Wikipedia is an environment that is intended to be welcoming for all types of people. If you are only here to post slurs, you will quickly be blocked. This is a project to write an encyclopedia not to fool around. Basic common sense and decency should tell you it is inappropriate to post slurs, you shouldn't need a specific rule. 331dot (talk) 18:49, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have a question, my imagination is way too wide, but is it possible to create another sandbox? I promise I totally won’t make an entire whole different universe.
To be blunt: if you ever post offensive slurs anywhere on Wikipedia again, your IP address will be blocked from editing. This is an adult project; try not to act like a stupid kid. Nick Moyes (talk) 19:08, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When I hover over link to some articles, infobox image is shown along with lede text. But in some article hovers image is not shown, even when infobox has an image (this and this). Why? How to make sure that image is visible in preview. Also, what should be ratios of infobox image which make sure that images are not cutoff in preview (cut from top like this). -- Parnaval (talk) 12:43, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you PrimeHunter. I prefer that when I hover over links, then image is visible. So I would try to add portraits with min 210 x 250px. One more question. Why on hovering over Manushi Chhillar show her signature, and not the portrait image? Portrait is the first image in infobox, and clearly larger than min required size -- Parnaval (talk) 15:34, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I created a userpage yesterday and and watching tutorials on how to edit and build a page. My goal is to create a page for a notable musician. I understand that I need to have an account 4 days and do at least 10 edits before a page I create is considered for approval.
@Holyhootenany: Welcome to the Teahouse! I see you created User:Holyhootenany/sandbox, which was declined because it did not contain multiple published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Creating a new Wikipedia article can be quite challenging, especially if you do not have a lot of experience editing existing Wikipedia articles. To learn how to edit, I suggest you start at Help:Introduction, and then spend a significant amount of time editing existing articles to hone your skills. Once you're ready to create an article, you would gather multiple independentreliable sources that have provided significant coverage of the subject, and determine whether it meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, called "notability". If so, you could follow the instructions at Help:Your first article and summarize what the sources have published, and be prepared for a process that may include waiting for review, declines, and rewrites before an article is accepted. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 18:40, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Article name for YouTube channels
Hi. If I'm creating an article for a YouTube channel operated by one person, should the name of the article be that of the channel or person? Thanks. CanonNi (talk) 12:31, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CanonNi: Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. Looking through Category:YouTube channels and , it depends under which name they are more known. Articles about YouTuber who are mostly known under their channel name use the channel name, if they are mostly known under a different name (real name or not) use that, and in Edge cases use editorial judgement to decide on one. A redirect or disambiguation entry can be considered from the other one. Victor Schmidt (talk) 12:45, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a mobile user, but it's possible the Wikimedia Foundation is adding features, trying things, hoping to attract more people, encourage them to become editors. As for the website, the quality of your edits will become clear to you through feedback from others. People will revert you and warn you if you do things wrong, you may get no feedback if you're doing well. People may occassionally show up to thank you and encourage you if you keep on with good work. Best, Usedtobecool☎️13:42, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tusharhero, I also see this statistic. If I tap and hold on the indicator, an explanation pops up saying, "Based on how many times one of your contriburions was reverted (undone by another editor). Reverted edits: 0."
I think it must be only looking at your most recent edits for the count. The Wikipedia app is FLOSS, so you could look at the source code to confirm. --Habst (talk) 10:25, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello... what do you do when a page is so badly written, with lots of mis-information and few proper references, that it would be much easier to start again than try and correct / edit it? Is it Ok to do that?! In this case I'm talking specifically about Antony Gibbs & Sons - I have read the key texts about the company and his family recently, so am aware of all the mistakes in the Wiki page. It's ages since I've edited anything, so can't remember the etiquett about signing off... I'm @Ruthhenrietta ;-) Ruthhenrietta (talk) 15:32, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Ruthhenrietta. Welcome to the Teahouse. Nowadays, your signature is automatically added to your post, or to any response if you click 'reply'. But if you respond the old way by clicking 'edit source' then you still need to use four tilde characters (like this: ~~~~) to insert your signature.
Now, regarding a 100% rewrite: personally I would strongly advise against it. It would only take one error in your version for someone to completely revert what changes you'd made and take you back to square one. A better way would be to first add a note to the article's talk page to explain your concerns and highlighting major flaws, and saying what you'd like to do, and inviting any feedback or cooperation on the project. Taking all the sources and starting from the beginning, I might work on rewriting each section, one at a time. Making clear edit summaries when you save changes means others can see what you've done, and relatively small edits are easier to understand and less soul-destroying to have reverted and to re-fix than massive edits and massive reverts.
If you insisted on doing a complete rewrite, you should prepare an alternative version in your sandbox and then link to that on the article talk page along with your concerns and seek comments and feedback. But there are probably less than 10 people 'watching' that article, which gets about ten views a day, so the likelihood of many people seeing your 'call to arms' is quite low.
Yes - it really helps - thank you... I'll take your advice... I realise it's a very niche subject! But it bugs me when information is so poor, so I think it's worth doing Ruthhenrietta (talk) 16:41, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ruthhenrietta Yes, I've just looked at it a bit closer and it does rather cover a broad range of topics in one article, so it could well be that a rewrite in your sandbox is a good way forward. Feel free to bring anything back to the Teahouse if you want further input.
@Samchristie05: Welcome to the Teahouse! I believe you're asking us whether the number of references in the article You Were Only Fooling (an album by Vic Damone) is greater than those in other articles you have created. According to this report you have created 42 articles - congratulations! You can use the report to compare number of references in each article.
In the future, providing a link to the article you're asking about will help other editors understand your question and provide a quicker answer. Thanks, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 02:46, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Amir Tsarfati article has not been published although he is a famous author and speaker. Can anyone shed some light on this? Aiinceku (talk) 18:38, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Using PGP signed messages from the person the article is about as a source
Hello, I am currently considering making changes to the Cicada 3301 wikipedia article. I was planning on using direct statements made by 3301 as a source, however I have run into an issue. Every step of the puzzle and other miscellaneous statements made by 3301 have been clearsigned using PGP in some way or another. tl;dr, its a way to mathematically prove that the content can only be from 3301 themselves, and the signed message content is unmodified. Due to the complex math involved in generating the RSA keypairs and signatures, it is considered practically impossible to bruteforce/forge within our lifetime, and many lifetimes after that. Upon a signature being verified in a program like GPG, you also get all sorts of information about the message such as the author, date, and time the message was created. Because of this I believe their PGP signed messages would fall in the category of direct quotations, with 3301 themselves being the source.
The issue I have ran into though, is that due to the formatting of PGP signed messages(example of one here) it is often easiest to upload them to pastebin for people to download and verify themselves using GPG software. 3301 did this for a few of their signed messages. I have been informed by the wonderful folks in the help IRC channel that pastebin is still not considered a reliable source regardless of document contents and verifiability, due to lack of editorial oversight etc. I was wondering if there would be a way to still cite/precedent for citing a PGP signed message confirmed to be authored by the subject of the wikipedia article, without the issues associated with using pastebin. This is may be an uncommon issue without a clear answer, but if there's one thing I've learned in the past several years it's that 3301 is really good at creating unique problems for solvers. Thank you in advance for your time and consideration responding to this post. Ctvrty (talk) 18:43, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Ctvrty! Taking a step back, I would be wary of WP:Original research here. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, so the idea is that we summarize information that secondary sources (like newspapers and books) have found notable to write about. Using info directly from Cicada 3301 (a primary source) would be more appropriate for a secondary source than for us. If no newspaper has found the info sufficiently important to write about, then I question whether it's important enough for us to cover in the article.
There are some exceptions where using primary sources is OK. For instance, we like to have birth dates for all biographies, so if the only source for 3301's birthday is a statement they made themselves over PGP, we'd want to find a way to cite the PGP message. I'm afraid I'm not techy enough to be able to give you advice on that. But that's downstream of the original research issue, which should be worked through first. Hope that's helpful! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk21:33, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I was afraid that would be an issue. Thank you for the thorough reply.
Re:secondary sources, one of our community members suggested that recordings of talks at DEFCON conferences/presentation slides from the talks when a/v recording isn't available(the files are usually hosted by DEFCON or DEFCON Villages, so you know for sure that the slides are legit) that cover the history of 3301 could be an acceptable secondary source. There are currently 3 separate talks that were either approved by DEFCON as a main track talk, or by the Crypto & Privacy Village at DEFCON in previous years that cover the history of 3301 and cultural impact to varying degrees. DEFCON is a world-renowned hacking and cybersecurity conference hosted every year(except when its cancelled), with both the DEFCON main track and Crypto & Privacy Village talks being subject to review and revision before being accepted. Would these be acceptable as reliable, secondary sources? Ctvrty (talk) 22:49, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say conference proceedings can be acceptable sources, but it depends on who gave the talk, the extent to which the proceedings were published, and other factors. Editors more familiar with the subject area would be better positioned to answer than me. Feel free to try using them as sources and see how others watching the article react to it. If you're confident that the information belongs in the article, then including it with some source is always better than doing so with no source. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk00:03, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,I have made 3 pages that already exist in the Turkish Wiki so these are translations but they are quite different from the original (Draft:Erenköy, Kadıköy, Draft:Göztepe Park, Draft:Caddebostan, Kadıköy). I am slowly improving them and the best one out of the three is the Caddebostan article with over 20 sources. Is it possible for experienced editors to give me advice on these drafts and how can I improve them? It would be an honor for me to get an article published. Thank you. Youprayteas (talk) 19:22, 21 January 2024 (UTC)youprayteas[reply]
@Youprayteas, I went through the drafts and made various cleanups. I'd suggest looking in the revision history to see what I've done. The biggest issue is establishing the notability of the neighborhoods (WP:POPULATED), which needs to be done through in-depth sourcing. The quality of sources is what matters, not the quantity. It's okay if these sources are not in English, but we're looking for media coverage (or, even better, scholarly books). The other thing I'd pay attention to is WP:NOTTRAVELGUIDE. We don't want a Wikivoyage travel guide, but rather an encyclopedia article, and things like a destination list or overly detailed description of which bus lines run through a neighborhood are questionable. Hope that helps! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk21:26, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I established the notability of Caddebostan and Erenköy through the sources. I added the bus lines because it was also on the Turkish version. Youprayteas (talk) 21:32, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Youprayteas, editorial standards differ between different language editions of Wikipedia. The fact that the neighborhoods are considered notable for Turkish Wikipedia doesn't necessarily mean they will be here. Likewise, the bus lines being appropriate to add there doesn't mean they necessarily will be here. I would look to high-quality examples of articles about places to see what we're aiming toward. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk21:38, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just read the changes and thank you for your help. I would like to ask you, do you think my Caddebostan article is ready for being an article? I have multiple sources declaring Caddebostan is a neighborhood. The other ones are work in progresses. Youprayteas (talk) 21:38, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Youprayteas, that's for the reviewer to say, not me. Looking at the 20 or so sources in the article, which three do you consider to be the strongest? Are any of them from media outlets/publishers that have an article? {{u|Sdkb}}talk21:49, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first source is used in literally every neighborhood article in Turkey so I would definetly include that. The second source is for the km2. The third source is for the population and the list of neighborhoods in Kadıköy. The 8th and 9th sources are for the history. The 12nd source is for the Barlar Street which isn't mentioned on the other sources. The 14th article is probably the most inclusive for destinations in Caddebostan. 19th source is needed for the mansion being sold. The 21st (last, for now) article is for the Göztepe Park. So in summary these 9 sources are enough. I wanted there to be as much references as possible because I really want this article to get published, since Caddebostan is a very notable neighborhood. Youprayteas (talk) 22:06, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Youprayteas, you say "I wanted there to be as much references as possible"; but Sdkb has already commented on this: "The quality of sources is what matters, not the quantity." Sdkb asked you "Looking at the 20 or so sources in the article, which three do you consider to be the strongest? Are any of them from media outlets/publishers that have an article?" Please answer these questions. -- Hoary (talk) 23:53, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We're not asking you to remove the other sources from the article. But establishing notability is separate from ensuring information in the article is sourced. We want sources that establish notability. {{u|Sdkb}}talk06:17, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
to reply to your second comment. I added five sources legally recognizing Caddebostan's neighborhood-ity. The first source is used in literally all subdivisions of Turkey and it is a database where you can search for legal divisions. I thought it as enough. but everyone kept saying we have no proof this is a real neighborhood even though it is and you can see from the references so I added 5 references just to prove that Caddebostan exists. I think it is unnecesarry too but eh. Youprayteas (talk) 06:13, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Caddebostan and Erenköy are notable enough for Wikipedia. They are redlinked in some places too, as I checked. I listed many attractions about the neighborhood and overall it is notable because there are plenty of sources about it too. Youprayteas (talk) 06:43, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To further add to your second comment, the population of Caddebostan is over 21 thousand. There are many countries below this population, for example. I am not mentioning Erenköy because it is a work in progress, but it has over 30k which is incredibly a lot. Youprayteas (talk) 06:15, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
George Van Driem's Source for Maghrebi Mint Tea History
Hi there! I'm here because my edit on Maghrebi mint tea got undone. The reason given by the user was that the source's author, George Van Driem, is a linguist, not a historian. However, considering George's specialization in historical linguistics and his book "The Tale of Tea: A Comprehensive History of Tea from Prehistoric Times to the Present Day" delving into tea's history from prehistoric times, should his source still be excluded from the history section? Thanks! MoroccanTeaEnjoyer (talk) 19:54, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adding "Democratic School" and editing "Democratic Education" accordingly
Hi Everyone,
I'd like to improve the article democratic education and have read in the Talk article discussion that the article should be split into Democratic School and Democratic Education, with a new definition for the latter. I wrote a draft for the new "Democratic School" article here in my Sandbox ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Altiflash/sandbox ) and also recommended a few changes for Democratic Education. However, I wouldn't want to delete the parts from "Democratic Education" that I adopted into the Democratic School article until the "Democratic School" article has been reviewed and approved. If I publish "Democratic School" now, though, there may be criticism that the topic is already covered by "Democratic Education". What do you recommend I do?
I think the poster is correct. The original says "Caption ...Donna deVarona, left, individual medley, and Cathy Ellis, freestyle, pose prettily." But the displayed photo is mirrored, for example seen by a mirrored "EXIT" in the right side. I guess the caption was made for the correct orientation. Compare also to other photos of Donna deVarona and Kathy Ellis. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:48, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, the tool server seems to be down, so I can't redo the Kathy Ellis pic via CropTool, but I'll get it when it's available again. —holly {chat}17:20, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I've created two pages that I though had enough third party references to meet the criteria for a page on wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:DFJ_Growth and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Randy_Glein. I'm not being paid, but doing to help DFJ (I have done some paid work for some of the companies in their portfolio) and to learn more about the Wikipedia ecosystem. How much more third party validity to these pages need or is there something else? they are both factually accurate, Randy Glein is a well known and important person in the venture community and DFJ has evolved into DFJ Growth and Threshhold Ventures (you can see this on DFJ.com). thank you! Scottfasser (talk) 00:30, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Scottfasser The issue is not factual accuracy (that's at WP:V), it's notability (WP:N). You need to show that these are notable people/things in the way that Wikipedia defines notability ("he is well known in the venture community" is a good indicator that someone might be notable, but that's all). You need to show that your topics have significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources. -- asilvering (talk) 00:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the curious: Happy Tree Friends mentions Toothy (a cartoon beaver) voiced by Warren Graff. The History section does mention Banjo Frenzy as in effect a pilot episode in which Toothy and two others are killed by being hit with a banjo. Characters are maimed/killed in every episode, but appear unharmed in subsequent episodes (to again be maimed/killed). Dean MacDonald is not named as a voice provider for any other character. David notMD (talk) 11:46, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Edits not showing up
Hi, I recently tried to make an edit on the page Timeline of abolition of slavery and serfdom, giving more info on the Kingdom of Hungary. I made my edits, hit publish, got the little pop-up saying "Your edits have been published," scrolled down, and they weren't there? I then went back in to the edit page to see if something went wrong, and maybe re-do my edits, but my edits did show up on the editing page - they just wouldn't show up on the article page. Does anyone know what's going on? Thanks, Rj1255 (talk) 01:42, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
hi @Rj1255 and welcome to the Teahouse! are you referring to the Kingdom of Hungary entry? it didn't display due to some errors with the table. in a table, |- denotes a split in the row of a table, and since your entry was after a |-, the code parser thought it was just a row break instead of a full entry which meant it did not display. happy editing! 💜 melecietalk - 01:59, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see, thank you. Yes, that was the one. I am new to this and was trying to imitate the layout of other entries. It worked for a couple entries but I guess I made a mistake on that one. Thanks a lot! Rj1255 (talk) 02:10, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Media bias
Is there any place in Wikipedia where we can discuss media bias of popular newspapers and news channels, where many experienced editors can discuss and come to a conclusion? Nightingagleyt (talk) 04:13, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. I know about reliable sources. My doubt is about bias among reliable sources. CNN, BBC are reliable sources. Example-In any Argentina political issue they are supporting one party while locals who read Argentina newspaper know that politicians from both parties are corrupt and violent. Nightingagleyt (talk) 05:23, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While the linked articles do discuss bias a bit, it doesn't go in to too much depth about bias. To my knowledge (I could be totally wrong), there is no dedicated noticeboard for bias only. ❤HistoryTheorist❤05:27, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No Control (1927 film)
i added a "distinguish" notice near the top of this page, I can't quite figure out the formatting around the brackets "[[]]" that allow for the wikilink of No control (2015 film) but also permit the added annotated text that I included. please help me fix this please. Iljhgtn (talk) 04:57, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With the distinguish template, you don't need to add the wikilink brackets. The template does that itself, so you should remove the wikilink brackets you added. Hope that helps! ❤HistoryTheorist❤05:28, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
no that doesn't fix it. please look at this page and see what i mean. it breaks the annotated subsequent text if i remove the brackets as you advised. Iljhgtn (talk) 05:56, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Iljhgtn: To resolve the issue, I replaced {{Distinguish}} with {{for}}. You could have also used {{Distinguish}} with |text= to do something like this:
{{Distinguish|text=[[No Control (2015 film)]], a film made in 2015 by Jessica Solce about gun policy in the United States}}
which would generate:
Not to be confused with No Control (2015 film), a film made in 2015 by Jessica Solce about gun policy in the United States.
user 98Tigerius imposes his will.. user 98Tigerius imposes his will.. all the changes I made were based on credible sources AGB Nielsen website on Korean drama page but he changed my changes after that he made changes as he pleased Michaelelijahtanuwijaya (talk) 05:37, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CanonNi: When you visit the user pages of other users and like their layout, you can click "Edit source" to see how they formatted their page. I've copied code from other users, pasted it on my user page, and then played around with it until it was something I liked. GoingBatty (talk) 15:53, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User made information
I have read through all the guidelines(I could find) of Wikipedia and as user made information becomes more prevalent I imagine there must be some way user made information(e.g Youtube) may be used if confirmed by numerous sources. I will accept a simple yes or no. Sputnik274 (talk) 09:53, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sputnik274: If confirmed by numerous reliable sources, just use those sources instead. User-generated sources are nearly always not suitable for use in any article. If all of the numerous sources you're referring to are also user-generated, the material should not be used. See WP:USERGENERATED. Tollens (talk) 09:57, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sputnik274, there is no simple yes or no answer. Sorry. The vast majority of YouTube videos are of no value as references because they do not comply with our policies in a variety of ways. On the other hand, the small percentage of YouTube videos on the official channels of established reliable sources are also reliable sources. It is your obligation to personally verify the reliability of any source you plan to use on Wikipedia, whether it is a video or anything else. Cullen328 (talk) 10:28, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Way to know source is blacklisted beforehand
It seems to me that there is no way to see a source is blacklisted, other than if it seems false. Which is not good for one's own time nor effort. It would help greatly to see a source is blacklisted immediately. I also find no guideline for this myself despite my searches through the pages. Thank you. Sputnik274 (talk) 10:03, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sputnik274, one of the most important skills of a Wikipedia editor is the ability to assess the reliability of a potential source on your own without asking. Who is the publisher and what is the publisher's reputation? Who are the members of their editorial team and what is their editorial policy? What is the reputation of the specific source, and have they won major journalistic awards or have they been consistently criticized for false reporting? These are only a handful of the questions that should run through your mind when evaluating the reliability of a source. You cannot ask about every single source. You must make judgments on your own most of the time. Cullen328 (talk) 10:19, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...just to add that it may be OK to add a name of an alumnus if there isn't an article about them, but only if one or more citations are added after their entry. This is both to prove that they did indeed attend that school or college and to demonstrate that they do meet our Notability Criteria. In that case, it is OK to add them as a REDLINK in the expectation that there will be an article about them in due course. However, no suitable citations; no entry on the list! Nick Moyes (talk) 10:52, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gnidwod, it is always optimal to mention the specific article that you are talking about, since we have 6,773,292 of them, and no human can possibly remember all of them. After searching around, I am guessing that you are talking about List of Old St. Beghians. Please let us know if it is another article. Briefly, if the Wikipedia biography of a notable person verifies that they attended St Bees School, then add them to that list article. If the person is not the subject of a Wikipedia article, then either write an acceptable Wikipedia biography first, or add references verifying their notability, or don't add them to that list at all. After all, the school has been around for 440 years, and it would be inappropriate and of no value to try to list everyone who ever attended. We list only notable alumni, which in effect means that they are the subject of a Wikipedia biography in most cases. While you are at it, you could alphabetize that list. That would be useful. Cullen328 (talk) 10:56, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since the list has an existing order (note the parenthetical "by order of birth date" in the heading), rearranging it alphabetically could be a controversial move, requiring prior discussion on the talk page. Deor (talk) 14:48, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bibliography
How to add books in someone's Wikipedia biography authored by the person in the biography? I want to know so that, I can fix the bibliography section of biography pages! TheProEditor11 (talk) 13:00, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TheProEditor11, there are citation templates you can use. I believe the relevant one here would be a template like {{Cite book}} which you can use to format these references. a general and in-depth guide to referencing can also be viewed at Citing sources. happy editing! 💜 melecietalk - 13:57, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that in this case you would put the {{cite book}} directly after a bullet (*), without any <ref> tages around it, so it will be part of the main text and not included in the footnotes/references. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:01, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I have a reference in the end of the sentence or phrase, should I put it after comma/dot or before?
For example: ...was established on October 30, 1923[1], to the 32nd Government...
or
...was established on October 30, 1923,[1] to the 32nd Government...
Thanks. Aredoros87 (talk) 13:11, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen this specific typo/guideline get fixed by bots before. Is it possible to make a direct request for a bot to make this fix on a specific page? Do you know which bots can do it? Reconrabbit18:33, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So the first example is wrong and the second is correct?
hi @Lisahickey and welcome to the Teahouse! are you referring to Lisahickey/sandbox? firstly, that article is currently named that instead of EBTRON, which you can edit by moving the page again to a different title. however, instead of that I recommend you to go through the Articles for creation process (instead of publishing the page immediately) by moving the article back to User and following the steps in that page, since they could provide you with more advice to improve your article. editing! 💜 melecietalk - 13:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lisahickey According to your contribution history you have moved things around a bit an ended up with Lisahickey/sandbox in article space. As a new user and one that is a declared paid editor (thanks for the declaration) you should not move drafts into the main encyclopaedia but should use the WP:AfC process: see that link for the details. A brief look tells me that there are all sorts of problems with your draft and it is likely to be speedily deleted if you don't follow our accepted process. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:55, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. This is all a bit foreign to me. I had seen that other companies are listed in Wikipedia and wanted to get EBTRON listed. I did read the article links. I thought I removed the company promotion copy. Not sure what you mean by paid editor? Lisahickey (talk) 16:55, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tumrabert: Welcome to the Teahouse! I see the article has been moved to Draft:Gnoppix. As stated at the top of the draft, all the sources are primary sources, and Wikipedia articles are based on secondary sources. If you haven't done so already, I suggest reading Help:Your first article and Wikipedia:Notability (software). Then, gather multiple sources that meet the four criteria listed at the top of your draft: "(1) reliable (2) secondary (3) independent of the subject (4) talk about the subject in some depth." (Click the links at the top of the draft for more information about each criteria.) Then rewrite your draft based on what the independent sources have written. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 15:41, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please help me with any suggestions.(rewrite,appeal etc.)
Wikipedia shown that
This article may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion because in its current form it serves only to promote or publicise an entity, person, product, or idea, and would require a fundamental rewrite in order to become encyclopedic.However, the mere fact that a company, organization, or product is a page's subject does not, on its own, qualify that page for deletion under this criterion. This criterion also does not apply where substantial encyclopedic content would remain after removing the promotional material as deletion is not cleanup; in this case please remove the promotional material yourself, or add the {{advert}} tag to alert others to do so. See CSD G11.
If this article does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice, but do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself. If you created this page and you disagree with the given reason for deletion, you can click the button below and leave a message explaining why you believe it should not be deleted. You can also visit the talk page to check if you have received a response to your message.
Note that this article may be deleted at any time if it unquestionably meets the speedy deletion criteria, or if an explanation posted to the talk page is found to be insufficient.
Note to page author: you have not edited the article talk page yet. If you wish to contest this speedy deletion, clicking the button above will allow you to leave a talk page message explaining why you think this article should not be deleted.
If you have already posted to the talk page but this message is still showing up, try purging the page cache.
As the notice says, you can context the speedy deletion by picking the button. But reading the article, the first paragraph is entirely promotional.
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.
An article should be based almost entirely on what those independent sources say, but not one of the sources you've cited is independent. Please read about notability, and your first article.
A more general suggestion: If you were starting to learn engineering, would you make your first project to build a car from scratch? If you took up a musical instrument, would you arrange a public recital as the first thing you did? No, you would practise on less demanding projects while you learnt the craft. I would very strongly advise you that you will save yourself a great deal of frustration and disappointment if you forget about creating a new article for several months, while you gradually learn about how Wikipedia works (and most particularly about Verifiability, reliable sources, and Neutral point of view) by making improvements to some of our six million existing articles.. ColinFine (talk) 15:19, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Anachronist I think the history of the numerous attempts to create this article has gone beyond a joke. Content was not only highly promotional, but also only sourced to Gnoppix-related sites. I have therefore WP:SALTed the article, meaning it will require administrator approval should anyone wish to create it in the future. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:18, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Articles can be speedily deleted for a variety of different reasons, including the ones you mentioned. It is customary to place a notice on pages that have been nominated for speedily deletion while also notifying the creator of a nominated page. Speedy deletion is used to bypass the longer process of voting on whether or not to delete an article. Ishitomo (talk) 05:10, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@David notMD: This seems wrong. User:Gnoppix is a very old account with no edits in 11 years (it created the mainspace article Gnoppix then) and there was no need to block it. The article was created in mainspace even before then, and prod-deleted and restored. For some reason Tumrabert, a fairly new account created last October, moved it all over the place between draft, main space, and User:Gnoppix for some reason. I attempted to clean up the mess, deleting the user page, moving the main space version back to draft.
While it was in main space, it was tagged for G11 speedy deletion and administrator User:Sj declined it, so it was ineligible for G11 speedy deletion again, but User:Theroadislong, who shouldn't have reversed Sj's administrative decision without prior discussion, deleted it.
And Tumrabert was deleted as an advertising-only account by User:HJ Mitchell when it seems to me like overkill given the history here.
Minor Linux distros are generally a mess. (Gnoppix these days is built on Kali Linux, a significantly more notable distro, which article is nevertheless only slightly more contentful.) Salting seems fine here, I didn't see the history of title-dancing (+ on closer look there really are no modern sources to be found). – SJ +05:56, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I work at a music studio and a couple people that I work with want me to edit their Wikipedia's but when I tried in the past it either didn't save it or told me that if I tried doing it again it would delete their page. How can I edit it without any of those things happening? 38.142.212.186 (talk) 15:14, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. Thanks for asking.
Please note that, as a colleague, you have a conflict of interest, and as you are employed there, you almost certainly count as a paid editor, even if you are not specifically employed to edit Wikipedia.
You must make a formal declaration of your status, and then you may make edit requests for changes to articles where you have a conflict of interest.
Please remember that Wikipedia's articles about your colleagues do not belong to them, are not controlled by them, and will not necessarily say what they want them to say. If you provide independent, reliably published sources| for any information you want to add, then it is likely that whichever volunteer editor deals with your edit request will carry it out. But if the material you want to add is at all promotional, or is not adequately sourced, then it will not be inserted into the article. ColinFine (talk) 15:23, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot edit your coworkers page because you have a conflict of interest. Wikipedia takes combating promotional editing very seriously and if you persist, you will likely be blocked. Ishitomo (talk) 05:11, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Professor Mary Mellor
Mary Mellor – UK sociologist who moved to ecofeminist ideas from an interest in cooperatives. Her books Breaking the Boundaries and Feminism and Ecology are grounded in a materialist analysis.[citation needed]
Welcome to the Teahouse! Creating a new Wikipedia article can be quite challenging, especially if you do not have a lot of experience editing existing Wikipedia articles. To learn how to edit, I suggest you start at Help:Introduction, and then spend a significant amount of time editing existing articles to hone your skills. Once you're ready to create an article, you would gather multiple independentreliable sources that have provided significant coverage of the subject, and determine whether it meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, called "notability". If so, you could follow the instructions at Help:Your first article and summarize what the sources have published, and be prepared for a process that may include waiting for review, declines, and rewrites before an article is accepted. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 17:18, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You should create an account, make ten edits, and wait four days. After that, you will be able to create articles without going through the review process. Note that your article will still be reviewed by patrollers gunning for adminship, hoping to boost their AfD and CSD stats. To give your article a better chance of surviving this process, make sure it has a lot of sources to make the subject appear notable. Ishitomo (talk) 05:14, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Template removal question
Hello, Teahouse. Today my question is: If an expansion template on an article is there, but upon research there is no reliable sources for citation/ expansion on the topic, how should one proceed in regards to the template? Best regards, UnexpectedSmoreInquisition aka USI (talk) 17:15, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's another thing- I'm sure that there's no perfect solution to this problem, but I've found that talk page visibility has been low- I don't believe that I've gotten any responses from questions there yet. I know that this is what project pages are for, but I've only gotten a reply once there in the 5-7ish times I've tried that. Should I come here in that scenario? Anyways, thanks Batty. Best regards, UnexpectedSmoreInquisition aka USI (talk) 17:52, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Templates can be added to articles to notify readers of any problems the article has or any maintenance it may need. There are many different kinds of templates, which have different appearances depending on how you are accessing Wikipedia. If you want to change the appearance of templates, try adjusting your settings and reconfiguring your browser firewall. Ishitomo (talk) 05:16, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Finding low-importance articles marked with advert template
Hello! I saw a page recently that read like an article and had little encyclopedic value, in my opinion. I've marked that one for deletion, but I think there are likely a lot of articles like it. Mainly low-importance articles, or articles not part of a wikiproject. I figured out how to use deepcats to search for low importance articles with the advert template, but the search errored because there were too many categories. Is there a way to look through a subset of the results at a time to avoid that error?
My goal right now is to mark pages for deletion that have little to no encyclopedic value or relevance at present, not to revise larger, more relevant articles that happen to have some content that reads as an advert. From my experience using Wikipedia just as a reader, I've seen quite a few that don't seem to have much use for Wikipedia, and seem to exist only as an attempt to say "we have a Wikipedia article!". Written either by the subject of the article or by a fan or PR person.
So I want to look for articles that are more likely to be spam/adverts in their entirety so that I can mark them for deletion, without having to sort through as many articles that are more appropriate for a rewrite or revision. Dvallin (talk) 17:46, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I could be wrong, but unless you download the database yourself and devise your own search to combine Category:Articles with a promotional tone with low-importance assessments, there isn't really a good way to search for what you want.
The difficulty in finding those articles that exist solely as advertisements that haven't been deleted already is that they probably are out there with little to no maintenance tags on them. Anachronist has pointed out the most straightforward way of finding what you're looking for. It may do some good to limit your search to articles that are start-class, stub-class, or unassessed. Reconrabbit18:18, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are many ways to do this on Wikipedia, mainly by searching through projects where these things are curated. Your best bet is to post your question at WP:ANI or another noticeboard such as WT:ACN. Ishitomo (talk) 05:19, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Currently the buttons at the top of the screen (when scrolled all the way up) are alerts, notifications, watchlist, then a dropdown with more options. I'd like to add contributions to the list so I don't have to navigate through the dropdown each time. I know it's something to do with css but I have no experience with it, and I'd like someone to provide me with the code to do so, if it is possible. Redoct87 (talk) 19:40, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The top navigation bar can be customized to include a number of user specific interface options that account for run time variability in nested virtual algorithms. Simply reset your data input formatting to synchronize processing speed. Ishitomo (talk) 05:21, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nishikanthprabhu Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I would ask you what your connection is with this doctor, as you took his picture and he posed for you.
Any article about him must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about him, showing how he meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. None of the sources you have do that. The award does not contribute to notability as the awards itself does not merit an article(like Academy Award or Nobel Peace Prize). 331dot (talk) 20:24, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarifying, i will remove the awards and put it under general information.'
Hi Ishitomo, i used reliable resources such as established news institutions articles, public websites, and some wikipedia internally sourced. could you be more speific? Nishikanthprabhu (talk) 04:08, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Help with notability guidelines on companies
Hello all, I am working on creating a draft about a online casino, Gamdom. I notice that there are a lot of independant, popular sources in both the news and casino news space that report on it, though I just have a bad feeling it's not notable enough (although it is promoted quite a lot on user-created content websites such as YouTube, and several sponsorships are/were active with them). Could I get some advice on that all? OnlyNano20:34, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, OnlyNano. I would have major doubts about the reliability and independence of sources in the casino news space. As WP:NCORP says, Attention solely from local media (e.g., the weekly newspaper for a small town), or media of limited interest and circulation (e.g., a newsletter exclusively for people with a very unusual job), is not an indication of notability. At least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary.Cullen328 (talk) 21:52, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there, would you mind checking on the draft's sources and letting me know if I need additional ones? Yahoo Finance reported on their partnership with Usain Bolt, which I would say is pretty big for information. The others are either primary sources (about their legalization, etc), and independent sources (such as HLTV, a CS:GO news source) reported on a tournament they sponsored. It's seeming to be a bit more notable as I go, though I'd love other editor's input on this. Thanks! (Draft) OnlyNano22:31, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, OnlyNano. Just answering one point: no, their partnership with Usain Bolt is not, of itself, of any great significance. If the article about the partnership talks in some depth about the company (and is not just regurgitating a press release) then it might be useful. ColinFine (talk) 22:39, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the article does talk about what Gamdom is. I have found some other interesting sources which describe it, and the founder is an editor of CoinTelegraph, which provides some background information on the company's foundings. I believe the sources should be good, but I'm going to find a bunch more to beef up the information and notability, as I do believe the company is quite notable. We'll see how it goes, though. OnlyNano22:47, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OnlyNano, Liquipedia is user generated content so not a reliable source. Yahoo Finance is a reprint of a press release so not an independent source. You need references to reliable, independent sources that devote significant coverage to the company. So far, you don't have any. Cullen328 (talk) 22:52, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yahoo Finance is a content aggregator. In most cases what you find there will be a repost of content from elsewhere. In the case of the cite you are using, it is a reposted press release. Press releases about Gamdom will be written by Gamdon's PR staff. They are not independent, so they cannot be used to build the case for notability. MrOllie (talk) 15:57, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are strongly encouraged to disclose any potential conflict of interest you may have with the company article you intend to edit. Failure to do so may result in a COI investigation. Ishitomo (talk) 05:23, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tone accents in Chinese pinyin: The idea I propose is to add the tonal accents in the Latin alphabet (pinyin) used to transcribe Chinese. There are 4 tonal accents. Please consider making it a rule when using pinyin Chinese so as to convey that Chinese is a tonal language. 2603:7000:4300:DBE:7C7D:9C01:EA30:A2C4 (talk) 21:08, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. The policy is stated at MOS:CHINA#Romanization: English Wikipedia uses Hanyu Pinyin without tone marks as the default method of romanising Chinese characters, and at WP:NC-CHINA#Orthography: The titles of Chinese entries should follow current academic conventions, which generally means Hanyu Pinyin without tone marks.
These policies are established by consensus, and you are welcome to try and argue to change the consensus, but I don't think you'll have much success. The place to discuss this is the talk page of one of those, probably WT:Manual of Style/China- and Chinese-related articles. Please search this and its archives first, to see if there are any previous discussions on the question. ColinFine (talk) 21:29, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Making an article "Aziz Alili" in Bosnian
Hello, I started making the article "Aziz Alili" in my Bosnian language, after seeing no such article in Bosnian or English. Only just now have I found that the article does indeed exist in the sq.wiki domain (don't know the language). It is a fairly small article while I wanted to do a medium sized article about it. Now I'm wondering if I should translate that article or just make it anew in Bosnian like I have already started. Thanks a lot in advance. A flurry of stars (talk) 21:31, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the Teahouse, A flurry of stars. That is Albanian Wikipedia and the article is sourced to a single database entry which does not exist. It would be unwise simply to translate it into English. We have pretty tough criteria for notability (see WP:NBIO), and require good, reliable sources as the basis from which you should write any content (not vice versa).
Because this is English Wikipedia, it is not the right place to start drafting any article in another language. You should do that on the relevant language Wikipedia. Again, base what you write on published sources, not a translation of (potentially) nonsense that you might read on any Wikipedia page.
Ruth Ashton Taylor was my grandmother-in-law. Am I allowed to edit her page? I did so before realizing I should ask first. Sorry. Thanks, Nirva20 Nirva20 (talk) 22:10, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Others may disagree, but my interpretation of WP:CoI is that you probably do have a "conflict of interest" (given that she was a relative by marriage whom presumably you knew personally).
That doesn't mean you must not edit the article, but you should declare this COI on your User page (which you haven't created yet, but that is trivially easy – just click on your red signature name and type something to start it).
You also must ensure that anything you add to the article is cited to publishedReliable sources that are independent of her or her friends/family/associates. Doubtless you know a great deal about her, but unless the information has been published, and you cite its published source, you must not add it.
If there's something in the article you know to be false that is not cited, you may remove it: but if it's false and cited (maybe the published source made a mistake), you should discuss its removal on the article's Talk page, be prepared to have your removal reverted, and then discuss the matter with the reverter – this is called the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and is a normal part of Wikipedia editing. It may be that we end up presenting information from two sources that disagree ("A says this, but B says this.") allowing readers to make up their own minds.
If you have an edit and citable source for something but are hesitant about editing the article with it, present it as a proposal on the Talk page and add an Edit request template so another more experienced editor can evaluate it and make it if they think it's appropriate.
Please click through all of the blue links I've included above and at least skim the material they lead to. Hope this helps, and happy editing! {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 176.24.47.60 (talk) 22:47, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nirva20: As an editor with a conflict of interest, your best approach is to propose any substantive changes on the article talk page. You can preface your proposal with the tag {{Edit COI}} to cause your request to be listed on a category page that is monitored by some editors.
Generally, you can edit the article yourself to make minor corrections to spelling, grammar, names, dates, and numbers. You can add citations to reliable sources that are independent of the article topic. You can revert obvious vandalism. But anything more substantive, you should propose on the talk page. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:08, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@3MRB1: And your point is? I note that the article was created over a dozen years ago, back in 2011. Do you feel the topic isn't sufficiently notable to merit an article here? Do you see any evidence of non-neutral prose? ~Anachronist (talk) 03:04, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
needs OR & COI hatnotes. everything is unsubstantiated puffery. the only verifiable cites found occurred recently. isn't sufficiently notable to merit an article here the content should be merged with pub quiz. I use the wiki app and this cannot be done with it. 3MRB1 (talk) 11:02, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Review
Can someone look up at my recent assessments made on the article talk pages. I would like to know if I am placing the class and importance parameters at the right place or not. And ensure that I am not missing anything to add. Thank you in advance. (Please ping when replying) 456legendtalk23:20, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@456legend Of course, feel free to do it manually, but I do want to point out that there's no coding (not even wikicode) involved with rater. All you need to do is copy this exact text:
Hey everybody,
I found an online PDF of some lecture slides presented at Johnson Spaceflight Center back in 2017, and I want to use it as a resource for the STS-41-B article. I'm not sure how I would cite it though, specifically with the CS1 Style Templates. Would it fall under {cite web} or is there a more specific template for lectures/presentations? Also, since this presentation was made and presented by and for NASA employees, would the images inside, which were presumably prepared by NASA employees, be in the public domain? SpacePod9 (talk) 23:29, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, SpacePod9. Perhaps Template:Cite conference might work for you. You are correct that text and images created by employees of the US federal government as part of their job duties are in the public domain. This does not apply to all state and local governments. Cullen328 (talk) 00:08, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SpacePod9: cool, we're below quota for good NASA sources :) NASA has a nicely structured reports server, which you could reference instead of the raw pdf. [2]– SJ +06:33, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is an official transit map fair-use?
Hi! I'm working on this article on the REM de l'Est, a cancelled public transport project in Montreal, and I'm wondering if the official route map of the system could be considered fair use and usable in the article. Right now I've included a simple outline of the map that I made myself and it's obviously not great. I've noticed the New York City Subway page and other similar articles have maps but I'm a bit confused as to whether or not they're the official one or just really good recreations. Thanks for any help! WikiFouf (talk) 23:37, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, WikiFouf. Wikipedia's policy on using copyrighted images is much more restrictive than fair use. Please read the requirements at Non-free images. In most cases, we do not use copyrighted maps, because it is a relatively easy matter to create a freely licensed version. Cullen328 (talk) 00:14, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, my original answer was based on the assumption that the specific transit map in question is copyright protected. If it can be established through specific evidence that the map is in the public domain or is freely licensed, then what I said above about this specicic image does not apply. But it applies more broadly to images that are legitimately protected by copyright, which is a very low bar for anything published in recent decades. The bottom line is that we must assume that anything published in the last 95 years is copyright protected, unless we have solid evidence to the contrary. Cullen328 (talk) 05:56, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
a new article
Hi, I'm working on an article and I don't seem to understand how that the reference isn't indepth as it was stated, I'd appreciate you help me figure it out Starheroine (talk) 00:10, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I am a very new editor, and I wanted to try my hand at making a new wiki page. Some context: a wikipedia page about my grandfather (a hebrew scholar) is written in Spanish, I cannot fluently write wikipedia-worthy articles in Spanish however. I want to write the conjoining page for my grandmother, also a hebrew professor and author, but I am unsure if I am allowed to write her page in english. Thanks! Dryforester (talk) 00:59, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
hi @Dryforester and welcome to the Teahouse! an article doesn't need to be related to existing articles in English or non-English languages to be eligible for a page, however what it does require is that it falls under the notability criteria (with reliable sources to back up these claims), whether or not it is related to existing articles. however do note that since you are their grandchild, you also need to take note of the conflict of interest policy here (as you are related to them) before writing the article. happy editing! 💜 melecietalk - 01:15, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
awesome! I will keep the conflict of interest policy in mind as I write :) They are both notable hebrew scholars with multiple published works and awards, I would not have thought wikipedia worthy, but I was doing a bit of googling for fun and found that a complete stranger had already made a page for one of them. My grandmother was just as accoladed and published as her husband, so I do not think notability will be a problem if his page has been kept up! Dryforester (talk) 01:21, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dryforester I didn't notice anybody providing a link to the COI page, so here it is: WP:COI. In very short summary, for existing articles, you should generally make a request on the article talk page for any edits to be made. For new articles, you should use the articles for creation process. Fabrickator (talk) 02:05, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Dryforester. Please note that "notability" as Wikipedia uses the word is not quite the same as its usual meaning. Wikipedia is almost entirely concerned with what has been published about them (because that is what an article needs to be based on); what the person has done, said, written, created, are not of themselves relevant, unless they have been written about by independent commentators. ColinFine (talk) 10:48, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Shenaall: you can fix it by uploading a smaller version, like 320 pixels wide. My understanding, however, is that a bot comes along and does this eventually for large non-free images. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:59, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Shenaall, it is best that you downsize the file yourelf. That will show that you understand the standards imposed on non-free images. If an image is freely licensed or in the public domain, we want the most accurate and highest resolution version available. On the other hand, if the image is non-free, we quite deliberately want a low resolution version, as part of our ongoing efforts to comply with copyright laws. Cullen328 (talk) 05:39, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unicode or… something?
Hello! I was wondering if anyone knows what the Unicode-like system is in which %20 represents a space character.
Good morning, I'd wrote an article above Brunsviga (brand of calculating machines), translating the page I made in French (with the help of translators). But I might have made some mistake, therefore the page is redirectd toward another page Odhner arithmometer : would it be possible, please, to make the page independent, I fear to make a mistake.
"ISTQB CTFL Syllabus 2018"(PDF). ISTQB - International Software Testing Qualifications Board. Archived(PDF) from the original on 2022-03-24. Retrieved 2022-04-11.
Happen to have very different formats. One puts the original first, and the second puts the archived first. When i'm clicking on links, this forces me to think a vital few seconds before each link, which can slow me down a lot when i need to quickly review, say, 40 sources, of which 20 are "need further investigation", and 10 are "Relevant to what i'm doing". I generally trust archived links over the original, so i prefer to link to those when it's easy.
Is there any reason for this disparity? It could be something to do with dead links, but as we all know, a lot of links haven't been checked in a while and are dead, despite having the primary, presumed "alive" link first. 56independent (talk) 09:39, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@56independent: It is indeed because of dead links. The first citation you've provided puts the original second, because it has been marked as dead, whereas the second puts the original first because it is still live. In both cases there isn't usually a need to visit anything but the first link. In theory WP:IABOT will automatically find dead links and tag them, but yes, not all of them are always tagged as dead immediately. No matter what the ordering is, there's extra work involved for somebody: if they are always in the same order, if someone is trying to read the most up-to-date version of the source they always have to check the first link (which may or may not be dead), but if they are reordered, that person can usually just click the first link. There's not really a perfect solution, and as far as I'm aware there's unfortunately no way to always display archived links first for a particular account. Tollens (talk) 09:56, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tollens With the archive web UI, it's simple to go forwards in time or visit the original site. Going to an archived version is a more involved process, especially if you don't have the broser extension with the "visit archived version" button. As such, it may be a better idea to always put the archived version first.
As for different display, i have an intresting idea. Using client-side JS scripting (which might be a bad idea), remove the HTML content of the citation and replace it with the user-preferred version. This is rather trivial given that this JS's niche. 56independent (talk) 11:45, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What decides the article name for a building? Fame, Longevity, Newest Name and/or Common Name?
I've just been watching a documentary where Batley Variety Club as the Frontier makes a brief appearance, and it made me ask this question.
The building was known as Batley Variety Club from 1967-1978, so less than 11 years in total.
It then became the Frontier nightclub from some time in the early 80s, until it closed in 2016, so at least 30 years.
In 2017 it became a JD Gym, so around 7 years so far.
In my opinion, the article should be named Frontier Nightclub, Batley but how would I change that?
If more references calling it Frontier were added, would that be enough for a name change?
My apologies: you're right. I kept going back and forth trying to find the page I hadn't already got up to date with, and saw Batley Variety Club at the bottom of both, and got frustrated. ColinFine (talk) 14:08, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't an article be about the "usage" of the building, rather than the building itself? If a building changes usage over time, then each usage can have its own article (if sufficiently noteworthy). It doesn't make sense to cram numerous unrelated usages of a building into a single article simply because they physically occupied the same shell of bricks and mortar at different times. By all means mention that a particular usage has ended and if existing then link to an appropriately-name article about what followed it. Long story short, the present name is fine, but feel free to create articles about the Frontier Nightclub or the gym! 31.125.6.108 (talk) 11:28, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
31.125.6.108 I can name many articles about buildings, which have been used for many things, all of which are notable, and are all "crammed into the same article" because there's not enough information on them to have separate articles.
There's one in my head right now, which will soon have it's fourth name over the last 86 years, but still I expect people will carry on calling it by its old name, even when the new venue opens.
Another one in my head was much bigger than it is now 10+ years ago. However the new owner of the building, decided to wipe out most of its history from Wikipedia, and he was allowed to do so because hardly any references had been added. It's where a lot of famous people started their careers, but there's no mention of them anymore. It's also had many names, although they're mainly just minor name differences.
Wikipedia is partly for blame for things like that, keeping historical names on articles for things which don't exist anymore, just like Royal Mail.
For example, just the other day I noticed someone rename an article for something which has been correctly named for 16 years.
What did they rename it to?
Its old name from 16 years ago, because "people still call it by that name" apparently, even though that's clearly not true, as it would be impossible to talk about it without mentioning part of its old name.
Still, the talk page discussion agreed with him to keep the 16 year out of date name, with just 1 person disagreeing saying its current name should be used. Danstarr69 (talk) 18:40, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Reni Rogacheva Welcome to the Teahouse! I'm afarid your article at Draft:Nord Collection fails to offer enough citations for us it to meet Wikipedia's definition of Notability. See WP:NCORP for details of how we assess this. Just because something exists, doesn't mean it deserves an article about it here. We need evidence that a company or thing has drawn the attention of independent bodies. In other words, show us links to news articles about that company, or detailed mentions in books - but not paid advertising by the company, or trade magazines. You can find further explanation of why your draft has been rejected, both at the top of that article, and on your talk page.
Regarding name changes: what page did you want to rename, and what name did you want to change it to, please?
Finally, I have left a warning notice on your talk page as you have a clear CONFLICT OF INTEREST in promoting this article. As an employee of Nord Collection, you have an obligation to declare who is paying you to write this article. See WP:PAID for details how to declare that on your userpage. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 11:51, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much , Nick. I am pretty new to that. I don´t have experience with writing Wikipedia page. I make a lot of mistakes. We will consider to outsource this to a company working with writing wikipedia pages. But not Nord Collection page is deleted, right? I don't need to do anything else? Reni Rogacheva (talk) 10:20, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, we are going to do it ourselves and follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines. It will take time but we really want to have a page on Wikipedia. I will write back to you during the process. But thank you very much for the assistance. Reni Rogacheva (talk) 11:34, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Reni Rogacheva Whether or not you want a Wikipedia page about your company is completely irrelevant. There can only be an article about it if the company has been mentioned in detail and in depth by at least three independent sources, excluding trade magazines, paid advertising, press releases, interviews and social media posts and personal blogs. See WP:NCORP for how this works. If you can't find RELIABLE SOURCES you will simply be wasting your time trying. You are welcome to ask here again, and to provide three links to such sources, and we can advise you further. Please understand that Wikipedia has no interest in helping you PROMOTE your hotel business. If it can be shown to be NOTABLE, then we are happy to assist you. If it can't, we will tell you. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:39, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A user reverted all my comments on a talk page
I tried to appeal here but someone removed my comments here as well without telling me why.
You seem to have violated WP:ECR. This is not the place to raise grievances with another user, that is WP:ANI, but I urge you to consider what you are being told carefully first. 331dot (talk) 13:05, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CollationoftheWilling, jumping into contentious topic areas as a new user is an extremely bad idea. Please slow down and carefully review what you are being told. If you want to make a request for a specific edit - no commentary, nothing else added - that is allowed, you can go ahead and do that. If you keep trying to do anything else, you're going to keep landing in hot water. 57.140.16.1 (talk) 14:54, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draft articles being taken and placed elsewhere without permission
I was upset that my first draft article, which I was asked to revise and resubmit (and which I am now working on), appeared on Wikitia. I am guessing that when I resubmit my article, it may appear again on Wikitia or elsewhere. Why this is this allowed or possible? I thought drafts for submission went to an internal safe space? IonaFyne (talk) 14:59, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IonaFyne, when you make any edit, including creating a draft, you agree to "irrevocably release your text under the CC BY-SA 4.0 License and GFDL." This is shown in the edit window. Sites like Wikitia can copy text from Wikipedia (with attribution), since it is released under this Creative Commons license. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 15:03, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @IonaFyne, welcome to the Teahouse. There are no internal safe spaces on Wikipedia, though some pages are harder to find than others. Assume that anything you publish here, anywhere, is going to be seen by others (and potentially taken for use elsewhere, as noted above). 57.140.16.1 (talk) 15:05, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your frustration. It would be very nice if Wikipedia did have a safe space somewhere because it seems to me that some mirrors, and Wikitia is one of the worst, specialise in taking material that specifically hasn't been accepted as ready-for-use here, and passing it off as though it were written by a "verified editor", and is therefore somehow guaranteed good. What's particularly wrong is that the CC-by-SA-4.0 license does require Wikitia to attribute the text, but so far as I can see they almost never do, and specialise in taking drafts that are then deleted here, which means there is no way to back-track and find that their text is not compliant to the license (unless you're a Wikipedia admin able to see deleted drafts). It's wrong, but it's not going to change. Elemimele (talk) 16:28, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@IonaFyne What I do to avoid this situation is to use my sandbox to create drafts (with the source editor) but I never save/publish them there. Instead, I just "Preview" them to check that the markup is OK. I then copy/paste out all the wikitext into a local text editor on my PC. By working with the only saved copy offline, I can ensure that no draft is available for others to see until I think it is ready. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:42, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@IonlyPlayz2 You could use {{cite web}} for that URL, with other parameters as suggested on the template page. However, assuming it is the picture you are interested in using, you can copy that to Wikimedia Commons as the date it was taken (1902) puts it firmly in the public domain. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:32, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I've been editing far too long for this to not be embarrassing, but how do I go about requesting the addition of a new template parameter? Specifically, Template:Infobox church currently lacks the parameter sui_iuris_church, a very helpful parameter already extant in Template:Infobox diocese. I would like the church infoboxes to have an identical parameter. Since BOLD doesn't really apply to template editor-exclusive articles, is it best to make appeals directly to individual TEs or at a project page? ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:07, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Given the number of transclusions involved, I figured there'd be a different approach than on articles. I guess not! ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:31, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, UnexprectedSmoreINquisition, and welcome to the Teahouse. Just looking at the leads of the two articles, they look to be different things: the first is any of a large class of things, most of which we can have little knowledge of, but which undoubtedly existed; the second is a single example of the first, which may or may not have existed. ColinFine (talk) 18:20, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @UnexpectedSmoreInquisition: While I only took a couple linguistics-adjacent courses in undergrad, I can pretty firmly say these are distinct topics that should be covered separately. Proto-language refers to a hypothesized language from which a group of languages descend; Proto-Indo-European language is considered by many academics to have been the proto-language of Indo-European languages. Proto-human language is the thesis that a single progenitor language preceded all human language, like an Adam and Eve of sorts; this theory is generally discounted in modern academia. They are related but distinct concepts, with one describing a variety of reconstructed or hypothesized languages and the other describing a particular theory. A merge is probably unwise. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:28, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I was starting to work on a draft for an article that would be placed at Sonic Robo Blast 2, so I was going to create it as a draft and then request a move over the redirect. However, the redirect already has history showing that a lot of content was added at some point, but later it was deleted and turned back into a redirect. How should I go about turning it into an article again? So far I am the only contributor to the draft, but I'm worried about attribution if other people were to edit it and then it gets moved on top of the redirect. Reconrabbit17:30, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Reconrabbit: I would recommend that you simply copy the content of the draft into the redirect. This has the unfortunate effect of making the history of your work on the draft not immediately accessible to editors who may wish to review your article creation process but retains the redirect's history. When you copy the content of the draft into the redirect, you could (and should) link to your draft in the edit summary. Consider first moving the draft to your userspace so that it can be retained rather than automatically deleted in six months. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:46, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a function of your own device's browser recording websites/pages/links that you have visited. While some websites have links which won't (generally) be illuminated as having been previously visited, Wikipedia's links will turn from blue to purple if your browser is configured to retain your web browsing history. If you want to have every link turn blue again, you could clear your cookies or history in the browser, but understand that this removes other data about your browsing from said browser on your device. I recommend you do a google search about this. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:56, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Amber, welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia, as such, does not have an email address; some account holders do link an email address to their account in their profiles, but it's not required. Do you have questions about using or editing Wikipedia? 57.140.16.1 (talk) 19:10, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Website on Blacklist
I am working on a draft for an article and today a put a significant amount of work into it, but when I was going to publish my changes, I realized a website I used for multiple references is on the blacklist. I do believe that the website should be on the blacklist but the specific article I used seems good, is there anything I can do?
I noticed a particular user who is abusingly editing many articles relating to contentious topics. He claims to be editing with reasoning of "Duplicate information" or "Too long", but is in fact trying to delete established information, significantly change the context of some sentences and other potentially malevolent actions, all under false pretenses attributing irrelevant reasoning to justify his edit.
This user has been engaging in this systematic faux-editing behavior extensively, often times getting "caught", warned and his edit reverted.
Is there any system within Wikipedia to handle this situation, look in to it, anything? I couldn't find anything relevant on my own, and this user is very disruptive.
Thewildshoe (talk) 20:15, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Thewildshoe, RudolfRed has directed you to the right place, but before you go there, you will need to try to sort out the dispute yourself. When you say "warned", are there warnings on the user's talk page? Or is the user just being reverted? Some attempt at actual dialogue needs to happen first. -- asilvering (talk) 20:23, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am talking about multiple edits across many articles (above 10 and I haven't even dug into it yet) systematically doing the same type of misleading editing reasoning, all on a specific contentious topic. On his talk page there are multiple conversations about his reverted edits, some explaining his mistake believing he is acting in good faith, some already suggesting that he might be acting in bad faith.
I ran into him since he just did that to my suggested edit falsely citing "duplicate information" but seeing as it's a repeating, consistent pattern, what sort of dialogue or actions should I take before a report? There was some dialogue between me and him on the talk page of the article, but ultimately he's sticking to his false reasoning and won't engage in discussion of the merit of his reasoning.
@Thewildshoe, I can only find you engaging with a single person on their talk page. I don't see other warnings on their Talk page at a quick skim, except from one user who appears to have been taken to arbitration enforcement, so I assume this is not the editor you're talking about. You'll first have to engage with whoever it is. -- asilvering (talk) 20:52, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Communication on the talk page of an article is fine. What's important is that you try to resolve whatever dispute exists, or that you have really, really clear evidence of disruption. If your issue can be described as a "content issue" rather than a "behaviour issue" it is unlikely that you will get far at WP:ANI. -- asilvering (talk) 22:18, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Inserting Photos
I'm trying to upload a photo to put on a page I creating. I drag it to the area and it seems to be working but it never stops and I have to go back to the previous page without the photo. I let it work for 20 minutes but still nothing. Any ideas on what's happening? Thanks! TomGreensmith (talk) 22:43, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TomGreensmith, are you attempting to upload it to Wikipedia or to Wikimedia Commons? Or do you mean that you're trying to add to an article an image that's already at Wikimedia Commons? What is "the area"? By "the previous page", do you mean the previous page in the uploading process, or an article in its previous form? -- Hoary (talk) 22:49, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for answering. I went through the Wikipedia "how to publish a page" site. I wrote a few paragraphs, then attempted to insert a JPEG photo of my subject. I tried to upload the file by dropping it into the area indicated. The little circle turned, indicating it was processing, then stopped. Nothing had changed; the file was not inserted. I had to click the "Back" icon to get out of the window. TomGreensmith (talk) 23:54, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's Walter HustonTomGreensmith, you have to do two things. If the image is not already at Wikimedia Commons, then (its copyright status permitting) you have to upload it from your hard drive (or whatever) to Wikimedia Commons. It thereupon has a filename. Thus https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Walter_Huston_-_1950.jpg is a picture already at Commons of Walter Huston. Its filename for Wikipedia purposes is what follows the final slash, in this example File:Walter_Huston_-_1950.jpg. Stage two: In an article or draft, you add it in various ways, e.g. [[File:Walter_Huston_-_1950.jpg|thumb|right|Here's Walter Huston]] ; no dragging or dropping is necessary. Is your problem at the uploading-to-Commons stage, or the using-what's-already-at-Commons stage? -- Hoary (talk) 00:07, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whether a file has been uploaded to Wikipedia or to Wikimedia Commons, it can be used in exactly the same way. If you want to upload a file that satisfies Wikimedia Commons' copyright requirements, please upload it to Wikimedia Commons. If it doesn't meet Wikimedia Commons' copyright requirements, it might qualify for Wikipedia but please don't upload it until you have a specific purpose for it and have got your head around the concept and details of "fair use" as understood by and for English-language Wikipedia. -- Hoary (talk) 00:18, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This page you say you're creating, TomGreensmith: As "TomGreensmith", you don't seem to have made any steps towards creating any page. Your only edits are those in this message thread. (And no edit you've made has been deleted.) If you're working on a draft, in order to achieve anything you have to click on "Publish changes" (which, in the context of drafts, means not "Publish to the world as a Wikipedia article" but instead "Publish to people who know where to look for this"). -- Hoary (talk) 00:35, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i am working on this Draft at the moment. i found what i thought are some good sources but apparantly aren't good enough to pass. Anybody able to help me improve this? Deondernemers (talk) 23:03, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Deondernemers 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) 00:02, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Deondernemers, I see you got a pretty helpful comment on the draft, do you have any questions about that? Basically, you're looking for as many good sources as possible that are about your topic, rather than just mentioning him offhand. -- asilvering (talk) 00:21, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can anyone edit this stuff? I always assumed it was only professional verified accounts, but I just clicked the button today and it let me make an account. Dr. Skyttlz (talk) 23:05, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dr. Skyttlz: Yes – Wikipedia is written entirely by volunteers, and anyone can edit (even without creating an account first). Wikipedia:About has a larger introduction. As for the 'lack of security': in some cases, such as extremely controversial topics, direct edit access to some pages can be restricted to more experienced editors (though typically the bar is very low), and this usually prevents most disruption. Don't worry, you certainly haven't done anything wrong by asking here! Tollens (talk) 23:17, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dr. Skyttlz, Welcome to the Teahouse. Most of Wikipedia is open for editing by anyone with an internet connection. We trust you, up to a point. There are rules, and the philosophy is that if you stick around, you will start picking them up. WP:TUTORIAL can be a good start. Happy editing! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 23:19, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dr. Skyttlz If you're curious about how some of the "security" bits work, you might be interested in reading WP:VANDAL, WP:RCP, WP:SOCK, and WP:AFC. There are loads of other things that volunteer Wikipedia editors and administrators do to keep the place from being deluged in horrors, but I think these get to most of the most obvious questions. Welcome! -- asilvering (talk) 00:20, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also WP:MEDRS if your intention is to edit articles in the medical/health arena. And WP:COI and WP:PAID if you intend to edit about games design. And general advice is to put in time improving existing articles as a learning experience before attempting to create and then submit a draft of a new article. David notMD (talk) 15:36, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To get an info
My question : " is all celebrity's article created on their permission ? Do they tell us what informations about them to be inputed in their Wikipedia & what not ?? Plss reply to this AL Creation (talk) 23:18, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, actually. Certain types of information in published interviews can be used, but there is still a need for independent published articles to confirm notability. David notMD (talk) 15:34, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cyprus76, to change the title of a draft, you have to "move" it to the correct location. It's under Page-->Move in the upper right-hand corner of the screen if you're on Vector2010 (the old UI). I think it's still somewhere around there on Vector2022 (the new UI). -- asilvering (talk) 00:23, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But I suggest not worrying about the name while it is in draft. If a reviewer accepts it, they will move it to an appropriate name.
Of far more concern are your sources. Knowyourmeme, and almost all wikis, are user generated sources, and so not regarded as reliable. The only one of your sources which might be reliable is Nexus mods - I haven't looked at whether it has a strong editorial team. But even if it is, only one reliable source is not enough. The only thing that is worth your spending any time on with regard to this draft, is finding more reliable sources.
I'm afraid that writing an article without first finding several places where independent people have discussed the subject in depth, and been published in reliable places, is usually a waste of your and everybody else's time. ColinFine (talk) 12:21, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How do I protect an article?
There is an article I need to protect. It is Bloomington ECHL team. Apparently, some unknown user keeps adding info which cannot be confirmed via sources, references or press release. What do I have to do to protect this? Roberto221 (talk) 00:39, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How to avoid article deletion? How neutral that you should be?
I am writing an article about the real estate company, I understand that it might need improvement, but how do I improve if the article keeps getting deleted?
Unsteadyflyingfish, here is a sample of the sort of language you used: In 2020, Vasanta Group welcomed Nicholas Hum and Denny Asalim, experienced real estate professionals, to the team. The founders united their strengths and expertise during the acquisition of Shila at Sawangan, marking a milestone in the company's journey. This style of writing is the exact opposite of what is required in a neutrally written encyclopedia article about a company. Cullen328 (talk) 03:18, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Unsteadyflyingfish, and welcome to the Teahouse. The best way of being neutral is to remember that 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.
An article should be a neutral summary of those independent sources. If the bulk of them are positive, or the bulk of them are negative, about the subject, then the article should reflect that; but it should not go beyond what those independent sources say. ColinFine (talk) 12:26, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Help with formatting page
Hello,
I am currently drafting a Wikipedia page in the sandbox, but it has been denied twice and some of the comments state that it is not written in a formal tone and does not qualify as a Wikipedia page. Are there any suggestions on how to improve the page?
@Burroughs safehouse, please refer to the links in the decline messages for more information. If you have any specific questions or are confused about something in particular, do go ahead and ask us here, we're happy to help. But there are almost no references on this article, so it seems to me that you have not read the information that has already been given to you. -- asilvering (talk) 03:10, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Burroughs, you need to first find reliable independent sources, at least three and preferably two that are outside the local area, and write the article from those sources. If the source doesn't say something, the article can't.
It also looks like you may have a conflict of interest in this subject. If you are an employee of the museum, or a volunteer working on their behalf, you must disclose that. I see someone has left instructions on your user talk at User_talk:Burroughs_safehouse. Valereee (talk) 11:23, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Burroughs safehouse Appears that User:Valereee not only created the above-mentioned draft but then moved it to mainspace without a review (a priviledge accorded to experienced editors. If you are an employee of the museum, you can propose more information on the Talk page of the article or else put info and references on Valereee's Talk page for that person to consider. David notMD (talk) 15:32, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm sorry if this is the wrong venue to bring this issue to, but a while back I removed what I considered a gratuitous reference to an obit in a white-supremacist website in the article on historian Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke. You can see the exchange here, it's at the bottom: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nicholas_Goodrick-Clarke
Someone obviously objects to my removal of the reference, and keeps reverting my edit. Who do I turn to in a situation like this? Thanks in advance for your help. Mpaniello (talk) 05:20, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mpaniello, in this kind of a situation, when you aren't sure where to go, Teahouse is a reasonable place to seek help. Since G-C has been dead for over a decade, you can't simply keep reverting and claim an exception to WP:3RR, but I agree with you that this represented problematic content being added to a biography. The IP made it clear the reason they were adding this was explicitly in order to tarnish the subject's reputation, so in this case you could also seek help at WP:NPOVN. Valereee (talk) 11:11, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you all so much for your help and guidance here, and my apologies for any confusion or inconvenience. I'm not very Wiki-savvy (as I'm sure you've all gathered lol), and I saw I had a notification when I was reading an article, saying that my edit had been reverted, though it was from late December. I then undid that reversion, or so I thought. Anyway, just wanted to avoid warring edits, sorry for any false alarms. Mpaniello (talk) 18:35, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the appropriate place to seek English proofreading?
Hello. I am a non-native English speaking Wikipedian. I have some contributions on Wikipedia in my native language and I want to publish articles written in my native language translated into English.
I have already finished the drafts and they probably generally meet the qualifies for a Wikipedia article, but I suspect that the English is probably unnatural and needs to be proofread by a native English speaker.
Where should I seek help in such a case? ask for help on the WikiProject, ask for help from a specific editor, ask for help with a translation request, Are there any other good place? Can these be done at the same time?
Or, can I just submit it casually and someone will correct it?
@GreenMeansGo: Thank you very much for the information. There it is probably the closest place to what I was looking for. It amazes me that the English version of Wikipedia has everything.
According to Elemimele, the article I wrote in my English seems to be fine to publish as is, and with the help of the Guild of Copy Editors, I thought it could be made even better. I will surely use this place. Thank you very much.
One slight problem is that the Guild does not seem to accept proofreading of drafts.
I'm actually ambitious and wish to meet DYK's criteria, i.e., "nominate within 7 days of article creation" to get the article on the toppage To meet this criterion, the article must be complete at the time of draft or within 7 days of publication.
Assuming the draft is not proofread, the article must be proofread within 7 days, and although the guild appears active, there is no turning back and uncertainty once the draft is published.
The guild's announcement says "Requests may be declined if the article is:draft" and says "may be", are there any exceptions to this may be?
@狄の用務員: What's the draft? I can try to take a look when I get a break.
I agree with the below that your conversational English is basically indistinguishable from a native speaker. Obviously that may be different in a highly technical subject, but you seem to speak English a lot better than a lot of people who speak it as a native language. GMGtalk14:34, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GreenMeansGo: Thank you very much. The article I would like to eventually publish is Draft:Chua Vietnam (Japan). If you kindly proofread it, I would be very grateful.
However, I would still like to have a way to get proofreading for my draft, as I am currently only working on this one article, but would like to aim for a series of DYKs in the near future. 狄の用務員 (talk) 14:56, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@狄の用務員: At first look, I would say my main critique is that you veer off into other subjects that are related, but not directly the subject of the article. Wikipedia articles don't really look up and out to give the bigger picture. If someone wants to know more about religion in Vietnam, then they can visit the main article for Religion in Vietnam. GMGtalk15:02, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GreenMeansGo: Thank you very much. I understand this point, and I think that while there is a lot of peripheral information and images, there is not enough information on the main topic of the article (for example, the position of this temple's sect in Vietnam, and its uniqueness not found in other Vietnamese temples). I believe that this area will have to be improved .狄の用務員 (talk) 15:22, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@狄の用務員: Yeah, Wikipedia is a little bit different writing format. For something like a book, you might have an entire chapter that does nothing but orient the reader to the subject. In this format, we're supposed to be pretty keenly focused and readers who want to look up and out have all those other articles to read if they wish. Some topics do require a background, but that's normally the first section and is intentionally brief. GMGtalk15:58, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@狄の用務員: Welcome to the Teahouse. As someone who's with the GOCE, I'm just going to let you know that if you submit a request for the Guild to copyedit your draft, there's a chance that the request may be declined by virtue of it being a draft. We prefer to work with articles that have been accepted into mainspace (without the Draft prefix). —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:02, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you create a translation with the same quality of English as you used to ask the question, then you will be fine! Other editors who come across the article can copy-edit if they find any issues; your English was clear and easy to understand. Just remember that you will need to attribute your translation even though you wrote the original, and that the requirements for notability vary between different Wikipedias, so you will have to check that the subject is considered notable here, as well as in your native wikipedia. Check WP:TRANSLATETOHERE for further details. Elemimele (talk) 11:53, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Elemimele: Thank you very much. I was very relieved, because I was worried about my objective English ability, not knowing my own. Thanks to you, I can edit with confidence from now on.
I used the above website to correct an obviously incorrect Cite comic citation. The URL was removed from my edit as non-RS (love those acronyms). Maybe it should have been tagged as {{unreliable source?}}. User-duck (talk) 13:20, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@User-duck: Welcome to the Teahouse. There isn't an exhaustive list of unreliable sources, though some of the commonly-asked about ones can be found at Wikipedia:Perennial sources. Any others you're not sure about can be inquired over at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, and it's possible someone may have asked about it before. Fandom wikis are not suitable to be considered reliable sources because they are built off of user-generated content; it's better to see if they use any sources, and evaluate those instead to see if they meet Wikipedia's criteria of a reliable source. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 13:30, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@User-duck: I often consult WP:RSP, which lists a large number of sources in half a dozen categories, including "Generally unreliable", "No consensus", "Generally unreliable" and others. I'm not sure to what extent it is an "official" list, but I've often found it good starting point. Mike Marchmont (talk) 17:08, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since the website is not listed, wouldn't adding the {{unreliable source?}} been more appropriate? Since I changed issue info in the exisiting cite (I do not have access to a library of comic books), I figured I should cite my source. User-duck (talk) 19:59, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, I have linked Engine of a Million Plots to and from Westboro Baptist Church. In the section in which it says Christian rock band Five Iron Frenzy recorded a song titled "God Hates Flags" condemning the actions of the Westboro Baptist Church and similar organizations, including such lyrics as "If God is love you got it wrong waving all your placards and flags". But the God Hates Flags song doesn't have an article. So, would I link The part of the EoaMP article where God Hates Flags is mentioned, and its connection to the church, or do I link to the track listing? Sorry if this is confusing. Babysharkboss2!!(Hells Bells (Talk Page btw))14:31, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello so I am a staff at The Islamic Education Trust (IET) in charge of our online presence. I have been tasked with editing our wikipedia page. I am trying to change the page name to The Islamic Education Trust (IET) unfortunately I can't see the option to do that. Info ietonline (talk) 15:01, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Info ietonline First of all, it is mandatory under Wikipedia's terms and conditions that you disclose your status as a WP:PAID editor (click that link for details). The title of Wikipedia's articles are decided by our manual of style and by various other considerations such as WP:COMMONNAME. In particular, I don't think that either the word "The" or the acronym IET needs to be included. Howeever, if you want to make suggestions for changes to the article (including its title) please do so on its Talk Page at Talk:Islamic Educational Trust AFTER making the paid editing disclosure. If you use the {{edit COI}} template, your request should be considered quite quickly. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:20, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Info ietonline, and welcome to the Teahouse.
I'm afraid there are some things you need to do before you get to what you have been tasked to do.
The first is that you must make the mandatory declaration of your status as a paid editor - see that link for how to do so.
Secondly, you must change your username. All user accounts are individual, used by only one person, and may not have names that suggest that they are used by multiple people or an organisation. Please see WP:CHU.
As for your specific request: articles are retitled by moving them, but new accounts such as yours do not have that facility. But in any case, I don't see why you want to make this change. Most such article do not have "The" (see WP:THE), and your own website does not use it. ColinFine (talk) 15:22, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Info ietonline: The organisation's web site includes a logo with the wording "Islamic Education Trust", in large letters "Islamic Education Trust (IET)building [sic] bridges", and a photograph of a meeting with a banner saying "Isamlic Education Trust welcomes you" and "IET@50". You will need to provide good evidence of a name change to move the page as you have indicated. Bazza (talk) 15:32, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Page re-direct deletion
Hello,
Could someone please advise on the correct template to add to a redirect page, to request deletion of it? I had to move an article that was in draft space, into my user sandbox- to try and solve an ongoing issue with google having indexed the talk page of the draft- which obviously should not have happened, but it's been appearing in google search results for possibly a long time now. Apologies I can't link to the teahouse discussion when I previously raised this (as it's been archived now), but another editor kindly submitted a 'refresh search results' request to google, in the hopes this would help them realise they shouldn't have indexed that page. It's still showing in their search results, so we had also discussed me moving the draft elsewhere to see if that helped- so I've done this now, but feel it makes sense for the re-direct to just be deleted, so people don't keep getting directed to the draft talk content as if it's mainspace content.
Hopefully this makes sense? It's a really confusing issue that we haven't been able to get to the bottom of. I didn't want to request a deletion of the whole draft either, as this way the history is preserved.
Hi! I have had this page rejected twice for not having the right encyclopedic style. I was wondering if there are specific phrases that stand out to you that are problematic.
Also, I tried to make sure there were sources for all claims - are there any specific sections that need more?
I removed some sentences. Look through your text for positive descriptions of her or her work that are not attributed to references. The awards are all minor in nature, so OK to mention, but do not contribute to confirming her notability. David notMD (talk) 16:11, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am writing an article which I have a COI of (I have interest and avocation for crypto gambling websites, although I am not personally connected to them, except to playing on their websites), but I can't really tell if my draft is too biased or not. I have pure intentions, and would like to write the article, but I just want some help along the way to make sure I'm staying neutral, and can get the article approved. Any advice on what I have so far, how I can improve the article's neutrality, and other related comments? (Draft:Duelbits)OnlyNano18:43, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@OnlyNano Looks fine to me. Someone more familiar with the topic might be able to tell if something is off (eg, if you're not reporting negative news), but the language isn't promotional. -- asilvering (talk) 18:59, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! There is typically negative reviews for crypto casinos on websites such as BitcoinTalk (a forum for Bitcoin users with sections for gambling). Though, they are user-generated content, so not reliable sources. Though, there are no negative news sources that report badly. Should I make a section with the controversy, mentioning that users on that forum have bad experiences, maybe going into that a bit, so it's balanced neutrality-wise? OnlyNano20:38, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OnlyNano, your draft combines two topic areas where Wikipedia has chronic problems with promotionalism and references to unreliable sources. Those are cryptocurrencies and online gambling. Your draft over-relies on the gambling company's own website. An acceptable Wikipedia article about a business summarizes what reliable sources that are entirely independent of the company say about the company, and the reliable, independent sources must devote significant coverage to the company. We take reliability seriously, and to be frank, I would assume that every website that promotes cryptocurrencies and online gambling is unreliable unless presented with solid evidence to the contrary. At least one of your references is a press release. I recommend that you remove it because it is not independent and is promotional. Also, most of your references are bare URLs. These should be expanded to complete references with full bibliographic details. This will make things easier on reviewers and readers. And please keep in mind that promotional content is not permitted on Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 20:50, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OnlyNano, I have checked out all the references in your draft. They are all highly promotional and obviously generated by the online gambling company's public relations efforts. I do not see a single reliable independent source that devotes significant coverage to this company. Cullen328 (talk) 21:03, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first step is to have an appropriate topic. Without that, everything else is a waste of time and effort. Who/what do you want to write about? DS (talk) 20:12, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, DalliBug, and welcome to the Teahouse, and to Wikipedia.
The first question I would ask is, why do you want to create an article (we prefer to call them that, rather than "pages")? There are many other ways you can help to improve Wikipedia, than the very very challenging one of creating a new article. (I'm in my nineteenth year editing, and have made nearly 24 000 edits, but I've only ever created a handful of articles).
If you have come here in order to create an article because you think the world should be told about something, then please consider what Wikipedia is not. A Wikipedia article should summarise what independent commentators have published about a subject, that's all: unless several such people have published material about the subject (i.e., people have already taken note of it), an article is not possible.
I suggest you start with Help:Introduction. Then I would seriously advise you to put aside the idea of creating a new article for a few months, while you learn how Wikipedia works by making improvements to some of our six million existing articles: in particular, learning about verifiability, reliable sources, neutral point of view, and notability.
How can w change a redirect to proper definition of word?
The word ubiquitous redirects automatically to omnipresent.
I created the article ubiquitous (adverb or adjective) to solve the problem.
I can't use ubiquitous because it is presently used for the redirect.
How can change to redirect to link to the correct defi
Once that is the redirect is fixed, the title Ubiquitous can be the new title for [[ubiquitous (adverb or adjective)]. Starlighsky (talk) 21:09, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Starlighsky, I read that "Ubiquitous is an adverb or adjective for that which seems to exist everywhere at the same time." This surprises me, because I'd never realized that ubiquitous is ever an adverb. I kept reading and saw no evidence, or claim, for the existence of such an adverb. (There does exist the adverb ubiquitously.) For "a simple dictionary definition", this seems curiously confused. -- Hoary (talk) 00:30, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Starlighsky, that's an example of how the adverb ubiquitously can be used. (Suggestion: there is no adverb ubiquitous in Standard English.) Tips: (i) You're trying to distinguish ubiquitous from omnipresence, but it would be better to distinguish it from omnipresent (or possibly to distinguish omnipresence from ubiquity); (ii) the article still looks like a (discursive) dictionary definition rather than an encyclopedia entry, and you'll have to work on changing this. -- Hoary (talk) 03:03, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. I am trying to fix the redirect to omnipresence from ubiquitous.
I find it interesting that I have submitted for review, twice now (after an edit), an article on musician Scott Nolan following as a template similar already published articles on musicians of a similar stature. Each time, the day before having the article rejected I've been approached by persons telling me that my article was rejected and offering their services to help. I let this sit for a bit but today was contacted by a person offering to help me fix the article and post it directly through his moderator account. Seems to me like WikiPedia has been hijacked. WPGIan (talk) 22:22, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pray tell us more, WPGIan. Maybe start by choosing the funniest example and quoting it in toto. (A self-styled "moderator" sounds promisingly incompetent.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:33, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Article without references
Yesterday We submited to google play a new social network app "Spirlal Social" - beta version.The main Idea behind Spiral is to give users the 360° understanding of their interests. This idea was realized by turning Wikipedia's articles into topics around which users can form communities. I made a draft for the app in Wikipedia but I dont have any refrencess yet. Is it possible to publish it nevertheless?
It appears you have a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia. Wikipedia articles are based on reliable sources. Until reliable sources mention your app, you have no possibility of this draft being published. Esolo5002 (talk) 22:32, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Yaronbe, and welcome to the Teahouse. I agree with Esolo, but I'll go rather further. Until independent sources discuss your app at length, you have noj possibility of this draft being published. Mere mentions are not enough, and nor is anything based on an interview or press release from you. ColinFine (talk) 22:55, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a way to save edits before publishing? I accidentally closed my browser window and seem to have lost all my edits. Can I recover them somehow?
@Boat Scherzo: Welcome to the Teahouse! On Wikipedia, there isn't a way to save without publishing. You might be able to restore your browser window to recover your text. Some people like saving their text on their computer (e.g. a word processing file). Hope your next editing session is better! GoingBatty (talk) 22:46, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does this apply to inline citations as well as main text. The manner in which the inline citations self-format and populate suggest that they are in the system somewhere, Boat Scherzo (talk) 00:48, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Before you attempt to create articles, Utahkuzaki39, practise reading reliable sources and by summarizing what you read and carefully crediting it -- not by plagiarizing or violating copyright -- make incremental improvements to existing articles. NB we don't create fantasies here in Wikipedia. -- Hoary (talk) 00:37, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Firearm production number to include or not to include variants.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_38_rifle
Should the production number of variants be included in the total production number? The page says
3,579,200 Type 38s were built. The source I'm using says 3,519,000 Type 38 rifles and carbines were produced. The Type 38 has many variants, such as the Mexican Model 1913, Type 97 sniper rifle, and the Chinese 6/5 Infantry rifle copy. The Mexican Model 1913 was made in Japan for Mexico, the Type 97 is a Type 38 with a scope and a few other small modifications, and the Chinese 6/5 is a copy. Should I include copies? Should I just include firearms made for Japan by Japan, or include made by Japan for another country? Should I only include firearms designated Type 38? There's the Type 44 carbine too, which is basically a Type 38 carbine with a new stock and folding bayonet. If all the variants were included, the total production number would be approximately 3,922,000.
Thanks Rebel1945 (talk) 23:39, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I am working on addressing the advertisement notice on this page and have some questions.
In the Carriages section, there are details which seem to be like an advert and almost like a brochure.
Lines such as these could either be removed totally or shortened -
The train also has a lounge called the Rajah Club with a private bar, two dining cars, and a dedicated bar car. The train is also equipped with a water filtration plant. An on-board souvenir boutique offers that for passengers.
And some text is not referenced. Such as - The Safari lounge and bar have a multilingual library.
Hi, I want to add an article, Ilya Oberyshyn, with the Russian, Ukrainian, and Estonian "other language". This could be seen when you press languages in the Ukrainian or Russian version of the article linked in the page above. How do I do it? Thanks, Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 03:03, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't edited Wikipedia in a while, but I was using the Special:Random link to look at random articles. I have spotted an article How Geirald the Coward was Punished witch was created in 2006 and not edited much since. The article only has one citation and one 'External links' and at least to me seams not that notable. I was thinking about proposing it for deletion my self but decided that was a bad idea given my inexperience and instead to post here for help and advice. CoderThomasB (talk) 03:55, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy link: Draft:Brunsviga
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
_Promotional_Poster.webp){kind=link}
Courtesy link: Draft:Mynampally Rohit