Wikipedia:Teahouse

AlanM1, a Teahouse host

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

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.

To read the newest questions, skip to bottom
About the Teahouse

Most recent archives
1223, 1224, 1225, 1226, 1227, 1228, 1229, 1230, 1231, 1232, 1233, 1234, 1235, 1236, 1237, 1238, 1239, 1240, 1241, 1242

How to cite a quotation in a cited work?

Suppose the work I want to cite (call it A) contains a quotation from some other work (call it B) and I want to include the quotation with a citation. If I simply cited A, it would appear as if the words are those of the author of A, while in fact the words are those of the author of B. In academic works I have seen handled by adding the words "quoted in" or the abbreviation "qtd. in". What is the recommended way of handling this in Wikipedia? Dsiedler (talk) 09:52, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Dsiedler. I'm not sure what the best way to recommend would be, as I've never needed to do it. But my approach would be to ensure the text prior to the quotation set the scene correctly, and used our 'blockquote' template. Example:

Smith in his seminal work (=publication A), referred to remarks that author B had once written about him, stating:^{[ref A]}

"I once read in one of his books that author B distrusted me, and referred to me as 'a lying toad'. I found his remarks hurtful and not appropriate for an academic of his stature."

I think it's more important to give citation A, than to attempt to cite source B (as that can/or should be found within source A. But, if that isn't sufficient, it looks from the documentation for Template:Blockquote that we permit nested quotations. I've not tried that, but see here for further advice. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:08, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps an example would make my problem clearer. Here is a block quotation that originates in work B, but which is quoted verbatim in work A. That is, the quotation is not the words of Grey Owl's biographer Smith (A) but of Grey Owl himself (B):

Grey Owl's big hopes for the summer film are evident:

You see canoes driven at high speed ... leaping to the rhythmic throbbing of the drum-fire of the rapids.^[1]^{: 177–178}

Somehow the citation should indicate that the words are not Smith's but Grey Owl's. I suppose I could write the reference as this:

You see canoes driven at high speed ... leaping to the rhythmic throbbing of the drum-fire of the rapids. (qtd. in ^[1]^{: 177–178})

Looks ugly to me! So I'm looking for a better solution.

A blockquote in a blockquote isn't a solution here since the quotation doesn't include any text of A except the verbatim text of B. Dsiedler (talk) 12:56, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dsiedler. That is how I have seen this done before (not in Wikipedia AFAICR) - except that I don't think the abbreviation "qtd" is common enough to be clear. I would do exactly as you have done, with the word "quoted" written in full.

If you think that is too ugly, you could move the "quoted in" from the text to the citation, by putting it within the <ref>...</ref> but outside the {{cite book}} or whatever. ColinFine (talk) 14:37, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good idea and puts the words "quoted in" in the right place, as part of the footnote, not as part of the text in which the footnote occurs, but I use named references, which require that the body of the reference be defined in at most one occurrence of the reference. I'd have to split the references to Smith's book into two lots, one with the words "Quoted in" and one without. Not very attractive.

Actually, the Cite software template should provide a way of handling this. Dsiedler (talk) 15:46, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dsiedler, you can use the {{harv}} shortcite template within a <ref> tag, to produce something like

You see canoes driven at high speed ... leaping to the rhythmic throbbing of the drum-fire of the rapids.<ref>{{harvnb|Smith|1990|pp=177–178}}, quoted in {{harvnb|Doe|2005|p=12}}</ref>

↓

You see canoes driven at high speed ... leaping to the rhythmic throbbing of the drum-fire of the rapids.^[2]

This seems to do what you want! Let me know if you have questions. Remsense留 04:21, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dsiedler, each of the templates used on Grey Owl have a way of handling this.

{{blockquote}} has an |author= parameter where you name the author of the quotation even if you cite it to another author's book.
{{rp}} has the |quote= parameter which will show in a tooltip that pops up only when you hover your mouse over the page number. Most readers will not see the tooltip but it would allow a fuller and messier quotation if needed.

I don't think it's necessary to include full citations for both Grey Owl and Smith, as long it's clear that Grey Owl is quoted and Smith is cited. There is also a template specifically for citing a quotation within a {{cite xxx}} template, but again it's likely not needed. Rjjiii (ii) (talk) 00:40, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to everyone who came up with numerous creative solutions! None of them really worked well in my eyes, but thanks anyway. I think I'm just going to make it clear in my text that introduces such quotations what is due to the author of the cited work and what is due to anyone else he quotes - unless it's clear enough by itself. Dsiedler (talk) 17:12, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bold 45.93.20.249 (talk) 21:11, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ ^a ^b Smith, Donald B. (1990). From the Land of Shadows: the Making of Grey Owl. Saskatoon: Western Producer Prairie Books.
^ Smith 1990, pp. 177–178, quoted in Doe 2005, p. 12

Looking for input on rephrasing a long article name

There's an list of notable works that include Mickey Mouse after he entered the public domain in the US; it's currently titled List of creative Mickey Mouse works after entering the public domain. I thought that was both too long and slightly misworded; to me, it sounds like the works were made by Mickey Mouse. I commented on the talk page and the article creator admitted they'd had trouble with the phrasing and would be fine with a move. The problem is that I couldn't think of anything better, and I'm not knowledgeable enough to know what Wikipedia's style guidelines for something like this would be. Anybody here want to take a crack at it, or direct me to people who would? Tisnec (talk) 01:14, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One simple suggestion - Drop the first three words. HiLo48 (talk) 01:19, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

also maybe change 'after entering the' to 'in the'

Wikipedia:Article titles Geardona (talk to me?) 01:21, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Mickey Mouse in the public domain" is a good length, but does it do enough to explain that he's being reworked into new copyrighted material? Tisnec (talk) 01:25, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What about "Mickey Mouse in public domain works" Geardona (talk to me?) 01:26, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That makes it sound like public domain works that have Mickey Mouse in them, which is the other way around. Blueskiesdry (talk) 01:29, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How about "Mickey Mouse works after public domain status"? Ca ^{talk to me!} 01:29, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like Disney works with Mickey after his public domain entrance.

What about "Works incorporating Mickey Mouse after public domain entrance” or something like that? Blueskiesdry (talk) 01:32, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mickey Mouse works in public domain ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 01:35, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, makes it sound official, which it isn’t. Blueskiesdry (talk) 01:35, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also I think this might be getting slightly out of the Teahouse scope; maybe it should be moved somewhere more fitting? Blueskiesdry (talk) 01:36, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be fine doing that if you have a specific place in mind. My understanding was that the Teahouse was a place to start if you don't know where to start. Tisnec (talk) 01:53, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What about the article talk page? Blueskiesdry (talk) 01:58, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I can take what I've learned back there and continue. Thanks to you and the others for feedback; feel free to follow me there. Tisnec (talk) 01:59, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Something I considered on the talk page was "List of non-Disney works featuring Mickey Mouse", which is a slightly larger list but one that includes all the current material as a subset. The other stuff would be things like the Disneyland Memorial Orgy and Mickey Mouse in Vietnam. Tisnec (talk) 01:33, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, drop "List of". HiLo48 (talk) 01:38, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I thought lists were supposed to have "list" in the title? I.e., List of American films of 2024. Tisnec (talk) 01:41, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LISTNAME says it’s a common practice, but I don’t think it explicitly advises against doing it. Blueskiesdry (talk) 01:45, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Too me a non-Disney works featuring Mickey Mouse seems to broad in scope, Are we mentioning every parody of the last 100 years? Does this include multiple South Park-episodes. I am honestly not in favor of this because the list will lose its focus then. Jonastav89 (talk) 22:33, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To me non-Disney works featuring Mickey Mouse seems to broad in scope, Are we mentioning every parody of the last 100 years? Does this include multiple South Park-episodes? I am honestly not in favor of this because the list will lose its focus then. Also it disregards the recent trend and uptick in media related to Mickey Mouse. I maybe then prefer seperating it in two different lists (even if it is in the same article) Non-Disney works featuring Mickey Mouse before 2024 and Non-Disney works featuring Mickey Mouse after 2024, so that January 1st 2024 remains a pivitol date seperating the works. Jonastav89 (talk) 22:41, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I like that. Blueskiesdry (talk) 01:34, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jonastav89, Blueskiesdry, try Non-Disney Mickey Mouse works before 2024 and Non-Disney Mickey Mouse works after 2024]. (Few words as devoid of meaning as "featuring" have had so much recent success.) -- Hoary (who hopes to read more about Mickey Rat) 22:02, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that works, should I start the move request yet or wait for further input? Blueskiesdry (talk) 22:55, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blueskiesdry, neither "XYZ before 2024" nor "XYZ after 2024" covers XYZ of 2024. The combination "Non-Disney Mickey Mouse until 2023" and "Non-Disney Mickey Mouse after 2023" would do it; but (unless within the title of a pop song) "until" seems to be avoided in titles (though for no reason that I can think of). Better wait a little for more comments. -- Hoary (talk) 23:23, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"until" to "Prior to"? Geardona (talk to me?) 23:25, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prior always sounds pompous to me. Non-Disney Mickey Mouse works to 2023 and Non-Disney Mickey Mouse works from 2024? -- Hoary (talk) 05:23, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's good! Geardona (talk to me?) 11:01, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some precedent for this? Are there other articles like this that we can learn from? Blueskiesdry (talk) 17:13, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

are academics no longer allowed on wikipedia

I started a page for Dr. Skip Rizzo from USC and it was deleted under the premise that it was advertising. I'm here to build an encyclopedia. Should I delete all academics I see on wikipedia or was this a mistake? Orcid.org0000.0001.8849.2780 (talk) 20:04, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Orcid.org0000.0001.8849.2780: Welcome to the Teahouse. As I am not an admin I am unable to see what your draft originally contained, but if it's been deleted under the G11 criterion, I presume it presented Rizzo in a non-neutral manner or ended up looking very much like a CV. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:09, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(in this case, the latter) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:10, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Draft:Dr. Albert "Skip" Rizzo consisted entirely of bullet points and was essentially a CV. There was no prose content. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:59, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert on wikipedia but in my experience, if I want to teach someone how to do something, isn't it better to give them consgtructive feedback rather than punish them for their ignorance? I'm here to build an encyclopedia and not to play games of trial and error. If Skip is not welcom on your website after being cited in academic litarature 20,0000 times please show my how Elyn Saks and Jackie Gmach, my colleagues have a page on wikipedia and you haven't erased them. What am I doing wrong and how can I correct it? Orcid.org0000.0001.8849.2780 (talk) 01:57, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Orcid.org0000.0001.8849.2780: It's less Skip is not welcom [sic] and more how the information was presented and referenced. As admins have stated earlier, your draft resembled nothing like an encyclopedic article. A common refrain at venues like the Teahouse and the Help Desk is new editors such as yourself are recommended to not create articles or drafts as one of the first things on this encyclopedic project.
I'd suggest that you not start working on a draft on this site until you've become accustomed to what the project considers good articles (some of which become featured if they're exemplary). The number of attempts to (shamelessly) promote a subject by an editor who may or may not have a conflict of interest in a day surpasses single digits, so a fair fraction of the community on this site views new subpar drafts by new editors with suspicion.
You mention that some of your colleagues have articles on them here. If you have a conflict of interest in regards to Rizzo, you should disclose it. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:28, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Orcid.org0000.0001.8849.2780: Hello! Should I delete all academics I see on wikipedia or was this a mistake? Don't delete all academics, that would be disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Your article was speedy deleted under the WP:G11 section for speedy deletion. You might want to contact Ben MacDui who removed the page. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 20:12, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of articles exist about academics. Criteria for notability is explained at Wikipedia:Notability (academics). David notMD (talk) 21:16, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See University of Southern California, section on Faculty, for many examples of faculty who are topics of articles. Albert 'Skip' Rizzo may qualify, but the burden is on you to use neutal language and valid references. David notMD (talk) 21:24, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Orcid.org0000.0001.8849.2780, as an administrator, I could read your deleted draft and can therefore attest that the draft bore no resemblance to an actual encyclopedia article. You are welcome to try again, but I encourage you to read and study Your first article before you start. Cullen328 (talk) 02:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Zaverbhai H. Patel

Dr. Zaverbhai (1903-1989, PhD Uni. of Illinois 1933) was a wheat research scientist. After retiring from a high position in Indian government, he started wheat experiments, for 30 years, at his own expense for no personal gain but for the benefits of poor Indian farmers. He rented farms or his experiments, and developed a wheat variety which gave 17% more yield than any other what variety developed by the Government scientists. He was modest so he named the variety LOK-1 (Lok = common folks), instead Zaver-1 as suggested by many. His research was of Nobel Prize category.

His invented wheat variety is known to most researchers and farmers throughout India. Many articles by eminent Indian writers have been published about his work and his sacrifice.

His life story is inspirational.

I have his biographical article, in PDF, in Wikipedia format of similar biography (10 pages). It has main photo with dates, education etc. It has other related photos with wrap around text. It has 23 independent references and 14 article of further reading. References are from eminent writers and other scientists.

I believe he meets the notability criteria.

I am not good at uploading articles, with photos etc. in Wikipedia.

So, I need help.

Can I send the PDF article so that your editors can help publish the article? Quitesage (talk) 23:16, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if this answers the question, but i do see a request at AFC for this article to be created, so it is actually in the wiki already. The reviewer had some feedback, such as reading this, that article could be helpful, and resolve some of your issues.

Plagiarism

The content in this section (Zainuddin Makhdoom I#Early life) has been plagiarized from a blog post (https://historicalleys.blogspot.com/2010/03/). May I remove all of it and rewrite it entirely from scratch? LeónGonsalvesofGoa (talk) 06:01, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess so, but be careful about references. Bduke (talk) 06:10, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@LeónGonsalvesofGoa: Mathglot reminded me recently that the best thing to do is "to place a {{Copyvio}} template on the article page itself; this will both immediately hide the suspected offending material, as well as signal an admin to have a look at it and assess the situation for further action. Users should not be told to simply remove the content themselves, or to rewrite or summarize copied content, because that masks the continuing problem of copyrighted content which remains accessible in the page history; it's best just to flag it for admin action with the template." GoingBatty (talk) 06:14, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, how swiftly will this investigation proceed? LeónGonsalvesofGoa (talk) 06:23, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LeónGonsalvesofGoa, promptly enough. The queue is actively patrolled by volunteer administrators, who take this issue seriously. Remsense留 07:14, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be surprised if it isn't dealt with inside of 24 hours. By the way, if hunting for plagiarized content is something that interests you, there's lots of that to do here! Admins handle the deletion of identified copyvio very swiftly, but there are significant backlogs of suspected copyvio at WP:CCI. It's not a very easy task for a new editor to get into, but if you lurk there for a while you'll get the hang of it eventually.

If you need to mark copyvio for deletion on individual articles like you did here, there's a handy script that makes it much easier: User:Enterprisey/cv-revdel. -- asilvering (talk) 07:27, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering I'll check out the noticeboard. Just to be clear, I don't have any programming skills. I'm uncertain about the best way to use the script you've provided. LeónGonsalvesofGoa (talk) 04:03, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@LeónGonsalvesofGoa No programming skills required! (Actually, that's what most scripts are for here - someone else has done the programming for you, so you don't have to spend so much time messing around with wiki markup. I use probably about a dozen, but I've never actually programmed anything for wikipedia.) To install that script, you only need to copy-paste what it says to in the instructions there, and everything else will be handled for you. But if you want an even easier method for installing, you have to enable a particular scripts gadget: go to Preferences → Gadgets. At the bottom of the "Advanced" section, click the "Install scripts without having to manually edit JavaScript files (documentation)" checkbox, then click the "Save" button. Now if you go back to the cv-revdel script link I provided earlier, there should be a blue "install" button, and all you have to do is click it. -- asilvering (talk) 04:45, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Becoming a Wikipedia administrator

I really like to edit on Wikipedia, it's like a time step for me, but a question how long does it take to become a wikipedia administrator, is it either automatic or do you give it? 4BOTOX (talk) 12:25, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 4BOTOX, and welcome to the Teahouse. No, it is not automatic, and is not granted unless you persuade people that there is something you want to do as an editor that requires Admin rights: I have been an editor for eighteen years, and have made over 23 000 edits, but I have never asked for Admin rights.

Note that there is no hierarchy or special status: administrators are like janitors: they have been given the key to the cupboard where the cleaners' tools are kept. That's all.

See WP:RFA for more. ColinFine (talk) 12:34, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

4BOTOX, although there are no formal written requirements, successful candidates for administrator will normally have well over a year of experience, many thousands of edits, deep practical knowledge of policies and guidelines, significant content creation, ongoing participation in administrative support areas, and a record of being friendly and helpful to other editors. Cullen328 (talk) 19:15, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding additional language

When accessing the English language page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schist), I noticed that a link to the German language page https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schiefer was not present. Likewise for a link between the French language page https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schiste, where I was able to add German to the Language links by clicking the "Ajoutez des langues" option under the language dropdown. I tried to do the same by adding the ISO 639 language code 'de' to the English page and tried to publish, I came up with the following error message 'The save has failed. The link dewiki:Schiefer is already used by Item Q9394813. You may remove it from Q9394813 if it does not belong there or merge the Items if they are about the exact same topic.' Q9394813 is a wikidata page for schistose rock, which does not have a corresponding English Wikipedia page. Should this page be merged with the enwiki:Schist page? Can this even be done? This wikidata page seems to be creating all sorts of problems to link different language pages dealing with the same subject. Thank you, Cfosp1 (talk) 15:25, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The English article on Schist seems to take a narrower approach than the German article, which is more broadly related to all forms of shistose rocks, with slate being a subsection within the German article. Whilst both are metamorphic rocks, as a non-expert I do tend to regard slate and schist as different subjects, with different levels of metamorphism. The solution is probably a discussion with geological experts, so maybe this is worth raising at the talk page of WP:WikiProject Geology. Yes, articles can be merged after a discussion. Were that merge to happen, then I guess there would be no issue in reassigning wikidata item numbers. But this isn't an area I'd want to jump in to without good, current geological knowledge and some understanding of a range of languages! Nick Moyes (talk) 17:25, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your quick reply, Nick! I did not pick up on the subsections in the German article which are covered in separate articles in English, the English Schist being one of them. The English terms are already quoted in parentheticals within the German subsections and could be linked to the respective English article. From what I read, it doesn't seem to be possible to link back from the English article to the subsection within the German article, am I correct?

Thanks again, Cfosp1 (talk) 17:50, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cfosp1 This is known as the Bonnie and Clyde problem on Wikidata, see d:Help:Handling sitelinks overlapping multiple items ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 19:40, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Shushugah, this is exactly what I was looking for! Cfosp1 (talk) 22:22, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing Errors

I run IT for Blumont, Inc., a firm that was created out of the ashes of another firm IRD that was plagued with various scandals. At this point, IRD does not exist as a going concern and Blumont is new non-profit entity working in the humanitarian assistance space. Our first problem is establishing Blumont as an entity unto itself. When you search for Blumont, IRD is returned, but IRD is not the same thing. How does one go about establishing a fresh identity (i.e. creating a "Blumont" page where information about Blumont can be seen? Thanks! Svickland (talk) 17:02, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link: International Relief and Development Inc. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 17:07, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Svickland: Welcome to the Teahouse! Creating a new Wikipedia article can be quite challenging, especially when you have a conflict of interest (COI). To learn how to edit, I suggest you start at Help:Introduction. I suggest spending a significant amount of time editing existing articles to hone your skills. When you're ready to create an article, you would gather multiple published independent reliable sources that have provided significant coverage of the company, and determine whether the sources demonstrate that the company meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, called "notability". If so, you could create an account and declare your COI on your user page. Then follow the instructions at Help:Your first article and summarize what the sources have published, and be prepared for a process that may include months of waiting for review, declines, and rewrites, before an article is accepted. If you are successful, then you could never edit the article directly due to your COI, but could submit edit requests on the article talk page.

You may also post edit requests at Talk: International Relief and Development Inc. to share any suggestions to improve this article. Hope this helps. GoingBatty (talk) 17:53, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Svickland. Please note that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a business directory. An article does not cease to be relevant because its subject no longer exists, and helping anybody to "establish a fresh identity" is no part of Wikipedia's purposes.

What you should do is:

First and most importantly, make a formal declaration of yourself as a paid editor (see that link for how to do so). This is mandatory as part of Wikipedia's terms of service.
Then you should open a discussion about the issue on Talk: International Relief and Development Inc.. Note that you should on no account edit that article directly, but you may request edits to it.
If there has been enough independent writing about Blumont specifically to make it meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, then there could be a separate article about it. Ideally you would not write it because of your conflict of interest, but you are not forbidden to do so - as GoingBatty explained.
If there is not yet enough material for a standalone article, then a separate article is not possible; but something can go into the existing article. A quick look suggests to me that people have tried to do this, but in a cack-handed fashion. When I get a chance, I will have a look and see if I can improve it. But note that, even here, we should be constrained by what has been published in independent sources.

ColinFine (talk) 23:26, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When its own mission statement is a string of buzzwords, it makes me wonder whether it has changed since its corrupt past. Maproom (talk) 23:47, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Correct citation form

Please look at User:Deisenbe/sandbox/Ethiopian the section Further reading. Is there any way to fix this so it doesn't produce an error message? deisenbe (talk) 17:55, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

You need to add a URL to the template for it to fully generate.

Happy editing! Geardona (talk to me?) 18:51, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deisenbe, the URL lacked "https://". I added that which eliminated the error message. Cullen328 (talk) 18:55, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

on being sure images are in no way owned by disney

is there a way, here or in commons, to upload images directly into the public domain (like with cc0 i guess)?

i really don't want all this complicated credit stuff clogging up a picture of my cat cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 17:55, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Cogsan. Images and animations created by Walt Disney and his employees and businesses in 1928 or before are now in the public domain. Steamboat Willie is the best known example but there are several others. That material can be freely shared by anyone for any purpose. Anything created more recently is still protected by Disney copyrights until 95 years has passed since publication. If you are the indisputable copyright holder of your cat picture, then you can freely give up your copyright and put the image into the public domain. But if the cat picture is derivative of a cat image created by Disney's businesses, then you have no right to do so. Cullen328 (talk) 18:39, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

yes, the matter is how i can punt the cat picture (which is mine, no chance of disney owning it) straight into the public domain

unless i was mistaken, and the commons license is basically just "public domain but you can't say you took the picture" cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 18:52, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cogsan, when you release any of your copyrighted material into the public domain, you give up the requirement of attribution to you. If you want the image to be attributed to you, then use an acceptable Creative Commons license instead. Cullen328 (talk) 19:00, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

yes, and what i want is specifically to not require the image to be attributed to me cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 19:12, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

nvm i figured it out

thanks cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 20:46, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just some copyright confusion.

I am trying to wrap my head around image copyrights, what can and cannot be used here, and I've read a few pages but It's just not getting through. I have this image here that I want to use for this page on the respective fly. Could someone tell me if this image is okay under the copyright?

Also, I keep forgetting where I am supposed to sign.. here? Parameci (talk) Parameci (talk) 18:20, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's two of me! I think there's an automatic signage here. My bad. Parameci (talk) 18:21, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Parameci. That image is licensed under "CC BY-NC 4.0 DEED - Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International". The critical factor is "NC" which is the abbreviation for "NonCommercial". That license is not acceptable on Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons because our stated goal is to allow anyone to re-use as much of our content as possible for any use at all, including commercial uses, such as books, magazines, movies, advertiser supported websites, posters, t-shirts and the like. So, if you see "NC" in a license, it is no good for use on Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 18:48, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, thank you! Parameci (talk) 20:12, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

you can sign at the end of your posts using ~~~~ to form a signature, although it is normally appended automatically. Geardona (talk to me?) 18:50, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Orange Hill 67.71.150.211 (talk) 20:30, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

High G 67.71.150.211 (talk) 20:31, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please use WP:SANDBOX for test edits. RudolfRed (talk) 20:44, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Cana(pown)

Rhymes and Memos 67.71.150.211 (talk) 20:29, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

McDuffie 67.71.150.211 (talk) 20:30, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there—welcome to the Teahouse! Is there something we can help with? Bsoyka (t • c • g) 20:35, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any good articles out there?

Hi i'm wondering if there are any good articles in Wikipedia, if so mention them! Thanks! =D Jude marrero (talk) 20:31, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jude marrero: Hey there! You're not gonna believe this one; we actually have an entire list of articles that have been thoroughly reviewed to meet the "good article criteria"! Happy reading/editing! Bsoyka (t • c • g) 20:34, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In addition there is also the Featured article list which are better than the good articles NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 20:50, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA and Fa together are a bit less than one percent of all English language articles. David notMD (talk) 22:26, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to download a table?

I would love to be able to download the Supreme Court Justice's table of information. As seen here.

List of justices of the Supreme Court of the United States

It would be great if there was a way to download the table as a CSV or similar file, so that if i wanted to work with that data, I could download it in a workable format, instead of as a PDF, which is the current option. 2600:6C88:B140:A4:D94C:4CED:D1CC:2424 (talk) 20:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For instance, the Library of Congress has a table of supreme court justices that you can download. Could wikipedia implement something like this?

https://constitution.congress.gov/resources/supreme-court-justices/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C88:B140:A4:D94C:4CED:D1CC:2424 (talk) 21:37, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is a way to do that directly. I am not sure if there is an easier workaround, but I know Microsoft Excel allows you to import tables from the web. Ca ^{talk to me!} 23:51, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse! Have you tried copying the table and pasting it into a blank Excel workbook? GoingBatty (talk) 04:15, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TWL

I've never used the Wikipedia Library, but today I've decided to try it out.

I'm completely baffled.

I've made it to this page – how do I read the paper? Is there something I don't understand? Thanks, 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 21:21, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide the DOI/other reference for the paper in question? Sharing TWL links, in my personal experience, is clunky. Remsense留 21:27, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Title: "Phylogeny, historical biogeography and body size evolution in Pacific Island Crocodile skinks Tribolonotus (Squamata; Scincidae)";doi:10.1016/j.ympev.2010.06.005. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 21:52, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much: here are the exact steps I took to get the PDF of your paper. These aren't the required steps by any means, but they're sure to work:

Paste Phylogeny, historical biogeography and body size evolution in Pacific Island Crocodile skinks Tribolonotus into the search bar on the TWL landing page.
Click on the first result.
Click on "Full Text Finder" on the left hand side of the page.
You should have arrived at ScienceDirect, where you can click the "View PDF" button.

Sorry if that's not helpful in general. If you have more questions let me know! Remsense留 21:56, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, it works! Thank-you! 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 21:58, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome—TWL is a bit clunky, and it takes a little time to get used to what you can and can't put where to get what you're looking for, but once you do it becomes pretty easy.

Often, you can replace the beginning of standard vendor URL with the "TWL URL": e.g. if you have https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1055790310002642?via%3Dihub, you can change it to https://www-sciencedirect-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/science/article/pii/S1055790310002642?via%3Dihub so you don't have to search through the TWL system. Cheers! Remsense留 22:00, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edited a page for the first time

Hello!

I am new here, and I added some information to the page of the video game DemonStar. I've added a new paragraph about the newly released remastered edition (at the very bottom of the article).

I've read through all the guide lines and I think (hope :) ) I did everything right.

It's my very first edit though, could someone please take a look before it gets published?

All the best, Ray Ray011982 (talk) 22:16, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ray011982: Hello! We can't see your edit before you publish it. I guess you are in preview mode right now. Just be bold and publish it, if there is something wrong with it, it will be easy to fix. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 22:19, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

) Okay, I've published it! Ray011982 (talk) 22:22, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link: DemonStar § Remastered version Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 22:39, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ray011982, and welcome to the Teahouse. Well done for making an edit and citing a source.

The problem with your edit is that it is cited to Mountain King Studios, the developer, and so is not independent. While non-independent sources can be used for some things (eg if you had an independent source that discussed the release but did not give the date, then you could supply the date from that source.

But what you have added is basically marketing hype: Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. You need to find an independent source - perhaps a review of the new version (as long as it is published in a reliable place). Without it, the most that should be said is that a new version was published in 2023 - and personally, I think that if you can't find an independent source that talks about the new version, I don't think it belongs in the article at all. ColinFine (talk) 23:40, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Colin, thank you for your feedback!

I see your point and understand what you mean. It was not my intention to do advertising, even since I only reported technical details of that game - similar to the informations given in the paragraph Gameplay ("The game features eighteen levels, a two-player local co-operative game mode, and a unlockable level editor.") and the paragraph Development and release ("DemonStar was re-released in 2003 as DemonStar: Secret Missions. Released in two parts, Secret Missions used an enhanced version of the original engine and new music."). And my text does not contain any personal opinions or even recommendations.

Those technical informations can be proven correct not only by the developer's homepage (which is also quoted as a source for the aforementioned information given in "Gameplay" and "Development and release"), but also by YouTube videos showing actual gameplay. Unfortunately there are no official reviews in gaming magazines or gaming homepages yet, because the release happened very recently.

My intention was solely to keep the DemonStar article up to date and to submit new information related to it. I am sorry if I violated any rules with my first edit - and if I did, it was definitely not on purpose! Ray011982 (talk) 01:37, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, Ray011982. I realised in my previous reply that I didn't emphasise enough what a good job you had done for a first timer: you found and correctly cited a source, which many new editors do not do.

I realise that you were not intending promotion, and you haven't broken any rules. But what the producers of a product say about that product, even "technical details" is often just that. They want people to know how wonderful they are and how wonderful the product is, and they say things that most of the rest of the world either doesn't care about or thinks is just spin. This is why we so much prefer independent sources. If an independent reviewer talks excitedly about the "new high resolution graphics" then we might mention that in the article. But if the producers say it, so what? What are they comparing it to? To the old version? Well, you'd be disappointed if it weren't higher resolution, wouldn't you? That looks like run-of-the-mill hype.

I recognise that you want to keep the article up to date, and that's great. But until somebody independent takes note of the change and writes about it in a reliable source, I don't believe it belongs in the article, so I have removed your addition.

Please don't lose heart - this is how Wikipedia happens (see WP:BRD). And somebody might disagree with me: it's all about editorial discretion, and consensus.

When an independent source chooses to talk about the new edition (specifically) you're welcome to reinstate it - but make sure you base what you write on what the independent source says, not on what the manufacturers say. ColinFine (talk) 12:04, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking unbiased editor input

I'm looking for a second set of editor eyes to weigh in on the tags on the article on Amy Karle. The article had issues. Editor Netherzone has now almost completely re-written the article with the exception of 4 lines, see the Talk Page. The issue that I see that remains is regarding the NFT section, the sources are bad and it reads promotional. Would someone with editing status to do so review and remove or update? Once that has been done, can these tags now be removed? Would you please weigh in to establish consensus or boldly remove if it's time to do so?

Note: Editor Hipal has been continually adding and re-adding tags and unhelpful comments, not sure if this editor is unaffiliated or neutral. I am not affiliated nor paid, I choose to edit as an IP editor. Mentioning this as there seems to be bias against IP editors mentioned on the talk page.

I'm seeking to improve the tag situation and want to ensure that it is done correctly. Thank you 205.220.129.27 (talk) 23:49, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Sorry for the late reply, im not entirely sure what the question is, but I would recommend trying to find consensus on the talk page. If you still have a specific question we can answer it here.

Hope this helps. Geardona (talk to me?) 00:23, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, The specific questions are:

1) Would someone with editing status to do so review and remove or update the NFT paragraph on Amy Karle? That seems promotional and has poor refs. Page is protected in a way that I can't make that edit.

2) The page has been almost completely re-written since the tags were added. Can these tags now be removed? If so, would unbiased editors please remove or weigh in on the talk page to establish consensus?

205.220.129.27 (talk) 205.220.129.27 (talk) 00:29, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've trimmed down the paragraph, how does that look? Remsense留 00:33, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Remsense.

What do you think about the tags on the article? The article has been almost completely re-written since the tags were added [1] Do you think the COI tag still applies or can it be removed since it was rewritten? If so would you remove the tag or weigh in on the talk page?

205.220.129.27 (talk) 01:04, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would remove the COI tag, but perhaps put a {{POV}} tag if you think it is still biased. Remsense留 01:15, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ Remsense留 would you please share this message you just wrote / your opinion on the Talk:Amy Karle page at the bottom for discussing consensus? 205.220.129.27 (talk) 02:16, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question

How am I going to rename the account If the reename policy requires The user is not seeking the rename to conceal or obfuscate bad conduct?? O Combatente Dourado (talk) 00:24, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any "bad conduct" so far in your two edits, so all else being equal, you would be fine to rename your account. Could you give more information as to what your concern is? Remsense留 00:26, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since you've only just started, it's easier to just abandon this account and make a new one. -- asilvering (talk) 01:05, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

O Combatente Dourado, have you engaged in any bad conduct with this or any other account, or from an IP address? Cullen328 (talk) 08:24, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Default appearance changes

I've been a user for about a decade, and I've most often used themes like Monobook when logged-in. Only in recent weeks I've noticed what Wiki looks like when logged out now, and ummmm... while it's not a total redesign, there seems to be way too much whitespace even on Desktop mode, like the site is trying way too hard to fit smartphones and current trends. I have remarked upon this a few years ago on MediaWiki, with its own little ramble, and my points still largely stand (perhaps a bit more nuanced).

Most simply put, I believe to fit within our own guidelines, Wikipedia should look timeless (no theme pun intended) and not overly flat and eye-glaring (note that app aside, WP:DARK mode isn't even "official" policy yet). Depth is good, shading is good, skeumorphism is good, looking a bit authoritative and not cheap tabloid site or social media-y is good. That doesn't make things outdated (and if anything, ultra-minimalism is beginning to seem dated now), it just gives roots fitting the Gestalt and teleology of what we are striving to do as a wellfount of learning. At the very least, the masses need some relief for their eyes, my goodness.--~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 02:54, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sigehelmus: This isn't really anything anyone here can help with – you might instead like to contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Evaluation of Vector 2022. Tollens (talk) 03:01, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and I'm pleased yet slightly embarrassed I mentioned your dark mode project explicitly haha.--~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 03:07, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When that change was made, I quickly went back to Vector 2010, and am editing happily with a skin that is 14 years old but works just fine. Cullen328 (talk) 08:30, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

user page in more than one language

Hi,

I can see my user page in the English Wikipedia but not in the Hebrew one. Any solutions?

https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/משתמש:Kagmot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kagmot

Is there a way to see my user page in both Wikis

Thanks, Guy Kagmot (talk) 03:07, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kagmot: You can create your userpage at Meta-Wiki if you like – anything you place there is displayed as your userpage on all Wikimedia wikis where your userpage has not been created. Tollens (talk) 03:13, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a tab to a Meetup page

Hi, I'm working on editing a Meetup page with some existing tabs along the top and would like to add another tab. I looked at the markup text and didn't see anything that showed the specific list of existing tabs. I would appreciate any advice on how to add an additional tab! Chrysanthemum123 (talk) 03:11, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chrysanthemum123: Would you mind providing a link to the page? I'm not certain what tabs you're referring to but might be able to help if I can look at the page source. Tollens (talk) 03:18, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Tollens: It's this page: Wikipedia:Meetup/ArtAndFeminism Chrysanthemum123 (talk) 03:21, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chrysanthemum123: Looks like you'll want to edit Wikipedia:Meetup/ArtAndFeminism/Tab header – it's being transcluded onto the page you linked (by the second line of the source in the page you linked, if you're interested). Tollens (talk) 03:25, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tollens Wow thanks so much! This is a big help. Chrysanthemum123 (talk) 03:26, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How to do a blockquote on a talk page

How to do a blockquote on a talk page Samorost1 (talk) 08:52, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay just found it, just put in <blockquote>-tags. Samorost1 (talk) 08:56, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Samorost1: You can alternatively use {{tqb}} or {{tqbm}} if you prefer. Tollens (talk) 09:01, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

that's nice, thank you :) Samorost1 (talk) 12:11, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tollens i tried the "insert template" button/popup searching for "quote" but the one thing i tried (the first result) gave an error "due to absence of TemplateData" so i gave up. now checking again i don't even see "talk quote block" on there. is it missing on purpose? i guess talk pages aren't that important. weird though that the first template that comes up is one that has no "template data". 🤷 Samorost1 (talk) 12:17, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Samorost1: Welcome to the Teahouse. You should still be able to use it even if TemplateData hasn't been assigned to it. It just means you'll have to input the parameter fields manually. Usually when it comes to templates it's less cumbersome to add/edit them in source editor. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:03, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tenryuu: thank you. sounds plausible but i obviously can only add/edit templates in source that i already know. Samorost1 (talk) 14:50, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Samorost1: Well Tollens mentioned the template above, so you know about it already. Most templates have documentation on how to use them, so I'd suggest reading up on that. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:23, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tenryuu: No need to be a douchebag. I was telling you what I did **before** I asked here. I was telling you that it lead to an **error**. I already **used** the template Tollens gave me. I know, your neckbeard is probably itchy and whatnot, but maybe don't assume everyone else is stupid? Is today the international day of the cunt or anything? This has to be the 10th exchange today that was like this. Samorost1 (talk) 23:01, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Samorost1: If I came off as standoffish, I do apologise, but I will ask you to dial back on the personal attacks like referring to another user on here as a douchebag, as that is sanctionable, and strike that. I have to wonder how you're using the visual editor on a namespace like talk pages, as it's intentionally suppressed there without a little URL finangling. Your only edits today were to this page and Talk:Percentage point, so I fail to see how this would be the 10th exchange today that involved you. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:16, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Citations and Sources

Draft:Daniel Halfon

Hi. My article was declined. I am haing difficulty in understanding what constitutes a reliable source. I believed that all of the sources I have cited are authentic. Can you help me by telling which of the sources I have cited are OK and which are not?

SPH1955 (talk) 09:21, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SPH1955, hello! While a source being authentically transmitted is a part of it being considered "reliable", reliable sources have to be WP:verifiable as well as being able to plausibly contribute towards establishing a neutral point of view of the subject—which does not mean that they are themselves neutral, but that their biases can be weighed against those of other sources. The criteria for reliable sources are generally include that they are not close to the subject of the article. Additionally, to establish notability, sources have to be directly about the subject, as opposed to briefly mentioning them in passing, or not mentioning them at all. Going through the sources, skipping over the ones that are directly connected to the subject or organizations the subject belongs to:

The http://jmwc.org reference briefly mentions an album release. Since it is not an in-depth review, it would generally not be considered significant coverage of a release or artist.
Three musicological papers by Essica Marks, which analyze recordings performed by the subject, and only mention the subject in passing. This would not be considered significant coverage, generally.
While this article features the subject repeatedly, the subject is primarily on the work collated by the subject and its historical context. I would consider this to be borderline as significant coverage.
The article Congregation Shearith Israel is cited. As an aside, you can't cite Wikipedia on Wikipedia.

I would say that these sources as presented do not quite establish notability for the subject. However, the first link mentions a full review of their work in the Jersusalem Post. I think if this is a substantial review, it would go a long way to establishing notability, but generally having several such reviews would be best.
Hope this helps, cheers. Remsense留 09:43, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is "30"

Another editor said:

As I've said - take this to DRN and get an answer there. After all, you originally stated a desire to do exactly that. You can no longer use 3O however, as there has been input from another editor.

What does he mean by "30"? Z80Spectrum (talk) 09:24, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I think you are referring to Third opinion. 331dot (talk) 09:27, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks.

However, I now don't understand why am I not able to use "third opinion" anymore. In short, there was a disagreement between the two of us, and then a third editor has joined in by himself. Does that count as "third opinion"?

Can I still get another editor to join the discussion by exercising "third opinion", if I wanted to? Also, can I request editors from related articles to join the discussion? Z80Spectrum (talk) 09:42, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly see how this could be confusing, though – the second character there is an uppercase O, not a zero. Tollens (talk) 09:28, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Z80Spectrum, the Third Opinion process is for disagreements between two and only two editors, and pulls in an uninvolved third person to evaluate both sides and give their opinion. If another editor comments on the dispute on their own, then three people are now involved, and the Third Opinion process no longer applies. There are other forms of dispute resolution available, though. Cullen328 (talk) 10:00, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, got it. Z80Spectrum (talk) 10:07, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

article rejection

i gave multiple refrences, 10+, but got message - This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significantcoverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia. Txtasad (talk) 09:33, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Txtasad: The references provided unfortunately don't meet those criteria. Refs 2, 4, 5, 7, and 8 all appear to not be independent of the subject, ref 1 does not mention the subject at all, and ref 3 contains only a passing mention. Ref 6 appears very questionable – not only is the interview structured in such a way that it verges on non-independent, the site which hosts it appears to simply host anything (see the next "Mastering Character Development with DND 5e Backgrounds" and previous "Quizlet-Like Apps: Discover Best Education Tools") so this is quite possibly a self-published source. I notice your username appears related to the person you are writing about – if this is you, please be aware that writing autobiographies is strongly discouraged. Tollens (talk) 09:48, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

first, thanks for your response and clarification. reference 1 mentions with name, photo and a small under our pioneer 2014-2016 section (nit sikkim wdc). For 'appear to not be independent of the subject' do u mean they talk on the same subject? and for ref 6 how do i prove it otherwise? ref 3 - passing refrence - there are multiple publication published similar release, so can i club them or can't use them at all?

Thanks once again Txtasad (talk) 13:20, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Txtasad. The entire purpose of a reference is to allow a reader anywhere to verify some information claimed in an article.

Your reference 1, as Tollens said, does not even mention Asad - except, it appears, if you pick on a button and then another button, that the reader has no way of knowing they are expected to pick.

But even if I pick that button and then that other button, this is what we call a "passing mention". It says that he was "technical team". It does not verify so much as a single word of He did his graduation from National Institute of Technology (NIT) Sikkim , an institute of National Importance in India, majoring in Computer Science Engineering. He was instrumental in pioneering Web Development Cell and actively contributed to institutes website. It is therefore a useless reference, and the paragraph is unsourced.

LinkedIn and Instagram are not reliable sources, because there is nobody exercising any kind of editoral control over them. Anybody can claim anything they choose on media like those. (I'm not saying that what those particular pages say is false: I am saying that a reader has no way of knowing whether they are accurate). If the only source you have for some information is on social media, then the information does not belong in a Wikipedia article.

Like most people who make the mistake of trying to create a new article in Wikipedia before they have spent the time to learn how Wikipedia works, you have created your draft BACKWARDS: you have written what you know, and then looked for sources. The only effective way to write an article is first to find the sources (that each individually meet the criteria in the golden rule), and then to write an article based on what those sources say, not on what you know. ColinFine (talk) 17:25, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

that was quiet clearly explained. thanks a lot:) will do the needful Txtasad (talk) 08:08, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Publishing an article

I want to publish an article about Noekred but my page got deleted. How can I go forward? Anit.neokred (talk) 09:59, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anit.neokred your deleted sandbox page was quite lengthy, highly promotional and entirely unreferenced. It was completely inappropriate for this encyclopedia. You need to read and study Your first article, and begin by gathering references to reliable published sources independent of this company that devote significant coverage to this company. Providing those references is mandatory and should be considered the first step in writing an acceptable Wikipedia article. Trying to write an article without references is a waste of everyone's time. As is trying to write in a promotional style. Cullen328 (talk) 10:10, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By taking this elsewhere. Wikipedia is not an advertising platform. Before trying to creating an article please read the messages and links on your talk page, especially WP:YFA and WP:COI. Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:05, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Submission at Articles for creation: Unichiral (December 31)

Hello! My above draft article on “Unichiral” has been reviewed. I understand the draft article is not accepted for the reasons that include - the article looks like an essay, contains opinion on the original research, lacks encyclopedic style. It would be nice if one of the experienced editors could guide/help me to improve the article further to qualify as a Wikipedia page. Thanks for your time. Valliappan Kannappan (talk) 10:02, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link: Draft:Unichiral Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 10:13, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Valliappan Kannappan. Your draft reads more like a dictionary definition to me, as opposed to an encyclopedia article. As a matter of policy, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Focus on the topic, not the word as a word. This is a general purpose encyclopedia, and the lead section should be written at the summary and introductory level. Trying to define a highly technical word using another highly technical word like "enantiomer" and then later "chirality" is the wrong approach. You need to simplify the topic by writing at the high school senior or college freshman level in the first few sentences. In addition, use wikilinks to concepts like Enantiomer for the benefit of readers. Your draft concludes with a section called "Advantages and uniqueness", which in two detailed sentences draws sweeping conclusions about the utility of this term. The section is unreferenced. I immediately think, "Who said so, and where and when?" Is it you, the author of the draft? If so, then please be aware that original research is not permitted on Wikipedia. If this section summarizes the published conclusions of an expert in the field, then cite the expert with complete bibliographic details. Cullen328 (talk) 10:45, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Cullen328. Thanks for the observations that you have made. I shall edit the draft in those lines and get back to you. Valliappan Kannappan (talk) 15:11, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Page Review!

Hello guys, Can anyone Improve this draft Draft:90's - A Middle Class Biopic for a Good Acceptance! Milli's Boy (talk) 12:08, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

After a brief skim of the page it seems to be a ok article, although the AFC reviewer may have some other comments! Geardona (talk to me?) 12:47, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Milli's Boy, we're told that the image used is in the public domain; more specifically, that: Uploaded a work by This is a Webseries Poster. Uploaded by the Producer of the Webseries Naveen Medaram. As it was a Webseries Poster it can be used in Public domain. Which don't have Any CopyRights. from https://twitter.com/NaveenMedaram/status/1743111741037596777/photo/1 with UploadWizard. This makes little sense to me. If you're saying that the image is in the public domain, then precisely where is the evidence for this? Certainly the Twitter post doesn't say it's in the public domain. (And why, after uploading it, did you upload a smaller version of the same thing? -- Hoary (talk) 13:10, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that this webseries poster on Twitter would be a Public domain which doesnt have copyright.So have used the poster.

Removing them. Milli's Boy (talk) 13:15, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, public domain can be a confusing matter. Unless the person publishing the work says that it is not copyrighted, it's probably not in public domain. See WP:COPYRIGHT for more info Ca ^{talk to me!} 14:14, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thanks for the Information. I have Removed the image. Milli's Boy (talk) 14:35, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Creating policy to support an argument

On Talk:List of winners of the Rotterdam Marathon, I'm having a discussion with another user about the use of abbreviations, tooltips, and legends in this list article. And I just discovered that earlier today this user has added a section to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Tables in support of his argument. I've noted this on the talk pages of the list article and of the MoS page, but I would like to ask someone with experience writing in the Wikipedia namespace to weigh in, because what is happening here doesn't seem right. – Editør (talk) 12:29, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to the teahouse,

I would encourage you to bring this issue up on the talk page for the policy you are referring to, and try to find consensus there, or file a request for comment.

Thanks Geardona (talk to me?) 12:51, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had already brought it up on the two talk pages, but now I've added a second message at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Tables#Creating policy to support an argument. If that doesn't lead to anything, I will consider an RfC. Thanks. – Editør (talk) 13:08, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Group-IB Company Page

Hello,

We would like to publish a company page for one of our Clients, Group-IB, how can we do that? 80.227.124.67 (talk) 13:51, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You don't, because we don't have company pages here. We have articles about companies that meet our criteria, see WP:ORG; these are typically written by independent editors. You are required by the Terms of Use to declare your paid status, see WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 13:56, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also asked - and answered- at the Help Desk. Please register for a free account if you plan to continue. Learn how Wikipedia actually works before you try to take money from anyone y attempting to write a new article. Finally, don't waste volunteer time by asking the same question at two different help forums at the same time. That is seen as very bad practice. Thank you. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:43, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WikiLoop DoubleCheck

Hello, I joined Wikipedia a few years ago as a novice editor and I would edit existing articles. After a few months, I got into fixing vandalism edits through the WikiLoop DoubleCheck link that I would access from the Task Center. Unfortunately, I became super busy and had to go offline. I'd like to start where I left off but it seems the WikiLoop DoubleCheck link is broken. Is this a problem from my side or has this application been disabled? And if it has, how can I continue to check for vandalism? Nocturne 963 (talk) 14:04, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It appears busted. I would use the antivandal script (rollback required) or use Twinkle with recent changes. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 14:12, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

okay, thank you so much! Nocturne 963 (talk) 05:05, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How can provide verification for an email reference source?

On https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitchelstown, I supplied a footnote source (to an email I received from an official body), but since then someone added '[verification needed]' to the footnote source (currently footnote no. 11). Please advise what further verification I could supply? I could share the original email but that would take up a lot of textual space. Thanks, John J. Mullins Jjmullins (talk) 15:13, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jjmullins: Hello! If this email isn't published anywhere it can't be considered a reliable source. And I don't think it would be acceptable to just post the email itself on the Wikipedia page. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 15:15, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

By verification I assume the editor was asking for verification that the email was legitimately from the organization. As noted previously, emails are normally not reliable sources, so you most likely need a better source.

Thanks Geardona (talk to me?) 15:16, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I thought by giving the name of the official body and the date of the email that the source email could be checked by a reader.

As original research was undertaken by Ireland's Chief Placename Officer to solve my enquiry, and as he did not publish his research finding elsewhere (to my knowledge), I believe that his email is the only source of that information available. As a result of my enquiry, he added the Irish language version to the official website at https://www.logainm.ie/en/1410655, but that does not explain the etymological link, which he did in the email he sent to me on completing his research on the matter.

It would be a loss to the local community not to publish the result of that original research.

I am still open to advice from you. Jjmullins (talk) 15:32, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Now that it is published you may use the data in the source.

Geardona (talk to me?) 15:34, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you could reach out and get it published somewhere this would clear all of the issues up. Geardona (talk to me?) 15:35, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jjmullins, please read No original research, which is a core content policy. Unless the contents of this email have been published in a reliable source with editorial control and a reputation for accuracy, it cannot be used on Wikipedia in any way. I suggest that you contact a reputable local historical society journal to see if they would be interested in publishing an article about the etymology. Once published, it could be used as a reference on Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 19:26, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I will contact Ireland's Chief Placename Officer and ask if he publishes findings in any journal.

Thanks.

J. Mullins Jjmullins (talk) 19:47, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In-line update needed thing?

I swear I've seen it before but now I can't remember it. I know there's the 'needs update' template, but in this case (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pueblo_Depot_Activity) it's just one part of one section that needs an update, specifically because it says "It is scheduled for closure in 2022 when it completes what will be its last mission, the safe elimination of all remaining chemical stockpiles." This particular sentence, and the one after it, definitely need an update, and I'm not sure if the whole template is really appropriate here, and I'm sure I've seen some kind of tag similar to 'citation needed' but 'update needed' or something like that. Eumetazoa (talk) 16:02, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

^{[needs update]} Geardona (talk to me?) 16:03, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{{update-inline}} Geardona (talk to me?) 16:03, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Approve articles

What should I do to get my article approved on Wiki? Lit.page (talk) 16:49, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lit.page: Hello! Your submission was declined and the editor pointed out what needs to be done, I'll copy it here:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 16:52, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft Draft:Murielle El Hajj needs to be written in a neutral tone and should refer to reliable, independent sources. Theroadislong (talk) 16:55, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I want to delete the draft completely. Lit.page (talk) 17:03, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And now deleted. David notMD (talk) 18:15, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fields empty

If some fields remain empty inside the infobox, can we remove them? Like I have done in this. Please guide me. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 17:27, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if a field is empty you can remove the parameter.

Happy editing! Geardona (talk to me?) 17:28, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Geardona, Thanks you. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 17:30, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Youknowwhoistheman: I'd give somewhat different advice. Unless there's some special reason to remove them (such as inapplicability in a specific article), it's better to leave the unfilled infobox parameters alone, because someone may come along and want to fill in one or more of the fields later. That's easier if the parameters are already present in the infobox. Deor (talk) 21:14, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Deor, yeah. Thats's great idea. I fully agree with you. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 21:20, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding an English page to a Romanian and Hebrew page

Dear team, My grandmother, Dorothea Livio, unfortunately passed away recently.

She was a famous Jewish singer from Romania living in Israel. There are already two exisiting pages of her, one in Romanian and one in Hebrew (included below for your reference).

Now I would also like to add an English version, however, as I am new to wikipedia I am not sure whether I should make an entire new page, of if I can somehow recylce the Romanian of Hebrew page and only provide a translation. Many thanks in advance for you help and consideration.

Romanian link: https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorothea_Livio

Hebrew link: https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%93%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%AA%D7%99%D7%90%D7%94_%D7%9C%D7%99%D7%91%D7%99%D7%95 Noamcosla (talk) 20:06, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Noamcosla May her memory be a blessing. English Wikipedia has different (more strict) requirements than Romanian or Hebrew Wikipedia. There is a guideline at WP:TRANSLATE but first you need to establish secondary, significant sources per WP:42. It is not relevant that there exists other editions in other Wikipedias. Doing a quick glance, I saw there was no WP:INLINE citation to verify any specific statements, which is not possible in English Wikipedia.

Welcome to the Teahouse! Creating a new article from scratch is extremely challenging, and new editors are strongly recommended to spend a few months learning how Wikipedia works, by making improvements to some of our existing six million articles before trying it. When you do decide to have a go at a new article, you are highly encouraged to read WP:Your first article. If you haven't already also check out WP:TUTORIAL; it's a lot of fun! Happy editing! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 20:14, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Noamcosla: Please don't ask at both the Teahouse and the Help Desk in order to prevent duplication of volunteer effort. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:57, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also see Help:Translation which includes all relevant information. Lectonar (talk) 10:38, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How to add HotDefaultSort?

Please help me for the gadget HotDefaultSort. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 20:22, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Youknowwhoistheman. User:BrandonXLF/HotDefaultSort is a user script and not a gadget so it cannot be installed on the Gadgets tab on preferences. Follow the installation instructions on the linked page. Others cannot do it for you. "common.js", "skin.js" and "global.js" are links in the instructions. Just pick one of them and come back if it doesn't work. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:54, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If a person was born with a different name than the one they use now, should their birth name be mentioned?

As an example, the New York Times reports that Haim Roet was born Hendrik Roet. Should his biography page on Wikipedia start with the phrase "Haim Roet (born Hendrik Roet) is...", or should I omit his birth name entirely from the article? JohnR1Roberts (talk) 22:45, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JohnR1Roberts: Hello! The birth name could be mentioned in the infobox and in the "Early life" ("Biography") section. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 22:48, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JohnR1Roberts: It depends on the context. See WP:DEADNAME, it has some guidance on when NOT to include the birth name if it is different. RudolfRed (talk) 01:02, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is my user page promotion?

Hey all,

I noticed on one of my edits to my userpage, there was a tag called Possible self promotion in userspace. Could someone take a look at my userpage (no promotion is intended, and I have no affiliation with the project, I just favor it a lot) and let me know if I should remove the logo?

Regards,

Lou '''Wiki''' (talk) 23:11, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OnlyNano, hello! That tag is added by an automated filter that is imperfect. Your userpage does not look like self-promotion to me, you shouldn't have anything to worry about. Cheers! Remsense留 23:16, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! That would make sense as it is a commercial logo. Have a good one :) '''Wiki''' (talk) 23:33, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, OnlyNano, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia. I agree with Remsense - I suspect that the filter was tripped by you putting a commercial logo on your page, but I'm only guessing.

However: if indeed you intend to document my life on this page, I would warn you against this. A user page is for telling about yourself as a Wikipedia editor. A small amount of biographical information outside your Wikipedia career is acceptable, but please check WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:UPYES. ColinFine (talk) 23:22, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, I'll check those pages out, and make sure the text I put on my userpage follows those guidelines. Much appreciated! I may consider linking a blog if I feel the need to write more than just general biographical information, and info about my Wikipedia career. Cheers! '''Wiki''' (talk) 23:32, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OnlyNano, your user page looks OK to me -- but your signature does not. Please make it read "OnlyNano". Gods know why people need to "personalize" their signatures, but if you want yours in yellow on black, or decorated with a rainbow-colored unicorn or whatever, then that would (probably) be OK, as long as it's readable as "OnlyNano". ("Probably", as it would depend on such matters as the dimensions of the unicorn.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:59, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personal opinions

Reading the article Sergei Rachmaninoff I am surprised to find, in addition to factual material, several personal opinions concerning Rachmaninoff's music, all of which reference a single book by someone named Max Harrison: [Rachmaninoff: Life, Works, Recordings (2006)]. According to Amazon, Harrison has written one other book on a classical composer [The Lieder of Brahms (1972)], and a large number of books on jazz. Looking at Amazon reader reviews of his Rachmaninoff book, my impression of the most useful of these, both extensive and thorough, are the two 2-star reviews. I'm not at all sure that Mr Harrison's personal opinions, alone, are appropriate for this WP article, certainly without a wider consensus. Several days ago I posted essentially this same notice at Rachmaninoff's talkpage, but I suspect that page is rarely monitored. Milkunderwood (talk) 01:53, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside: if you're curious, Talk:Sergei Rachmaninoff presently has 418 watchers. This number doesn't translate neatly into engagement, but it's some indication. You can see this information easily if you enable the XTools gadget in your preferences. Remsense留 02:33, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Milkunderwood, if you think that reader reviews of a book on the Amazon book (and everything else) peddling website are of any value whatsoever on Wikipedia, then I must inform you that you are incorrect. We do not rely on user generated reviews on Wikipedia in any way. Cullen328 (talk) 03:18, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, of course I understand your point. Looking at Amazon simply provides context for deciding whether Harrison's opinions on Rachmaninoff's music can meet Wikipedia's standards. Milkunderwood (talk) 04:40, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved. Cullen328 has found a professional review of Harrison's book, praising its reliability. Milkunderwood (talk) 05:44, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Works by Max Harrison are cited by several dozen other articles. Someone wanna make that link turn blue? DMacks (talk) 05:57, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do think the section on Sergei Rachmaninoff#Interpretations and some of the other sections have somewhat of an inappropriate tone and state opinions as facts. Galobtter (talk) 06:09, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. This is exactly what bothered me. If the article had said in the text that Max Harrison believes Rachmaninoff's (whatever composition, or music in general) is (whatever), this would be perfectly acceptable. Instead, there are only citations to "Harrison 2006 p. ---", leaving it to the reader to check the citation, figure out who Harrison might be, and whether he might be at all reliable. First, he has no article or stub in WP. I certainly agree that Amazon is not an acceptable source for WP, but it's a easy place to find out what an author has published. (His Rachmaninoff book seems to be out of print, and is quite expensive.) And when you find that he has written only two books about classical composers (Rachmaninoff and Brahms) but many books about jazz, this does not inspire a great deal of confidence. Milkunderwood (talk) 09:52, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Milkunderwood, if you want to make the argument that Harrison's book is not a reliable source, then Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard is the proper place for that. Cullen328 (talk) 18:59, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Picture for Infobox

Hello!

Could you please tell me which kind of video on youtube that we free to take a screenshot from? Press and fancam? Interview at event and exclusive interview at the magazine's office? How can we know if there's a copyright that not allow us to create a picture from the video? Miracle for0110 (talk) 02:06, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If something is not explicitly released with a free license, it is under copyright and cannot be freely used. We may not take screenshots from any video that hasn't been explicitly freely licensed. Remsense留 02:09, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Miracle for0110. The standard YouTube license is too restrictive for Wikipedia's purposes, but YouTube does give those uploading content the option of releasing it under a much less restrictive Creative Commons license that is OK for Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons. You need to check the YouTube video's description to see how it is being licensed. If it says that the video is released under a "Creative Commons" license it should be OK to take a screenshot and upload that screenshot to YouTube. I say should be OK because it depends on whether the content is 100% the original content of the YouTube uploader. Some people upload content that is a WP:Derivative work (i.e. content that incoporates copyrighted content created by others), and this makes taking screenshots a bit trickier because there might be multiple copyright holders involved. Some people also mistakenly/intentionally license their uploads as Creative Commons even when they don't own the copyright on it. So, it's best to look for official YouTube channels in which the uploader is pretty much without a doubt the sole copyright holder of the content they've uploaded. For example, all the content on Wikipedia Media Foundation's YouTube channel would, for the most part, be something you could take a screenshot of and upload to Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:36, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly @Remsense Thank you!

I opened the source from Lisa's picture for example and saw the licence that you mentioned. Miracle for0110 (talk) 03:48, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Miracle. One rider to MarchJuly's answer: not all CC licences are acceptable for Commons: some CC licences include "NC", for "non-commercial", and Commons does not accept those. The Lisa picture seems to be OK. ColinFine (talk) 11:33, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Google Docs in References

I am currently writing an article, and I found a court document that gives name and marriage infromation. However, I cannot find a website that holds the documents. There’s a Google Books page on it, but attempting to use the auto-generated citations doesn’t work.

While searching, I found a webpage, which had a file inside of it. After transferring that file to my Google Docs, I discovered it was the court document. It’s an official court document, but is on an unofficial service.

If I were to publicize the Google Docs file, which contains court document information, and link that as a reference, is that allowed by Wikipedia, or will I ave to find another method of referencing these documents.

If necessary, Google Doc with court document here.

If knowing the article I’m working on is necessary, it’s located in my sandbox. Roasted (talk) 04:10, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind Roasted (talk) 04:12, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roastedbeanz1, referencing a document does not necessary mean supplying direct access to it. For numerous reasons, I would not supply the Google Docs link when referencing the document—just use a template like {{cite document}}. Remsense留 04:15, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There’s a Google Books page on it, but attempting to use the auto-generated citations doesn’t work. Just enter the citation information manually. See Help:Referencing for beginners. It doesn't matter if you don't get all the formatting right, just the title, author, year, publisher, etc, just like if you were citing something somewhere other than a Wikipedia article draft.

Also, do be aware that relying on primary sources such as court records may indicate other sourcing problems with your article, and some editors may not accept them. Folly Mox (talk) 05:55, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey!

I was wondering if there is a job where I look through articles and revert vandalism. TheTeam219 (talk) 07:27, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, TheTeam219. Please read Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit. You may want to reconsider your username. Team accounts and shared accounts are not permitted. Cullen328 (talk) 07:38, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My username is just a random username I chose, but if you want I can change it to something else. TheTeam219 (talk) 07:40, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheTeam219 yes please do change it, usernames that imply a group are problematic. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:47, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright! Thanks for the heads up! TheTeam219 (talk) 07:48, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How do I change my name? TheTeam219 (talk) 07:49, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheTeam219 since you have a pretty new account, you can just abandon it and start again with a new username. You can leave a note on your userpages saying you've done so. The more complicated way is explained at WP:RENAME. -- asilvering (talk) 08:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok [[User: TheTeam219| AntiVandaliser2024 ({{User Talk: TheTeam219}} (talk) 08:18, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Translation of the page to English

Dear All,

I need this page to be translated: https://az.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elvin_Pa%C5%9Fayev (it has Azerbaijani and Russian versions, but not English) Could you guide me, please how should I proceed?

Thank you Jung808 (talk) 08:57, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Help:Translation for starters. Lectonar (talk) 09:07, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, read that carefully. Note that what you put on en-WP needs to meet the requirements of WP:N and WP:BLP, among other things. English WP may have stricter rules than some other WP:s. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:13, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IPA transcriptions of names

Why are only some names on wikipedia given an IPA transcription? It seems to be very inconsistent which names are given an IPA transcription and which ones aren't. If it is a just a matter of nobody has provided one yet, would it be looked down upon if my only contributions to wikipedia was to add IPA transcriptions? I'm sorry if this is the wrong place to ask this question, I have never contributed before. Thank you. 120.16.106.36 (talk) 11:11, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's partly a matter of "nobody has provided one yet"; but it's also a matter of estimated usefulness. There are many articles about, say, James Smiths; but their writers may well assume that most readers will already know that each would be /ˈdʒeɪmz ˈsmɪθ/ . [Sorry, too lazy to add the tie atop dʒ.] You're most welcome to add IPA where appropriate. -- Hoary (talk) 11:38, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome! This is absolutely the place for you to start asking, so you're on to a good WP-start. Does MOS:LEADPRON and Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Pronunciation#Appropriate_use help any? Inconsistency is very common on WP, we have 6,769,363 articles and 115,329 active editors, so please make improvement where you can, WP:BOLD is the law of the land. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:38, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. Generally, the answer is indeed that nobody has provided one yet. I think you would be welcome to provide them - make sure you read and understand WP:MOSPRON first. ColinFine (talk) 11:39, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a article

please help me to delete a article. I made it, but there are a lot of references that are not accurate and reliable and we are doing harm to the person and reputation.

This is the article

Stefano Černetić Bajsikus (talk) 13:01, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Bajsikus: you have proposed deletion ('PROD'), now you need to give it a week. You could alternatively have taken this to AFD, but that usually also takes a week. Speedy deletion has been declined. Not much more to do now but wait. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:06, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I should add that if you were hoping to create an article praising this person, and others have found somewhat more critical content to add, then this is the nature of Wikipedia articles – they can, and often do, take on a life of their own. I'm not sure that not liking the negative content is a particularly persuasive reason to delete this article, assuming of course that everything is properly backed up by reliable sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:10, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've removed the PROD. It's not that I've formed a final view on whether I personally think the article should be deleted, but looking at its history, deletion would clearly be controversial, so although it was fine to PROD in the first instance, this one needs discussion. The correct place for that is AfD; please do start an AfD discussion. This is also a process that will take at least a week. Elemimele (talk) 13:28, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've AfD'd it; Bajsikus, feel free to go to the deletion discussion and make your case. The link is on the article. Elemimele (talk) 13:36, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated File:Stefano Černetić.jpg for deletion as a possible copyright violation (cropped from a published image). MKFI (talk) 13:56, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Submission of my article has been declined

I would like to know additional information as to why this article was refused publication. Is it really poor sourcing, or does the tone of voice of the whole article need to be adjusted as well. Alternatively, is there something else in particular that is preventing the article from being published? Lyncher24 (talk) 13:22, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note for other editors - the user is working on three drafts, but was probably referring to Draft:Quality Unit, declined today. Greenman (talk) 13:52, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lyncher24 The draft needs to be less promotional and does not demonstrate notability. Read comments left by the declining reviewer. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 13:54, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The decline notice seems clear enough. It is both. As the notice says, "This submission appears to read more like an advertisement" and "This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article". I suggest using the links from the decline notice and following the guidelines there. Also, please see WP:COI and declare accordingly. Greenman (talk) 13:56, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

I am working on a page that needs a citation and I do have a credible source, but it is an email from someone who is affiliated with the organization can and how do I use this? Cyprus76 (talk) 15:05, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have them publish it on their website, this would count as WP:ABOUTSELF. Otherwise it is not verifiable. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 15:12, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Willie "The Lion" Smith

I am bringing this here because the Talk Page does not receive enough eyes. Recently an editor changed a 20 year long standing article name and Talk Page name from Willie "The Lion" Smith to Willie "the Lion" Smith stating MOS:THENICKNAME. However, this was not a "nickname" for Smith. It was a stage name and was printed as such in media, reviews, programs and on album covers, etc. Even Smith himself use "The" when he signed autographs. Similar to the WP article Bruce Springsteen where "The Boss" is capitalized. This should fall under Common Use. IMHO the section in MOS on nicknames is far too simplified and should not apply across the board for all names. I do not believe this change should have happened on Willie "The Lion" Smith page. Maineartists (talk) 16:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Maineartists. You have correctly opened a discussion on the article's talk page. What you didn't do was to ping Popcornfud, who is the other editor who we know is interested in this question - I have done so here, so they should see this entry, and hopefully go to the talk page and engage in discussion with you. Please wait several days before doing anything else. ColinFine (talk) 17:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How does a article become availible to public or is displayed afte completion ?

Hi there,

I had a question regarding articles that have been completed but do not show up in google searches, Like is there a criteria for a article to be verified or after some time it gets automatically becomes availible to Public?

just like this article which i made 1 monthe ago. 2023 Lakki Marwat operation. Rahim231 (talk) 16:57, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Rahim231. This is explained here: Wikipedia:Controlling search engine indexing. Hope that helps! Qcne (talk) 16:58, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the "Page information" on that article, you will see that it says "Indexing by robots: allowed".

This means that Wikipedia has done everything it can towards the article showing up in external searches. We have no control over what Google and other search engines do with it. ColinFine (talk) 17:21, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rahim231 and ColinFine: 2023 Lakki Marwat operation does not currently allow external indexing because it's newer than 90 days and hasn't been patrolled. "Page information" (action=info) can be wrong as mentioned at Wikipedia:Controlling search engine indexing#Indexing of articles ("mainspace"). The only reliable method to test whether indexing is disallowed for an article is to look for noindex in the HTML of the rendered page. 2023 Lakki Marwat operation says <meta name="robots" content="noindex,nofollow,max-image-preview:standard">. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:46, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I didn't know that. I was expecting to find something in the Page Information that specifically said whether it had been patrolled or not. ColinFine (talk) 19:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible for extensions like mw:Extension:PageTriage to interact with Page information but they don't always do it when it would make sense. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:56, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

editor forgets to sign a comment

if an editor, whether a username editor or IP editor forgets (or simply fails for some reason) to sign "~ ~ ~ ~" their comment, can I or should fill that in for them, and if so, how do i do that?

this was one example that i see of that here. "No A description of a public figure's politics that comes from any non-academic publication should always be viewed with suspicion. Doubly so if the publication also has different politics. Using a description like that as part of the lead in that person's bio is naive at best. There's a reason the page for Socialism doesn't contain a quote describing it from the Financial Times." (unsigned) Iljhgtn (talk) 17:03, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Iljhgtn: Hello! Use this: Template:Unsigned. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 17:19, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And if it's an IP editor, use Template:Unsigned IP. 57.140.16.1 (talk) 18:11, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

that did it. i am grateful for the assistance. Iljhgtn (talk) 20:01, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How to upload image in article?

I want to write an article but there is no option to upload a image, Please help.. Count with me (talk) 18:23, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Count with me. Your account is too new and too inexperienced to upload images or to directly create an article. Also, the references and the text are far more important than images. Please use the Articles for Creation process to draft your article, but it would be a good idea to spend some time improving existing articles first. Cullen328 (talk) 18:48, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

account question

hello everyone! I was wondering if you can make a custom account image, if so how? Jude Marrero \=D (talk) 20:18, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jude marrero. You can upload an image if you are the copyright holder and you agree to freely license it. You can then add that image to your user page. Or, you can use one of tens of millions of freely licensed images at Wikimedia Commons. Cullen328 (talk) 20:26, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by account image? The above assumes you want to display a photo to everybody on User:Jude marrero. Do you instead want to replace this icon for yourself next to your username at top of pages? PrimeHunter (talk) 20:56, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

yes! Jude Marrero \=D (talk) 21:08, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to complain about WP:COMPUNITS

I disagree with the policy WP:COMPUNITS . More precisely, the rules on using IEC prefixes with byte units: KiB, MiB, GiB; at the bottom of WP:COMPUNITS. What is the proper venue for complaints and suggestions? I think that international standards should be respected. Z80Spectrum (talk) 20:31, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Z80Spectrum: Start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers RudolfRed (talk) 20:34, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Z80Spectrum (talk) 20:47, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Z80Spectrum: it's worth noting that the calculations you are presenting at [2] are not something that can inform article content per WP:CALC. Those require interpretation and must be sourced. VQuakr (talk) 20:39, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am of the opinion that it depends on the interpretaion of WP:CALC . WP:CALC is pretty vague, and can be interpreted such that it fully supports my case.

Also, I think that my interpretation of WP:CALC is better, because it matches better with the generally accepted notion of what "original research" is .

Also, about that particular link that you have mentioned to my computation: the actual changes that were made to the article are not much different to the values present in the source of data. Even if WP:CALC does not apply, it will still be easy to change the three affected numbers so that they match the values explicitly mentioned in the data source. Z80Spectrum (talk) 20:56, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Z80Spectrum: WP:CALC says Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the results of the calculations are correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources. From my experience I am suggesting that it is unlikely that this standard would be found to apply. If you feel that WP:CALC applies, it is incumbent on you to positively establish consensus for its applicability. VQuakr (talk) 20:59, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to move this discussion to my talk page, or wherever, if it becomes too long.

I have a consensus: noone complained that the computations are incorrect. I think that is a "consensus". If someone complains, he can discuss the computation procedure with me. Z80Spectrum (talk) 21:07, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who participated in the discussion, this is not accurate. I disputed that they were routine, and that they were a meaningful reflection of sources.
Moreover, you lack consensus to such a degree that you have an open case at DRN about it. Remsense留 21:15, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have to dispute the accuracy, the results, or something like that.

Disputing that the computations are not "routine" is just your opinion. WP:CALC does not say where exactly is the boundary of "routine", where is a limit. For example, I consider as "routine" everything less than 500 characters in ANSI BASIC, not counting whitespaces. Perhaps, WP:CALC should be made more unambiguous. Z80Spectrum (talk) 21:31, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But, thanks fot the notice, I like to discuss things. Nothing better to do, I guess. Z80Spectrum (talk) 21:03, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I want to change name of a article in wikipedia

Hi, I want to change the name of a article in Wikipedia but i am getting error. Pavankalyan Yadav Panga (talk) 21:11, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pavankalyan Yadav Panga: Please provide some more information such as what article you are trying to move, the new name, and what the error is. RudolfRed (talk) 21:13, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalisim/Spam over in a deletion page

Hey, over on Articles_for_deletion- Stefano Cerneti we have a troll or vandal, or somebody with a very obvious COI, or something else entirely, no idea. I'm new here, and don't what to do, I removed the spam, but I would appreciate help from a moderator or admin or somebody similar. Thank you!! TransButterflyQueen Ɛï3 21:43, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[Smith_From_the_Land_of_Shadows-1] Smith, Donald B. (1990). From the Land of Shadows: the Making of Grey Owl. Saskatoon: Western Producer Prairie Books.

[2] Smith 1990, pp. 177–178, quoted in Doe 2005, p. 12

[1]

[2]