, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

(1) I don't know. (2) Write a short article of perhaps three or four short paragraphs, citing three to five reliable sources, in English, that describe the party in depth. (3) Because most people have more thrilling things to do (e.g. rock-climbing, trail-running, stamp-collecting, watching kitten videos on Youtube) than reviewing drafts, whether these are about Indian politics or anything else. (Why "in English"? Does Wikipedia discriminate against, say, Bengali? No, sources in Bengali, Punjabi, Hindi, etc are welcome. But a problem is that few people here can read them. Few reviewers will want to okay a draft when it's based on sources that they don't understand.) -- Hoary (talk) 14:12, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

The draft review process is not a queue. Reviewers select. Hence, reviews happen in days, weeks, or sadly, months. A few reviewers to keep an eye out for the really old drafts. Per Hoary, most reviewers have English as a first/only language, so there is a bias for articles ref'd in English. David notMD (talk) 14:56, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Welcome IP user, if you create an account that is WP:Autoconfirmed you can directly publish articles on Wikipedia, however they will be WP:PATROLED by someone and expect to be higher standards than if you submit it for draft review. Read WP:FOREIGNSOURCES for guidelines on non English languages sources. Politics in general is tricky to get it right in accordance with Wikipedia policies. As a politically active person and editor, I struggle with this myself sometimes. Happy editing! Also posting in WikiProjects WP:INDIA or WP:POLITICS can be helpful for more eyes. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 16:06, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

IP user, to be clear, you can't actually "create an autoconfirmed account". You can create an account, then find articles to edit (to fix spelling or grammar, to add missing references, etc.) After 4 days have elapsed, and you have made 10 edits, your account will become "autoconfirmed". Then, what Shushugah has said applies. David10244 (talk) 05:17, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Citing a title

If citing an article, should I use the title word for word and should it be " quoted" or is this plagiarising? Bijou1995 (talk) 13:58, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

If you cite an article, Bijou1995, you should of course specify its actual title, verbatim. If the title is in a language other than English, it would be helpful if you also provided an English translation of the title. If you use Template:Cite journal or whatever, it will italicize, add quotation marks, etc, as appropriate. But perhaps I have misunderstood your question. -- Hoary (talk) 14:16, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

No you understood it perfectly and I am pleased to say I did it correctly. So no quotations then i presume? As for English translation from another language that's far too advanced for me at the moment, thanks again. Bijou1995 (talk) 14:59, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

@Bijou1995, some titles are styled with quotation marks (song titles, for instance - "Over the Rainbow") and some are not (book titles, for instance - The Lord of the Rings). See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles of works. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:25, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

You are so helpful, thank you Bijou1995 (talk) 16:56, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

A question

How do people edit their pages with images? Is it html or a custom Wikipedia type of thing. 2603:8080:200:5519:D456:178E:49C0:D9C7 (talk) 14:21, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello IP and welcome to the Teahouse! Technically everything on Wikipedia and the web in general is HTML since that is the basis of the entire web. Technicalities aside though, assuming you mean adding an image to an article, it is usually done by adding [[File:IMAGENAME.ext]] to the article, with IMAGENAME.ext being the name of the image as it appears when you go to the page for the image itself along with the file extension (usually it will be .png or .jpg/jpeg for images). ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:29, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi there! The answer to your question depends on whether you're using Wikipedia's source editor or the VisualEditor. I suggest you visit Help:Introduction and click on the appropriate "Images" button. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 15:19, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

How do I appeal an ANI editing restriction

I had a few editing restrictions put on me recently. While I'm fine with the majority of them. One of them I believe was applied without proper justification and is quite deleterious. How can I appeal an individual restriction? Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 15:02, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi again @Immanuelle. You should probably have a read of this; in this case, looks like you'd be appealing at WP:AN, whether you're appealing one restriction, some or all of them. I should probably warn you that you need to be very sure of your ground before issuing such a challenge, because it could possibly be seen as further evidence of disruption. Consider your options carefully. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:22, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Writing a page about Global Citizens Community. Its currently nominated for speedy deletion, what to do...

Please advise Philanthropist Evan (talk) 15:23, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Note: the OP has been blocked. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:27, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Question

Is it alright to create articles of variants of vehicles. for example. would i be allowed to create a article about the Sd,kfz 6/2. the AA variant of the Sd.Kfz.6. despite them being basically the same Some Random Dingus (talk) 15:55, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

@Some Random Dingus: Welcome to the Teahouse! For the general answer to your question, see the guideline at WP:PRODUCTS. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 15:59, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

How to title a subheading

Currently I am writing on a war in Ancient Greece, and an important event is when the leader of one of the parties tricks the other into believing they can outlast them. I feel like this needs a subheader of its own, but I can't come up with one. The 'working title' is "Thrasybulus' ruse" but this doesn't sound right. Does anyone have suggestions? Does it need a subheading at all? Thanks! Here is the link. It's still a draft, so any other suggestions would be appreciated. I'm quite new to this and am not sure about how I cite correctly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Lydian-Milesian_War

P.S. For those wondering it is about the war between Lydia and Miletus in 600 BCE during the reign of Alyattes mentioned in Herodotus 1.17 - 1.22 GeneralCraft65 (talk) 16:10, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi @GeneralCraft65, welcome to the Teahouse. I would recommend looking at articles on similar subjects and seeing how their sections are laid out. I'm sure you're familiar with Battle of Cannae, for instance, though even better would be Battle of the Trebia (a Good Article) or Battle of Lake Trasimene (a Featured Article). You could also ask for advice on the talk page of WikiProject Military History if you're really stuck. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:18, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

How to upload

How to upload on wikipedia Samathon (talk) 17:30, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

@Samathon Welcome to the Teahouse. I think you will find it helpful to read Help:Introduction, which has sections on various aspects of editing, including how to upload and use images. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:20, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Crazy.

My question is why do people give notices or edits so fast? Wouldn’t there be millions of possible page edits in Wikipedia? Or are there just a lot of people that have that rank to give out notices? 2603:8080:200:5519:C826:4041:8416:424F (talk) 18:52, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi IP editor, welcome to the Teahouse. Many folks spend their time watching for disruptive edits of various kinds, fixing the issues and notifying editors of problems with their edits. There is no rank of any sort required; even IP editors can (and do) patrol Wikipedia in this way. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 19:40, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

For example, I chose to watch about 40 nutrition-related articles. Everytime I log in, I see the last edit to any of those that were changed. David notMD (talk) 21:17, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

And an automated program clears the Everybody Sandbox every hour (but each registered account has its own Sandbox, not auto-cleared). David notMD (talk) 21:55, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Search function

What have you done with the "search" function? I cant find the window to enter my subject. Jnyork (talk) 19:25, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Jnyork, welcome to the Teahouse. There is a new default skin in which the search box has been moved to the center-left of the top of the screen; at some browser widths, all you may see is a magnifying glass icon. You can switch back to the old skin in your account preferences if you wish. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 19:33, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Which, apparently, is almost exactly the same answer I gave to the same question and questioner exactly a month ago. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 20:03, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

CommonsDeLinker keeps deleting my Files and Media for an Article

article in question is about Francisco lugo viña molina, a Spanish nobleman. He has a painting.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Francisco_Lugo-Vi%C3%B1a_Molina

You can look the article for yourself and edit if you want to. But is there a Way to stop CommonsDeLinker? Ive tried Three Times. I just uploaded the image to WikiData but it always gets deleted. Any help would be great! Ayyyple2 (talk) 19:32, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Ayyyple2, User:CommonsDelinker's edit summary says: Removing Franciscolugoviña.jpg; it has been deleted from Commons by Fitindia because: Media uploaded without a license as of 2023-03. Please upload your media with a license. That can be found on commons:COM:Licensing Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 19:37, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I dont know what License the Painting has, i do not own it. Its in a museum but i have no idea... Ayyyple2 (talk) 19:39, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

@Ayyyple2, you need to determine the copyright status of any image you upload before uploading it. If you need help, there is a place to ask over on Commons (which is where most images are hosted): here. There's also WP:MCQ on English Wikipedia. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 19:44, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Ill try.... ill try Ayyyple2 (talk) 07:00, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

@Ayyyple2 Since the portrait was painted about 1800, it will be in the Public Domain now, provided the image you upload is a simple photograph of a 2D painting, presumably available from the Museum's website. However, the presence or not of the portrait won't influence whether the article is accepted, so I suggest you wait and see if it is. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:17, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

It is public domain, but everytime i upload it it gets deleted for no copyright, but i selected no copyright! Can you help me Ayyyple2 (talk) 20:40, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

It's not "no copyright", it's "public domain". That needs to be explicitly specified. If you use the UploadWizard, you should be able to select that setting from a set of options in the web form. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:46, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Would you please delete a comment pointing out an error of format?

Hello Actually speaking, I have written "achievement part" in Thomas Maurice Rice - Wikipedia". There was a comment on writing format in the head part. "This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. The specific problem is: § Achievement on the mechanism of superconductivity is poorly formatted and has improper citation styling. (February 2023)".

So, according to the comment, I cleaned up the part. Now, because the comment is useless, I would like to delete the comment given for me. Would you please delete the comment?

Best regards

Hyun

128.239.187.80 (talk) 20:30, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

If you think you have resolved maintenance tags, you can remove them yourself. You can read the instructions given under "Learn how and when to remove these template messages".

And while your contributions have been very helpful to the article, the section still is poorly formatted. I will edit the template to reflect the fact that you resolved repeated citations. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 20:42, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Upon further inspection, the references are still poorly formatted (see Template:Cite web), so I will not change the template message. Your edits have helped significantly though, making it easier for other editors to resolve the issue. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 20:44, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Issues with citations

In my Draft:Softly Dies a Lake I am persistently getting {{cite journal}}: line feed character in |journal= at position 54 (help). Cannot understand what it means. Cannot fix it either. Please help! 137pallavisingh (talk) 20:51, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

There was a line return between the words LITERATURE and AND. I fixed it. David notMD (talk) 21:20, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much! 137pallavisingh (talk) 21:22, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Check all your refs. For example, the doi for ref #5 does not go to the journal article. Others have problems. David notMD (talk) 21:23, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

should I remove the doi? 137pallavisingh (talk) 21:24, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Can you please tell me the problems? 137pallavisingh (talk) 21:25, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

6 & 7 don't connect. David notMD (talk) 21:47, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Voice recordings

I wanted to know what is Wikipedias policy and rules about uploading voice recordings, speeches etc. I’m interested in uploaded voice recordings of historical people to add them to various articles but am not sure how or what is allowed and isn’t. I look forward to hearing from someone, thanks. ✠ Robertus Pius ✠ (Talk • Contribs) 20:58, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Robertus Pius. Please read Help:Creation and usage of media files. Cullen328 (talk) 21:05, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Robertus Pius, "voice recordings of historical people" suggests to me recordings of which you are not the copyright holder. If you're not the copyright holder, the onus is on you to demonstrate that a recording either (A) is not copyright (is "in the public domain") or (B) is copyleft according to one or other of the (unusually permissive) copyleft licenses that are acceptable to the WMF. As an uploader's failure to do this would cause the WMF to break the law and would waste the time of the volunteer who deletes the file, explains the deletion, etc, you should make sure that you understand both the issues involved and the copyright status of a particular file before you upload it to Wikimedia Commons. -- Hoary (talk) 00:30, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Why there is no VEI 9 eruptions?

Lake Toba has VEI 9 eruption in List of large volcanic eruptions. And also it should be added in Volcanic explosivity index. Also Flat Landing Brook also has a VEI 9 eruption.

Facts about VEI 9: There's only 2 volcanoes erupted in VEI 9. Others are unknown. Cubic Square meters are >10,000km³ And also Plume height is >30km

Will you add VEI 9 to this page Volcanic explosivity index? Jovandrisus777 (talk) 05:30, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Jovandrisus777. If you expect Teahouse hosts to resolve your content dispute, then you are wrong. We are not vulcanologists here. Try out the established Dispute resolution procedures, and always be prepared to expain how your edits comply with policies and guidelines. Cullen328 (talk) 06:06, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Volcanic explosivity index goes to VEI 8 and includes Lake Toba and Flat Landing Brook. At Talk page of that article you have aready requested addition of a VEI 9 catagory. To make your case there (not here) you need to add references that confirm the existance of VEI 9. David notMD (talk) 10:24, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I see that VEI was developed for U.S. Geological Survey, and that scale stops with 8. David notMD (talk) 16:00, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Questions

• When we create a sandbox, can we delete it by ourselves or is it deleted by admin upon our request for deletion?
• Is sandbox is only visible to users?
• Is the website of the organization can be considered as reliable source on some extent. (for e.g., current and former CEO, President, Vice Chancellor, history, etc.)
• When we write the history of any area, should we write in our own words or copy and paste from history books?

FakeInfoDetector (talk) 10:08, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

1. An admin will delete it for you on request. See WP:U1
2. Anyone can see it and edit it.
3. Yes. It's called a primary source and is reliable for basic factual information about itself like CEO etc. Be careful as regards a company's history though, they tend to be the company's flowery version of events and may not correlate with what actually happened.
4. Own words. Never copy and paste because that is a copyright violation. - X201 (talk) 10:15, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

You can delete content of your Sandbox, leaving it empty. However, an editor who looks at your Contributions can see what you deleted and what was in the Sandbox before the deletion. David notMD (talk) 10:27, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

@X201, @David notMD thanks for your replies.

And lastly, What about uploading the images from any website? FakeInfoDetector (talk) 11:30, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello, FakeInfoDetector. The vast majority of images you find on the internet are copyright, and cannot be uploaded or used, except for very limited cases on English Wikipedia where the image and the way it is used follow all of the non-free content criteria.

Some images are in the public domain (for example, many images published by the US Federal government) or have been licensed by their copyright owners under a copyleft licence such as CC-BY-SA, and those can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons and used. But it is the responsibility of the uploader to ensure that the copyright status is satisfactory. See Help:Upload. ColinFine (talk) 11:56, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

@FakeInfoDetector For the third item, a company's own site might be reliable, but it won't be independent. See WP:YFA for information. You need several reliable, independent, in-depth sources to show notability. But X201's answer was correct for CEO, etc. David10244 (talk) 05:26, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Adding an English translation from Polish article

Hello! I need help with adding (or rather pinning) my translation to a polish article. Right now it's in my drafts, and I can't seem to get it to work. Can anyone help me with approving the article, correcting it and publishing it under the Parent Article? (translation: User:Felomat972/Wikipedysta:Felomat972/Firmao ; Partent Article: https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firmao)

Thank you in advance!

Felomat Felomat972 (talk) 11:28, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Dobry dzien, Felomat, and welcome to the Teahouse. I have added a header to your sandbox which will allow you to submit it for review when it is ready. But in my opinion it is not ready now, because it doesn't look to me as if any of the sources are adequate to establish that the company meets English Wikipedia's criteria for notability. I haven't looked at the sources themselves, only at your citations, so I may be wrong; but I don't notice any that appear to be both Reliable sources and independent of the company, or those that might be I suspect do not contain significant coverage of the company. All of these three elements must be present in sources which contribute to notability. ColinFine (talk) 12:02, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Can Template:Pageviews record views from before an article was created ?

Hello, Just a question that may be useful in determining the level of interest for an article regardless of considerations like that readers would have to navigate to the specific URL instead of the page appearing in the search bar and so on. If I create a page that doesn't exist, but the name had been visited before, could the pageviews template display this? Or will it begin from the date of page creation? many thanks Fishing Publication (talk) 12:56, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

@Fishing Publication Wikipedia doesn't keep records of the search terms people use in its search bar, only records of which pages they actually visit. Hence the answer is "no". Internet search engines like Google do keep internal records of the search terms used and hence can provide statistics on trending keywords. However they don't make all their data freely available to the public. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:04, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Have the article, but don't have the exact source

I've been taking screenshots of articles from various magazines over the last few years. I never had any intention to use them for wikipedia, so I didn't grab the magazine numbers or the dates. Is there any way I could still use some of these without knowing the month and issue? They are foreign magazines that I don't own and have no physical access to, so finding the dates and such is not going to be easy.

Thanks KatoKungLee (talk) 13:43, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

@KatoKungLee: Welcome to the Teahouse. You're most likely not going to be able to use those because they're virtually guaranteed to be copyrighted. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:30, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

@KatoKungLee I think you are eligible to join the Wikipedia library if you have not already done so. That gives access to archives of newspapers and magazines. Then you could use keywords from your screenshots to search again over these archives and hence find the full citations. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:56, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

@KatoKungLee: I believe it is alright as long as you know the magazine and article title. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:09, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

@BeanieFan11 That answer might be a bit incomplete, As far as I know, a citation should give the publication name (magazine name), date of publication or issue number, and article title at least. The magazine name and publication date might be on screenshots -- maybe in the URL if that was captured. You can't upload the actual screenshots. See WP:REFB for the info you need to supply, if you can find it. You might also search the web, even without the Wikipedia library, to see if you can find enough info for a citation. David10244 (talk) 05:37, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Tenryuu, Mike Turnbull, BeanieFan11 - Thank you for the replies guys. I'll see what happens here and maybe give it a go.KatoKungLee (talk) 20:59, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Editing help.

Hey, how do you know if your citation is accepted and if it is rejected? Commentnahi (talk) 14:04, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, in general, any mainstream source, book, magazine or newspaper is probably going to be a good source. You want sources where the subject is the main focus of it and you want sources that were not written by that company/person and aren't hit piece or fluff pieces. You really have to go on a case by case basis. Ultimately, it does come down to who is looking at it and what intentions they have. I've seen very good articles thrown out and I've seen horrible articles stay for years.KatoKungLee (talk) 14:20, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse! citations aren't usually rejected or accepted. if what you mean is fit to be in an article, it needs to be a Reliable, Third Party source (forgot what page to link to, will link later) make sure its also from a neutral point of view. if you mean deleted from an article, you can put the page on your watchlist to check for changes. -I.R.B.A.T^{(yell at me) (The IRBAT Files)} 14:21, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Commentnahi, and welcome to the Teahouse. In most parts of editing Wikipedia, there is no concept of "accepted" and "rejected". Any edit you make - whether it involves a citation or not - may be reverted if another editor disagrees that it is an improvement. If that happens, it is not a reflection on you, and it does not mean that the other editor is right and you are wrong: what it means is that somebody has disagreed with your edit, and your choice now is either to let it go, or to open a discussion with that other editor (and any other editors who are interested) to try and achieve consensus. It might be that several editors agree with you, and the consensus goes your way. It might be that nobody agrees with you and the consensus goes against you. It might be that the various editors come to a compromise that you can all live with. It might be that you cannot agree, and then you can look at dispute resolution, to see ways to proceed.

WP:BRD explains all this in more detail. ColinFine (talk) 16:46, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Editor/Author in citation

I'm currently making citations for individual chapters of this book. Yasue Kuwahara is the editor for the entire book, but Kuwahara is also the author of the last chapter. In the citation template should I include "Yasue Kuwahara" in both the author/editor slots or should I remove the editor slot for that citation? Cheers! :3 F4U (they/it) 14:41, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

For context, the citation currently reads:

Kuwahara, Yasue (2014-02-20), "Hanryu: Korean Popular Culture in Japan", in Kuwahara, Yasue (ed.), The Korean Wave: Korean Popular Culture in Global Context, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 13–31, doi:10.1057/9781137350282_11, ISBN 978-1-137-35027-5

Would that be appropriate with the name appearing twice? :3 F4U (they/it) 14:54, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

@Freedom4U That seems sensible to me, particularly as you will have other chapters where someone else is the author. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:51, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! Your reasoning makes sense. :3 F4U (they/it) 16:17, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Second question

Also, while I put the location as "New York", instead of "New York, New York" in that citation-- should I do that for more obscure places as well? Like "Thousand Oaks" instead of "Thousand Oaks, California"? Or should I include city and state? And what about non-US places in that case? I'm just not sure on what exactly I'm supposed to put in the location thingy... :3 F4U (they/it) 15:39, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

@Freedom4U, Typically, it is acceptable to omit the state/province for so-called 'global cities' (ie New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, London, Paris, Rome, Hong Kong, Tokyo), but once you get into more obscure places you want to put city, state (for the US, so Thousand Oaks, California) or a similar specification for foreign countries. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:28, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! I remember reading some squabbling about this in a FA nomination, but the only locations they had were so-called 'global cities' so they ended up scrapping all of the states. :3 F4U (they/it) 16:31, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

@Eddie891 I have a second question...if the location is part of the name of the publisher (ie. Hong Kong University Press), should I omit the location parameter from my citation? :3 F4U (they/it) 17:08, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the location parameter is not necessary when it is otherwise obvious. There is no need to say that the San Francisco Chronicle is published in San Francisco, but when I cite my hometown newspaper, The Union, I add that it is published in Grass Valley, California. Cullen328 (talk) 18:06, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Ah, thank you! :3 F4U (they/it) 18:14, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

The New Yorker magazine can get away with mentioning a certain newspaper that they call the Times. They know what they mean! David10244 (talk) 05:40, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

That note was mostly in response to @Cullen328... David10244 (talk) 05:42, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

How to handle an article that reads like a press release?

Hello, brand new editor here! I came across an article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watsco) in my suggested edits that has had the "advertisement" and "primary sources" template messages since 2015, and sure enough, the article is essentially a long press release, and the majority of the content has come from one editor with a likely COI issue. The subject clearly meets WP:N, but the scope of fixing the article seems beyond my capabilities as an untrained editor. In instances like these do I just hope someone will get to it eventually, or should I add it to a watch list and possibly return when I'm more confident in my editing skills? I appreciate any advice. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 16:27, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

If you want to put an article on your watchlist then you can. Cwater1 (talk) 16:31, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

@DrOrinScrivello, I've removed everything that was sourced to their annual reports, press releases, and routine coverage, and I'm not actually sure they're notable. The fact they're the largest distributor in the US is a plausible claim, but yeah, that article was absurd.

If you're interested in continuing to work on it, try to find sources in RS that are independent to use. Valereee (talk) 16:45, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, @Valereee. That was what I was fairly sure should be done but I want a little more experience before I'm WP:BOLD enough to go to that extent. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 17:40, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that was a pretty big change. Scary bold. :) Thanks for bringing it up! Valereee (talk) 18:04, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I left a paid editing warning on the user talk page of the person who added all that content, but they haven't edited in 10 months. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:27, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Draft: The Ocean Foundation

Hi there! I am writing a draft page for a nonprofit organization called The Ocean Foundation: Draft:The Ocean Foundation. So far, it has been declined twice: the first time it needed more reliable sources. After I added those, it was declined again because it still needed more reliable sources, and also now reads like an advertisement (I'm not affiliated with the org and was just going off of sources I found). Would someone be able to help me out with which sentences read like advertisements, and also which sources I should take out to be more reliable and in-depth? I'm a very new editor so please be kind :). This is all just a little overwhelming. Thanks so much in advance! Wikicontributor1993 (talk) 19:37, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello @Wikicontributor1993, and Welcome to the Teahouse! I think the draft came off to the reviewer as promotional because a lot of the text was similar to what would be on a website for that organization. Your draft is very positive, and isn’t super neutral. The Neutral point of view policy may be helpful: While you have done a great job so far, the reviewer thinks the subject of the page may not be notable enough for a page on Wikipedia. Our notability rules may be helpful. Once again, Welcome to Wikipedia and the Teahouse! - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 20:59, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you SOO much!! Will try that out now. I also took away a lot of text that seemed a little more promotional once I read it over again! Wish me luck! Wikicontributor1993 (talk) 21:01, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Good luck and Happy editing! - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 21:10, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

After reading your draft again, I think it is almost ready for mainspace! However, the section titled “Conservation Initiatives” still reads quite like an advertisement. I would fix it up and submit if for review again. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 21:15, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

DONE! Thank you so much again and for taking another look! I just submited it for review 🤞 Thanks again!! Wikicontributor1993 (talk) 00:29, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Good luck! 👍 I would still keep an eye on this discussion and see if another user has more tips to increase the chance of it being accepted. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 00:30, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Great thinking, will do!! Really appreciate your help! Wikicontributor1993 (talk) 00:32, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

You are very welcome. I have approved your article and published it to mainspace. I have tagged it for maintenance, so other editors will help you improve it. Your have now created an article on Wikipedia!! - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 00:39, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so so so much!!! Woohoooo I feel like I need to celebrate this accomplishment somehow! 💙💙 Wikicontributor1993 (talk) 17:14, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Help renaming a draft

I just did my first page, but I messed up the name. It's called Draft:Initial. How do I fix it? Ai-ml-enthusiast (talk) 23:26, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello, @Ai-ml-enthusiast, and Welcome to the Teahouse. The only way to fix it is by moving the page, but you don’t have the permissions to do so. I can move the draft for you. What do you want the new title to be? - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 23:58, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I have moved the page to Draft:Signifyd. If this is the wrong title let me know, and I can move it somewhere else. Welcome to Wikipedia! - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 00:05, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Perfect! Thanks so much! Ai-ml-enthusiast (talk) 05:20, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

@Ai-ml-enthusiast Your draft would be much better if the citations used the {{cite web}} template: see that link and WP:REFB. The current use of "retrieved from..." is not how we usually do things and makes the URL visible as a distraction to readers. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:00, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Marriage Date Errors of Tiko Campbell

Tiko (Frederick) Campbell was married to me, Starletta Flowers of Philadelphia, PA. We were married on July 3, 1971 and divorced March 12, 1974. There were no children born to the marriage. This was Tiko (Frederick) Campbell’s first marriage. This was prior to his marriage to BeBe (Elizabeth) Moore Campbell. I have official documents to substantiate this information. Starwmson08 (talk) 23:43, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello, and Welcome to the Teahouse! It appears you have a conflict of interest in this subject, meaning you are related/involved in it. I would recommend making an edit request on the talk page of the article and providing reliable sources, not original research, to support your claims. Once again, Welcome! - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 00:02, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

@Starwmson08: Hi there! You may wish to use the Wikipedia:Edit Request Wizard to make your suggestion. Note that Wikipedia prefers independent sources that can be independently verified, such as books, newspapers, magazines, or websites. GoingBatty (talk) 00:58, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Several online sources state Tiko Campbell was married to Bebe Campbell from 1970-79. As a separate issue, it is not clear that Tiko meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability, so the article may be nominated for deletion. David notMD (talk) 08:49, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Math

Cruz roja cabanatuan city 112.198.231.179 (talk) 01:17, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Could you please explain what your question is? Professor Penguino (talk) 01:20, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Question regarding Draft submission

if a draft declined and again it is in resubmission process can we again make it as new draft? 42.105.138.188 (talk) 03:45, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Judging by your IP's geolocation you're probably the same user or at least asking about the same draft as the later question which has already been answered, but still: you're welcome to submit a new draft on a new topic while your earlier draft is awaiting review (although this may not necessarily be the best idea, for the reasons given by 331dot), but you should not submit another draft on the same topic as it will only be declined as a duplicate (and, if you keep doing that, may eventually get you into trouble). HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:03, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Tropical Bopha (2006)

the draft was Tropical Storm and help editing ok 124.106.195.79 (talk) 05:13, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I've helped with some grammar, could you please add some of your references? commemorative (talk) 05:18, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

@Commemorative1 ok add my references 124.106.195.79 (talk) 05:26, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

It seems there's already an article with this storm, someone with more expertise could advise on when and how to move a page to its own article. commemorative (talk) 05:29, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

add a http://www.usno.navy.mil/NOOC/nmfc-ph/RSS/jtwc/best_tracks/2006/2006s-bwp/bwp102006.txt We couldn't make a citation for you. You can create one manually using the "Manual" tab above. 124.106.195.79 (talk) 05:40, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Is it a violation of WP:PRIVACY if you trace someone's IP and mention the university in talk?

I came across a comment on a talk page where an editor traced an unregistered IP editor to a university and referred to them explicitly:

I want to thank the Duke University IP address(es) for this opportunity to re-examine the Wikipedia article about GISAID from his/her perspective.

-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:GISAID#A_response_from_an_experienced_editor

Is this a violation of WP:PRIVACY? Looking up an IP is not difficult, but it's not necessary and makes the IP editor potentially identifiable by others who come across the page. AncientWalrus (talk) 06:11, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi AncientWalrus. I don't think it would be since it doesn't specifically identify an account with an particular person. An IP address is public information and as you say anyone could look it up if they want. When someone edits using an IP, they are essentially making themselves potentially identifiable by others who come across the page as soon as they click "Publish changes"; so, they seem to be sort of WP:OUTING themselves in a sense. Having said that, you could ask about this at WP:OVERSIGHT or WP:AN to see what an oversighter or administrator might think. I'm neither, but I don't think this is something they would consider a violation of OUTING. Finally, for future reference, if you do come across anything that really seems like OUTING in the future, it's probably better just to seek oversighter or administrator assistance right away (preferably by email if possible) instead of possibly creating more stuff that may need to be cleaned up later by posting about it in too much detail on other Wikipedia pages or general noticeboards like the Teahouse. Oversighters and administrators are able to revision delete or suppress content that is a serious violation of Wikipedia policy and shouldn't be publicly visible, and they will be better able to limit the cleanup that needs to be done. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:52, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

@AncientWalrus: I'm an administrator, and in my view, there is nothing wrong. An IP address location is public information. At the bottom of every IP address talk page is a "whois" link to look up information about that IP address; Wikipedia is actually aiding you in doing this, if you choose to do so. You are actually more anonymous if you create an account. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:20, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! Understood! So not considered doxing, but there's still the question why one would bring it up. It's still a personal attack. But that wasn't mh question. AncientWalrus (talk) 14:16, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I once wrote on an article talkpage "Hello IP:s from Maryland!", thus indicating that since the subject was from Maryland, maybe... Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:46, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry I don't understand, can you explain?There's maybe a difference between saying: it's someone from Maryland or from a specific university. That restricts people quite a lot in a narrow field (virologyl/bioinformatics). AncientWalrus (talk) 14:14, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

@AncientWalrus Sorry, that was pretty obscure. Here:Talk:Catherine_Nakalembe#Hello_IP:s_from_Maryland. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:14, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Ah, now it makes sense :) AncientWalrus (talk) 16:21, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

It may not be against the rules, but it's kind of creepy. Smallchief (talk) 14:30, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Regarding article for creation

Can we create a new draft when the older one was declined and again is in reviewing process? The first review was quick but now it is taking too long to review my draft again. I think creating new draft will be quicker?

Anyone with experience please reply. 117.215.150.205 (talk) 07:32, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. There is no numerical limitation on the number of drafts you can have in the process, but my suggestion would be to wait until your first is accepted before you create another, so that if you made mistakes on the first, you don't repeat them on the second. 331dot (talk) 07:50, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

No, you shouldn't create a second draft on the same subject as the first if you have the first in review. It takes as long as it will take. Wikipedia has no deadlines- are you under some sort of deadline? 331dot (talk) 07:53, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

If you create a second draft about the same subject it will simply be rejected as a duplicate. You should continue working on only one draft per subject. You are welcome to go on improving the draft while it waits for review. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:14, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

There is always a backlog of thousands of drafts waiting for review. The system is not a queue. For any draft - including your resubmission - could be days, weeks, or sadly, months, before a reviewer decides to review it. Submitting the same draft with a slightly different title just pisses off reviewers. David notMD (talk) 08:53, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Nevada State Museum website permission

I have been in contact with the Nevada State Museum, Las Vegas, to post some of their collection images on Wikipedia, specifically concerning items related to Folies Bergere at The Tropicana Hotel Las Vegas. They expressed interest in participating in this article and sent me a permissions form with a section on websites. The form seemed more generic and did not use Wikipedia Creative Commons terms. Do you have any suggestions on how to move forward with the museum? Gumballhead1of2 (talk) 09:47, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi Gumballhead1of2. You could try sending the museum something along the lines of WP:PERMISSION or c:COM:EMAIL and see if they'd be willing to release their content as explained on those pages. While CC license are easily to use for Wikipedia purposes, the museum might be able to craft it's own license if its own words as long as it's compatible one of the acceptable license found at c:COM:CC. The two main things that are going to be need to be sorted out. The first one is the provenances of the images; in other words, whether the museum actually is the copyright holder of the images in question. Having possession of an image doesn't necessarily make one the copyright holder of the image. If the museum got the images from someone or somewhere else, then they might not be the original copyright holder of the images. If they took a bunch of old images of unknown provenance and just digitalized them, then whether that's sufficient to establish a new copyright on their version seems to be a gray area and might be seen as some as copyfraud; so, the more you can find out about the provenance of each image, the better for Wikipedia or Commons purposes. The next thing is, assuming the museum is the copyright holder of the images, going to be to see whether the museum is willing to release the images without any restrictions on commercial or derivative reuse. Non-commercial (NC) and non-derivative (ND) types of licenses are unacceptable for Commons purposes as explained in c:COM:LJ and there's pretty much no way around that since Commons doesn't accept any type of fair use content as explained in c:COM:FAIR. Wikipedia does, however, allow such content to be uploaded locally as non-free content, but Wikipedia's non-free content use policy is more restrictive than fair use as explained in WP:NFC#Background and there are quite a lot of restrictions placed on such use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:27, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Where to report a IP if it caused disruption ?

A IP user https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1145916816 here did disruption, By removing well ref material. He should be blocked from editing, how can he remv data without explaining in summary? Rock Stone Gold Castle (talk) 10:28, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi Rock Stone Gold Castle. I'm not an administrator so I might be missing something here, but I'm not sure I would call the IP's edit vandalism, at least not per Wikipedia:Vandalism#What is not vandalism. The edit, for the most part, seems to have be mainly syntax tweaking, which might've been unnecessary but is certainly not a blockable offense. The IP did remove sourced content from the infobox about Sharma's former partner, but that could've just been an oversight on their part, which again is not a blockable offense. Accounts usually only get blocked when they're being used for some serious disruption that's typically been going on for quite awhile; this IP account has made five edits since August 2020 and the last edit it made before the one you saw was more than six months ago to a soccer article; in other words, it doesn't seem to be focusing on the Sharma article and trying to be disruptive. It's also quite possible that the edits were made by different persons using the same IP address. Anyway, you restored the information that was removed and probably nothing more needs to be done. If the IP comes back to remove it again, then maybe administrator involvement will be needed. If that happens, don't edit war over the content with the IP, but instead try and follow WP:DR and figure out why the IP has removed the content. If you try that and the IP still doesn't stop, then seek assistance from an administrator. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:55, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I corrected the part according to a comment of a Wiki editor, would you check it?

Hello! There is a comment on a article (Thomas Maurice Rice, Wikipedia) (Achievement on the mechanism of superconductivity) I wrote, but I don't know how to do it. I am not expert on Wikipedia and am not understand the comment itself. I am hesitate if I delete the article all or not.

Today morning, I corrected the part through deleating a reference and change of reference position according to the comments. Would you please check my correction? If it is right, would you please delete two comments in head part and the subsection part of 'achievement of on the mechanism of superconductivity". Best regards Composer 2600:8805:3F8A:2E00:8590:8090:AE17:C0EE (talk) 14:11, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

جنية مصري 102.44.96.44 (talk) 14:30, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Copyright Image [?]

I am asking because supposedly AI-Generated images have no copyright infringement, I uploaded https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/28/Cat_on_Skateboard_AI.png is this okay? 多多123 (✉ • ✎) 15:42, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

@多多123 Actually, I don't think so. Per [2] you made this with something called https://www.bing.com/create (I get to see a Swedish-language version). That page has a link to terms of agreement (again, Swedish for me), which states that you can use the creations outside their online services, for personal, non-commercial purposes. "Non-commercial" kills it, Commons-wise, and perhaps "personal" kills it even more. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:01, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Oh, okay, I will get to deleting it. 多多123 (✉ • ✎) 16:02, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

How do I delete an image on WikiMedia? 多多123 (✉ • ✎) 16:03, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

@多多123 At [3] you should see "Nominate for deletion" in the column of links on the left. At least if you're on a laptop or in "desktop view". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:45, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I found it 40 minutes ago, it will at least take a few hours. 多多123 (✉ • ✎) 16:50, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Speedy deletion is an option. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:01, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Can you do it instead, if possible? 多多123 (✉ • ✎) 17:07, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Fixing a link

Hello Teahouse,

I was looking to fix what I think is an incorrectly captioned link on this page: Quinametzin. I posted on the talk page about a month ago and I haven't heard anything back. Is it okay for me to make this edit? FlapjackJones (talk) 17:03, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

@FlapjackJones welcome to Wikipedia! I actively encourage you to be WP:BOLD and fix it yourself directly! If someone disagrees with you, then discussing on talk page per WP:BRD makes sense. I do think it's nice to ask on talk page before directly editing, when I am worried an edit will be potentially controversial. Happy editing! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 17:12, 25 March 2023 (UTC)