Archive 1235

Archive 1236

Archive 1237

Archive 1238

Archive 1239

Archive 1240

→

Archive 1243

I read WP:NEWSORG and it mentions "less-established sources." Is there a page that explains how exactly to assess whether a news organization is established?

I found a source yesterday I wanted to add as a reference in a software article. I looked into the source and it's an online news website that's pretty new (from 2022) and the writers are mostly freelancers and lots of the articles don't name the writer. It seemed good quality writing. I'm not asking about this specific source though, but for general advice for the future.

In these circumstances how am I meant to decide if it's "well-established"? I can think of common sense answers like appearing high on Google, getting mentioned on other reputable news organizations, having many articles that are well-written, and stuff like that. Is there any guidelines about this? I've seen editors say "so and so isn't reliable because it isn't an established reliable source" but I can't tell what criteria they are using or if they're just deciding themselves based on some factors. It's the "established" part that I'm not clear with.

I'm basically new to doing editing that isn't just cleaning up typos so I'm trying to familiarize myself with rules and policies before I make changes. My first language as well isn't English (or my second) so I apologize if I've put anything unclear. Thank you. CareerDoofus (talk) 18:20, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

@CareerDoofus, You may be interested in WP:RSP and WP:RSN. Most well-established news sources should appear at RSP. If you give me links to pages, I can make more thorough assessments based on your exact situation. ✶Quxyz✶ 22:26, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Is it ok to correct typos or format problems in other users' replies on talk pages? Is that frowned upon/unacceptable? If generally it's not allowed, what if it's to fix layout for example when their edit, to add their reply, somehow breaks something in the page? CareerDoofus (talk) 19:45, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

@CareerDoofus: Welcome to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1238. You will want to read WP:TPO for guidelines in editing other people's comments for what is and isn't considered appropriate. In my experience other people's typos or other errors are left as is, and correcting them may be seen as annoying and in the worst case, disruptive. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:36, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

@CareerDoofus I agree with Tenryuu. It might be OK to fix an error affecting layout within a thread that you're actually currently involved in. But we don't need grammar police retrospectively fixing old errors that we made on talk pages long ago.

Occasionally I've seen a whole talk page upset by the insertion of a malformed template, or by someone else's poorly-formed bespoke signature. If it looks like the user doesn't know how to resolve the issue - and it's gone uncorrected for some time and is liable to affect other users trying to communicate on that page - then it might then be OK to step in to fix it. But leave a polite edit summary explaining what you've done and inviting a revert if they're not happy.

Occasionally I've had very bad faith edits (vandalism or abuse) left on my talk page which another user watching my TP has reverted. Personally, I've no issue with this, though others might object.

Tread carefully, and don't make a 'thing' of it. Had you left a diff to an example you'd like to alter, we might have been able to give more specific feedback. Oh, and never ever edit errors in archived talk pages. Just leave them be.

As Hosts here, we do very occasionally fix one another's mistakes if it is liable to cause confusion to a new user. But I still tread very carefully if I do that. Often it's best to alert the editor to an issue and let them correct it for themselves, or add in a corrective reply to clarify an issue. Regards, Hope this helps. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:25, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I wondered can I iframe Wikipedia pages without any permission, or do I need someone to allow me to? I researched online but i am not into legal stuff so I am kinda confused. Under iframing Wikipedia, i mean have a part of my software have iframes of Wikipedia pages. SuperMakerRaptor (talk) 19:10, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

@SuperMakerRaptor I also have a very weak grasp of anything legal, but the gist is you can directly copy Wikipedia so long as you attribute it (i.e., "I got this stuff from a Wikipedia article, here's a link:") That's because Wikipedia is published under a free license, not copyrighted. I see no reason why iframes should be an exception to this rule. So the answer is "yes, I think so". Don't sue me if I'm wrong, though :) Cremastra (talk) 19:51, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

To be precise, Wikipedia is copyrighted, but it's published under a free license (one that allows reproduction subject to a few conditions). Copying a Wikipedia article without attribution is a copyright violation, and Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks § Non-compliance process describes how to deal with such violations. jlwoodwa (talk) 20:06, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

So that would mean "Yes" as long as I say "I took this and this from Wikipedia"?

I was thinking of doing this nonetheless but just to confirm. SuperMakerRaptor (talk) 20:20, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

@SuperMakerRaptor That's a "yes". See WP:REUSE for details. Mike Turnbull (talk) 20:47, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

The problem I have with this question, SuperMakerRaptor, is that you are assuming that Teahouse hosts will understand what you mean by "IFrame" when IFrame is a disambiguation page with four possible meanings. So, how are Teahouse hosts (or anyone else) able to figure out which meaning you are referring to? Please be specific and precise. Cullen328 (talk) 03:31, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328: In this case the only interpretation that makes any sense is HTML_element#Frames. Polygnotus (talk) 05:33, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps you are correct, Polygnotus, but why should Teahouse hosts unfamiliar with the connotations be forced to guess? Especially when the link you provided does not use the term "IFrame". I am not an expert in the computer science concept of "frames" and neither are 99.9% of our readers. Editors need to explain concepts in simple terms readily accessible to general readers, not just experts. Cullen328 (talk) 06:46, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328: the link provided lists 4 types of frames, and iframes are the 4th (An inline frame places another HTML document in a frame.). On the one hand you are correct, on the other hand sometimes when you use jargon all day every day it can be difficult to switch it off when talking to people who are (perhaps) not used to it. As someone who has to explain nerdy stuff to non-nerdy people a lot I know how difficult it is to pick what words to use and which to avoid, and how to explain concepts. Sometimes I am perceived to be condescending because I explain something someone already knows, or avoid a term someone already knows, and sometimes I am not understood or misunderstood because I assume someone knows something they don't. Communicating effectively is incredibly difficult. Polygnotus (talk) 07:11, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Polygnotus, I learned the basic principles of COBOL and FORTRAN programming using Hollerith punch card data entry in the 1970s. It took me several days to get feedback, not microseconds. I did not become a computer industry professional but instead used many generations of software to assist my career in construction management. I have always insisted on jargon free explanations in my work life and expect the same on Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 08:21, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328: I can easily write 10 jargon-filled sentences that would take a decent-sized novel to fully explain without using any jargon. Therefore I believe that jargon can be a useful tool, or a hindrance, depending on context. I try to make the barrier to communicate with me as low as possible and I try to avoid making demands that have not been communicated and agreed to beforehand. When I am not sure that I understand a question I sometimes ignore it and hope someone else answers it, and sometimes I ask for clarification. Polygnotus (talk) 08:27, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

To give another perspective on this, when I read this, I knew what OP was asking about: <iframe>Wikipedia url here (I think)</iframe> . No way professionally involved in IT, but the late 1990s and early 2000s I did pleasantly waste time making GeoCities pages for fun. At work there's "legacy" something that requires accessing an iframe link to print as a .pdf file. When I say, "well, you have to view the HTML source code...", I must admit I'm quite surprised when a number of my colleagues in their twenties just look at me and say, "the what?" Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 03:06, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Can any user (like me) welcome new users, or is there a specific group of people who are the only ones allowed to welcome new users? RedactedHumanoid (talk) 03:53, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

RedactedHumanoid, Any user may welcome new users. See Wikipedia:Welcoming committee for more details, and Wikipedia:Welcoming committee/Welcome templates for some templates you can use. Mathglot (talk) 04:06, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. RedactedHumanoid (talk) 04:08, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

General practice is to not post a Welcome template on the Talk page of an IP address or on the Talk page of a new account until after that person has begun to edit articles. David notMD (talk) 10:19, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I actually do not adhere to that practice, if indeed it is one. I follow my own sense of whether a welcome message is appropriate case-by-case. Often, I feel it is, for example when I see a thoughtful comment or sincere question on an article Talk page. This could make an interesting discussion, and if interested in carrying this further, we should probably change venues, to WT:WC. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 14:59, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

@Mathglot If you simply remove the very last word of David notMD’s response, I think you won’t disagree with it. Because so many user accounts are automatically created, or never ever edit, it’s a waste of time welcoming hundreds of users who haven’t made a single edit anywhere at all, and never will. I certainly feel happy to ‘welcome’ a new user who has made just the one edit here, or on some other non-article page. Common sense applies. Nick Moyes (talk) 19:16, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, taking away the last word is a very different sort of statement. Mathglot (talk) 03:31, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

See also WP:Twinkle, which is useful tool for both welcoming people and, when required, leaving warning messages. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:56, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I would add a personal plea - please be sure the edit you are welcoming them for is not vandalism. I have often had to warn an editor for vandalism, or other problems, immediately after the welcome template, which dilutes the importance of the subsequent warning. - Arjayay (talk) 19:29, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Just asking, THIS is the draft. Lucasfergui1024 (talk) 07:15, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

That's a reasonable question. Unfortunately I'm not quite certain of the answer. While you're waiting for a worthwhile response, a tip: Get some sources that are independent of WiiLink. (Also, perhaps explain "revival server".) -- Hoary (talk) 08:00, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't know whether there is a legal reason, but a practical reason is that the inclusion of images in a draft does not contribute towards notability or affect the likelihood of a draft being approved, so adding any images is a waste of time while the article is still a draft. Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:29, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I believe it's because a person using another person's work that is not freely licensed does not fall under "fair use", because you are using it to enhance your own work without the permission of the non-free file copyright holder. In any event, Shantavira is quite correct that images (free or otherwise) are not relevant to the draft approval process, which only considers the text and sources. 331dot (talk) 08:46, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Lucasfergui1024, and welcome to the Teahouse. The reason why the policy is stricter than the general principle of Fair use is explained at the beginning of the WP:Non-free Content Criteria. ColinFine (talk) 09:54, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

"Fair use" is at the bottom of it. Wikipedia's fair-use of non-free material is almost always based on the concept that we're advancing knowledge. Article pages in main space advance knowledge. Drafts do not, because they're not yet in a form that we expect readers to read. Therefore non-free material (usually images) must be omitted from the draft until it is moved into main-space to fulfil its educational and informative destiny! Elemimele (talk) 12:34, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

@Lucasfergui1024 – The straight-up answer is that Rule 7 of the non-free content criteria stipulates that any non-free file needs to be used in "at least one article", that article being in the mainspace as opposed to draftspace. Otherwise, the source is classified as an orphaned non-free file, which is eligible for speedy deletion under CSD F5 after seven days of not being used in any article in the mainspace (think about it this way: we need a reason to use it. If it's orphaned and it has no use, copyright pirates could steal that and the costs would far outweigh the benefits in such a case, which would be none). Since your article is still a draft, such a file would not count for the "at least one article" criteria per Rule 7, so therefore the image would still be technically orphaned and would be eligible for F5 speedy deletion unless you get that article accepted into the mainspace. — 3PPYB6 ^{(T / C / L)} — 03:52, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Also, with regards to your logo—I found this logo online and it looks like it is not original enough for copyright in itself—it is a mere irregular pentagon with text inside that is in a common enough font that I could recreate that in 5 minutes. As such, it may qualify for the public domain by virtue of it being too simple for copyright, but you may want to err on the side of caution and take my advice with a grain of salt... — 3PPYB6 ^{(T / C / L)} — 04:06, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Do good article nominations happen whenever or at a precise time of the year? WikiPhil012 (talk) 16:28, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

WikiPhil012, there is no specific time. An article can be nominated at any time. Cullen328 (talk) 17:48, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

@WikiPhil012 Just to add that, if you’re thinking about nominating an article for WP:GA status, you are expected to put have put in the work already to ensure it meets that status and/or to be prepared to fix any identified issues. It not a ‘flag it and run away’ process. It’s a commitment you should be prepared to make, and have the necessary editing experience to resolve the issues others have highlighted. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 19:07, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

@WikiPhil012 Any time of year. Details are at Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions. Get the article as close the criteria as you can before nomination, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 06:21, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I’m looking for a place on Wikipedia where I can chat with other Wikipedians about things that are not related to Wikipedia. Some websites have places where community members have a chatroom for things not specific to what the community is about, but wasn’t sure if something like this exists on or off Wikipedia. Interstellarity (talk) 19:13, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't believe any such place exists on Wikipedia itself (WP:NOTFORUM), but if you're comfortable with IRC there are social channels like #Wikipedia-coffeehouse and #Wikipedia-offtopic (and many, many more). Alternatively, Discord. GhostOfNoMan 19:45, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Interstellarity, please read WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK. A little bit of chit-chat is permitted on user talk pages among editors who already know each other. There is no chatroom on Wikipedia itself. Cullen328 (talk) 19:54, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I wish someone talked to me 2603:8001:C2F0:7D0:4CE1:A1D1:65E5:1128 (talk) 08:12, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

@Interstellarity: You can find groups of Wikipedians chatting on most social forums - Facebook, Reddit, Twitter, Mastodon, etc. There are also real-world meetups which often mix editing and technical support with social activities. You may find details on the talk page of the WikiProject about the country or place where you live; such as WT:WikiProject New York. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:12, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your information. I will definitely check it out. Interstellarity (talk) 23:15, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

"not take responsibility by providing support for the child. In the past, the solution to such problems was often a shotgun wedding, a forced marriage"

In the above text, in the Wikipedia page titled "Statutory Rape", the above text should say "by not providing support for the child". But right now it says "by providing support". Do you agree that the word "not" is missing? Writing is easy (talk) 15:02, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I do not agree. The phrase is already negated at 'not take responsibility' adding a second 'not' would be a double negative. MrOllie (talk) 15:12, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Writing is easy, I do agree with MrOllie, but I also see where your question comes from. In my view, it is the preposition by which is at fault here, because the prep. phrase with by can be read as an appositive, thereby appearing to describe "providing support" as an equivalent of "not taking responsibility". If instead you change the prep. to of, then you would have from males who might... not take [the] responsibility of providing support for the child, where the prep. phrase becomes the object of the negated participial noun phrase, and is much less likely to be read in the wrong way, or ambiguously. I would say if you wanted to change anything, change the preposition, not the negative particle. Mathglot (talk) 03:55, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Dear Mathglot: I thank you. I've never met anyone who knows and comprehends the intricacies of grammar as well as you do. Thank you. So now that we've found the error. Can I trouble you to please fix it for everyone. You can fix it in one move, and you're move will be correct. I would flounder and founder there. (I'm attempting to use those two words which are kind of new for me. I immigrated here at age 7 from Ecuador. Thanks! Writing is easy (talk) 09:36, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Should I ping Elli, or is there another way to ask this? User talk:Elli/OneClickArchiver Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 11:03, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

The archive is over at User talk:Allthemilescombined1/Archive 1. Polygnotus (talk) 11:06, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh wow, thanks! Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 11:07, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

@Allthemilescombined1: I placed template {{Archives}} at the top of your talkpage. That way it is easy to find. Polygnotus (talk) 11:08, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Great, thanks! Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 11:09, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

• Potential copyright violation log b 03:04  CopyPatrolBot talk contribs marked revision 1250881966 on Draft:Ellinor Peerschke as a potential copyright violation ‎ Tag: PageTriage

I can't tell what section this refers to? Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 13:21, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

The particular revision is this one so there was very little original content. Since most of the content consisted of the titles of articles published by that person, it makes sense that it would match other lists of articles by that person. Nothing to worry about. Polygnotus (talk) 13:26, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Do I need to change it? Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 13:27, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

You can safely ignore it, it is a false positive. Polygnotus (talk) 13:27, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 13:28, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi.

I am currently editing an article that’s a Good Article nominee. The reviewing editor has a style of leaving comments that’s very confusing and they do not like how I’m responding to the feedback. I have worked on a GA nominee before and succeeded in getting it the status and this was not an issue back then and was wondering if I can get another editor to look at this article?

thanks Lisha2037 (talk) 02:30, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Susanne Craig/GA1 · ( logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]

As of this comment, the GAN is still open. In that case, Wikipedia:Good article frequently asked questions#Review process gives you two options: one is to try asking [the reviewer] to ask for a second opinion. The second is to allow the review to fail, take the reviewer's suggestions into account, then renominate the article immediately (to get a different reviewer).

Only you can decide what is worth more to you: a GAN that passes on the first try or the effort that it takes to try to understand and accommodate a fellow editor's style. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 04:15, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello Lisha2037. Crossing out resolved issues is pretty common. It helps to make clear what's left to be done. Do you know what the reviewer is talking about with regards to indented replies? Some editors will respond to each bullet point with "done" or an explanation. Regardless, if you get a new reviewer, you'll still have to address any issues with WP:OR/WP:V. The reviewer's concerns about citation format aren't part of the GA criteria, but are decent advice. Also, the reviewer on Talk:Ritu Khullar/GA1 was very experienced; different reviewers will take different approaches. Feel free to ask additional questions, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 05:33, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi.

I have no issue with the bullet points. When I first did a review for Ritu Khullar, the edits were made chronologically and I would reply to his comments as they progressed. Since this editor uses markups and crosses out things and creates new lines and Colors, it’s super messy and confusing for me. I just think our editing styles clash and would be better if someone like the first editor looked at it. I don’t have issues with most of the things they suggested to edit, especially the ones that follow protocol. But when the edits are not in order I get confused and my work will reflect that. They left a comment about leaving the review so I’m not sure if they are even reviewing after that. Might just have to wait it out and renominate which kinda sucks as I put in a lot of work in that’s article. Hours and hours. Lisha2037 (talk) 05:44, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

@Lisha2037 Then yeah, pick one of Rotideypoc41352's options above and seek a new reviewer. Like Thebiguglyalien says below, you can post to WT:DYK as well. Sorry it's a bummer, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 06:17, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I spend a lot of time around the GA process, and I don't think I've ever seen such an intense review for such a short article. Rotideypoc41352 is correct in that you basically have two options here if you don't want to continue as it is: you can either request a second opinion, or you can withdraw the nomination. There's a formal "second opinion" setting that the review can be set to for more in depth evaluations, but it's also become common to ask for a second opinion at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations where a few people will usually take a quick look. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:47, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok do i did set it to that status. If you or @rotideypoc41352 is willing to look at it that would be swell. Since you have a lot of GA experience, that would be awesome. Lisha2037 (talk) 06:23, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Rotideypoc41352 - user:thebiguglyalien - user:Rjjiii Lisha2037 (talk) 06:26, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I can't see why anyone would countenance - much less voluntarily participate in - a process where one editor tells another (to give one example) " Subscription required for WSJ, suggest adding |url-access=subscription to the citation template; found it archived at ProQuest, suggest adding |id={{ProQuest|399089034}} to the citation template." rather than simply - and collaboratively - making such edits themselves. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:33, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Well I just changed the template to 2nd opinion for that one but the reviewer changed it back to hold saying the reviewer can only do that. Don’t know how else I’m getting someone to look at it unless one they fail it. Can someone help? Lisha2037 (talk) 14:11, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

The reviewer is User:Reidgreg. You should notify them if you open a discussion about them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:25, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: Other issues not withstanding, please sign your comments on Talk:Susanne Craig/GA1. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:27, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest. I did sign all of my posts under the General discussion part of the review. I find that having hundreds of signatures throughout the review would cause a lot of clutter, greatly add to the page size (visually and in html), and be unnecessary since (generally) there are only two editors involved in a GA review. I understand that without a signature there isn't a pretty little [reply] generated at each line. Also, suggesting is not telling. Seriously. I don't care to say anything else, at least not in this forum. I'll save it for the GAN talk pages if it's headed that way. – Reidgreg (talk) 13:00, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: I did not ask you to "sign all of your posts under the General discussion part of the review"; I asked you to "sign your comments". All of them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:39, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

@PigsonthewingHello. The reviewer does not what the 2nd opinion template on the GA page. Is there another way I can get someone involved. I’m also ok with failing the article if that’s what it takes. Lisha2037 (talk) 14:59, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I initiated a discussion about violating WP:NPOV in the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine article. However, the conversation has become a repetitive exchange of "yes, it is" vs. "no, it isn’t."

Could anyone provide advice on how to navigate and resolve such issues? I’m particularly interested in more effective argumentation strategies, examples of successful resolutions, or procedures for escalation when discussions become deadlocked. Are there any common pitfalls I might be falling into with my approach? Or should I consider focusing on less controversial topics if this issue proves too difficult to resolve? Отец Никифор (talk) 12:23, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

should I consider focusing on less controversial topics Yup. These incredibly controversial subjects are no fun. There are millions of articles that are in need of improving, and most are not controversial at all. See the Wikipedia:Task Center. New editors who start with the difficult stuff (gender, Israel/Palestina et cetera), or to right great wrongs, usually get blocked or burnt out. Polygnotus (talk) 12:26, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Отец Никифор, Welcome to the Teahouse. My advice, for those not familiar with Wikipedia policy and guidelines and how they affect how we edit and present information, is to stay clear.

I would suggest putting some of the contentious topic articles on your watchlist, even if it is a subject you're not really interested in, to watch how disagreements progress. It's a great way to learn about contentious subjects and how they are handled. It's also a good way to learn about how policy is put into practice.

For now, I would say stear clear. Knitsey (talk) 12:35, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Отец Никифор, the main policy you missed in your discussion at SEGM is WP:DUEWEIGHT, but you are still a new editor, and it takes a while to become familiar with the Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I have added some additional tips for you at your talk page. Mathglot (talk) 15:10, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

How would I cite this using visual editor? As a journal, website, what and how?

[1]https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/17/17-1091/62603/20180904160323136_Petitioners%20Opening%20Merits%20Brief_17-1091_TO%20FILE.pdf Iljhgtn (talk) 16:32, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Iljhgtn, I suggest that you use Template:Cite court. Cullen328 (talk) 16:53, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello to everybody!

I opened a move request for Macedonian denar and proposed to move it to Denar of North Macedonia (like in the case of Category:Nationality_law where North Macedonia follows a different format) or to North Macedonian denar which is the most common name backed-up with reliable sources -- 70%. The move request was closed today as "not moved" and the closer told me to write here.

It would be nice if experienced users can help me how to apply the existing policies.

1. Wikipedia tells us what Consensus means:

Consensus on Wikipedia neither requires unanimity (which is ideal but rarely achievable), nor is it the result of a vote.

(therefore votes do not count if they aren't backed-up by valid argument) and Wikipedia tells us how consensus is formed:

editors open a section on the associated talk page and try to work out the dispute through discussion, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense; they can also suggest alternative solutions or compromises that may satisfy all concerns.

2. North Macedonia's policies Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Macedonia)#Adjectival form of North Macedonia tell us what name to be used:

However, in line with the reliable sources, adjectives may still be used when referring to such institutions in generic terms (e.g. the Greek and North Macedonian prime ministers), especially where the possessive form would be grammatically cumbersome or unnatural. While reliable sources continue to use both plain "Macedonian" and "North Macedonian" in such contexts, the majority opinion in the RfC favored the fuller form, "North Macedonian".

In the absence of a clearer consensus on which of the two to prefer, it is recommended to use the longer form where ambiguity might be an issue (especially on first introducing the topic).

Article names, categories, and templates should avoid adjectival use altogether. The use of neutral formulations such as "of North Macedonia", "in North Macedonia," etc. is preferred.

In my humble opinion, the general wikipedia's policies about consensus, and the specific North Macedonia's policies about naming make clear that the users have reached an agreement for North Macedonian denar (or perhaps Denar of North Macedonia because of the last clause).

3. On the top of the already clear consensus and naming policies, the talk page of Macedonian denar hides an old move request that is backed-up by a long list of reliable sources that was collected by users who agreed and opposed, and I quote here the summary of their study:

List of Reliable Sources (North Macedonian denar: 135 findings, North Macedonia denar: 57 findings, Macedonian denar: 89 findings)

Therefore, North Macedonian denar is WP:COMMONNAME and this is backed-up with reliable sources that show: 70% of reliable webpages include "North" (48% is North Macedonian denar) and only 30% use "Macedonian denar".

4. WP:COMMONNAME tells us what common name means:

Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources. When this offers multiple possibilities, editors choose among them by considering several principles: the ideal article title precisely identifies the subject; it is short, natural, distinguishable and recognizable; and resembles titles for similar articles.

North Macedonian denar is the most common name in reliable sources (70%), precisely identifies the currency of North Macedonia, it is as short as the name of the country, it is the natural adjective in the english language, it is the best distinguishable and recognizable option, and it resembles titles for similar articles, and the most important criterion is that "North Macedonian" was agreed for State-associated and other public entities in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Macedonia)#Adjectival form of North Macedonia.

5. Last, similar discussions have been made for years under the talk pages of 2019 North Macedonian presidential election, 2020 North Macedonian parliamentary election, 2024 North Macedonian parliamentary election, and there the wikipedia policies for North Macedonia naming were used, because there were experienced editors who protected the pages. In the case of Macedonian denar, the lack of experienced editors involved in the discussion for the move request leads to a messy situation where the already agreed policies are ignored.

Could you please explain me if my understanding of the above policies is correct? Cheers! Thank you for your comments! Open Free Eye (talk) 17:17, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I am not sure, but it may be a good idea to move this to something like WP:NPOVN. A lot of stuff related to (North) Macedonia is incredibly sensitive because of Macedonia naming dispute and various related disputes. Polygnotus (talk) 18:21, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Open Free Eye Yeah, this isn't the place to seek support for your position, or to seek resolution of your dispute. 331dot (talk) 18:53, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Open Free Eye, you can initiate a move review too if you are not satisfied with the outcome. StephenMacky1 (talk) 19:26, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Good morning!

I have a question about the notability of Wolfgang Mückenheim who is my teacher and advisor.

I have written a draft which was rejected although I mentioned his solution of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox and his theory of extended probabilities having more than 200 quotes and his 4 published books, one with 7 editions, another one with 4 editions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Wolfgang_M%C3%BCckenheim

I could incorporate the following points but will do so only if it is promising. Therefore I would like to know the opinion of experienced Wikipedians.

One of his books has even become a bestseller. https://www.hs-augsburg.de/~mueckenh/Transfinity/Bestseller%202012H%20+.pdf

In German Wikipedia his page is clicked twice a day on average. https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=de.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&range=latest-20&pages=Wolfgang_M%C3%BCckenheim

His correspondence with Maurice Bartlett, mainly on his theory is kept by the Royal Socienty. https://catalogues.royalsociety.org/CalmView/Record.aspx?src=CalmView.Catalog&id=MSB%2f2%2f91

Even the famous John Maddox, the former editor of Nature, has published a full article on Mückenheim's theory https://www.nature.com/articles/320481a0

which has stirred up readers' letters. https://www.nature.com/articles/324307b0 Praetor71 (talk) 08:20, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Didn't he retire in 2014? The German Wikipedia article says Seit 2014 ist er im Ruhestand. and the source is his own CV.

I think the relevant pages are WP:NACADEMIC and WP:GNG. I don't have a definitive answer one way or the other. Polygnotus (talk) 09:58, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Wolfgang Mückenheim was Declined (with reasons given), which is less severe than Rejected. Carry on! David notMD (talk) 13:13, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes he is retired but he continues to give lectures (always in winter semester) on history of mathematics and the infinite and supervises Studienarbeiten. Praetor71 (talk) 13:48, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

For a living person, all facts need to be verified by references. The draft has content without references. David notMD (talk) 13:55, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Does German Wikipedia serve as reference? Praetor71 (talk) 17:53, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

never! 176.0.148.153 (talk) 19:34, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

You mention the full article about him published in Nature. That is your starting point, as that is what is called significant coverage at Wikipedia, which is the linchpin of WP:Notability, which is the core policy requirement (there are others) for a Draft to become an article . As DavidnotMD said, keep going. Mathglot (talk) 15:17, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

@Praetor71 I have just looked at our article on negative probability and nothing by Mückenheim is mentioned there. That might be a place to include some details of his work. For a biography, you need sources which are about him, not so much about his theories or academic contributions. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:30, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles (any language) cannot be used as references in English Wikipedia. David notMD (talk) 18:20, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Is there any good sources to use for editing and reviewing article information? Gooners Fan in North London (talk) 19:28, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Helpo, Gooners Fan, and welcome to the Teahouse. That question is really too general to be able to answer in any useful way. I'm not even sure what you mean by "sources to use for edits". Are you asking about sources that tell you to edit? If so, Help:Introduction is probably a good start.

But I'm guessing that that is not what you mean; so unless you can narrow down your question a bit, I'm just going to point you to WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:REFB. Please come back if you have some more specific questions. ColinFine (talk) 21:17, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello everyone,

I have trouble creating a infobox for a scholar. The one I created seems not to have all the features and design that those of the other pages. Thank you very much for your help. The Götzen Dämmerung (talk) 22:48, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

The Götzen Dämmerung, in the future, please add a link to all your questions. I presume you are talking about the article Willemien Otten? It seems to have one already. You could just copy the Infobox from a similar article, and alter the fields appropriately. See also Help:Infobox, and the documernation at Template:Infobox art historian. Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 22:57, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Okay, sorry, I did not got that. Yes, I was asking about the article Willemien Otten, but also in general. Thank you for your help, this is helpful. The Götzen Dämmerung (talk) 23:03, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I am a new student editor and I am looking to start a page on individual US State Elections policies and laws. Looking for people interested in contributing and or starting up a project dedicated to this. Forgive me if this page exists, I was not able to locate one. Lightworker8 (talk) 20:42, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

@Lightworker8, I'm unaware of any page that is devoted to an individual state's voting policies/laws, but there are pages and sections of pages that address specific types of election laws, discussing the variations state-by-state, and sometimes there's a US map that attempts to capture similar info. For example, the page on US Voter ID Laws has this state-by-state table and this map, and the page on Voter Registration has several relevant tables and maps. If you do a text search on these pages, you'll find that there are places where another editor has noted that a citation is needed or an update is needed, and given your interests, those would be great tasks to work on. If you read those pages, you may also find statements that could use a citation or an update, even though there's no [citation needed] or [update needed] next to it.

I'm only a moderately experienced editor and have never created a new page from scratch, and the experienced editors here regularly comment that creating an article is one of the hardest things to take on; they generally advise against it for new editors, instead suggesting that you spend time editing existing pages in order to learn more about Wikipedia's editing policies/guidelines/tools. But if you're going to go ahead with creating a new article, here's some guidance. FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:06, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Lightworker8, can you give an example of what you plan to write about? Here for example, is the article Elections in North Carolina. Does this article cover what you wish to cover in some part of it? If not, I would suggest you start there, create a new section covering the gist of the topic, making sure it is well sourced with citations. Once you are done with that, if you feel there is a great deal more that needs to be said than will fit there in that section, the next step would be to split off the section into a new article. But this would be the place to start; when you finish that, come back here and ask about how to do the split.

If you meant one page covering all states, what would you call that article? If it is meant to be a comparative summary of election laws, like, early voting yes-or-no, first date, last date, and so on, maybe in a great big sortable table, you could create List of major state election policies in the United States, after verifying that something like that doesn't exist, but that is a larger undertaking. If you are a new editor, that might be a bit daunting of a task to start out with.

Finally, please read Help:Your first article which has lots of useful tips if you do decide to create a new article. Mathglot (talk) 23:08, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

How do I know if my article is relevant? Because I want to create a article on someone but I do not know if it's relevant. Crate.arg (talk) 22:58, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Do you mean notability? jlwoodwa (talk) 23:41, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Relevant to what? Anyway, do you have three or more sources on the subject that are that are substantive, reliable, and independent of the subject and each other? -- Hoary (talk) 00:57, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

In other words, you need reliable, in-depth sources so that you can cite them in your article. Ca ^{talk to me!} 01:37, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Crate.arg, have a look at Help:Your first article. It has the answer to your questions. Mathglot (talk) 01:41, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

When articles are being written about films, I notice there’s never a citation for things like the genre or plot, editors just write from their own personal viewing of the film. Is there any specific etiquette governing this practice that one should be aware of? Say, if one editor calls a movie a drama but I say it’s also a black comedy, what happens in this scenario? Snokalok (talk) 22:27, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Snokalok. WP:WikiProject Film points to (among other places) MOS:Film. If that doesn't answer your questions, then I would think discussion somewhere in the WikiProject would be best. ColinFine (talk) 22:30, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

See also WP:GENREWARRIOR and WP:DR and WP:3O. Polygnotus (talk) 22:36, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Then it's time to look for a reference. 176.0.148.153 (talk) 22:41, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Things in a film definitively happen/are shown/are said, and the film itself serves as the source for noting these in its article's Plot section, just as a textbook's actual text serves as the source for facts it states. The same goes for other facts like the members of the cast list, which are shown in the credits (as well as being published elsewhere).

Whether or not the film is a drama, or a black comedy, etc., are value judgements on the part of yourself or another viewer that are not actually stated in the film. All judgements about the film need to be cited to a Reliable source such as a professional film critic, or statements by the Director, etc. So you can say "most of the scenes take place at night" (if that's true), but not, from that observation alone "the film is noir" (for example). Even if the Director has said "the film is a noir thriller", the article cannot state that "the film is a noir thriller"; rather it must say "the Director states that the film is a noir thriller" and cite that statement. Does this help? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.6.86.81 (talk) 01:45, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

. 2A13:54C2:F000:CB6E:8078:5D71:5C8F:F6FD (talk) 09:39, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

No, it is not permitted to use emoji in usernames(see WP:NOEMOJI). 331dot (talk) 09:41, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia need any assistance with writing or improving scripts? I’d be happy to help with that. Отец Никифор (talk) 23:49, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

You might be interested in Wikipedia:User scripts/Requests. jlwoodwa (talk) 00:21, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

@Отец Никифор: Always. Do you specifically mean JavaScript, or what languages are you familiar with? See Wikipedia:WikiProject JavaScript. Coding is a million times more fun than gender-related discussions! Polygnotus (talk) 04:30, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

JS/Python can write SQL query. Отец Никифор (talk) 09:23, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I'll respond on your talkpage. Polygnotus (talk) 09:47, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm interested in providing geographic and geological information about the hill, (among others found in the Falklands), (of which sources do exist) rather than the military history found in the battle of longdon article. I think however, that both articles would probably benefit from a merge, but I don't know because I'm new, what do you think? AlaskanGrass (talk) 19:21, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, if you think the merge might be controversial, you can place a {{mergefrom|other article name}} tag at the top of the article to which information will be added, and {{mergeto|primary topic article name}} at the top of the article that would disappear and become a redirect.

Otherwise, you just be bold and add all the relevant material to the article that is to become the primary topic, and when you're done, replace the content of the no-longer-needed article with one line:
#REDIRECT [[New article name here]]

Reply here or my talk page if you need help. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:29, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

AlaskanGrass, Wikipedia has separate articles for Tewkesbury and Battle of Tewkesbury. I think the idea of merging them would be absurd. Maproom (talk) 22:36, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

So in effect, we do not merge for the purposes of lengthening the article or increasing the amount of sources it has? Even if this does increase the article quality from say a stub class to a start or even C-Class? These are the kinds of benefits I would assume would come from merging these two articles, based on a sort of, pragmatism about the availablity of sources between them, so I am curious how this comes across as absurd. Are all battles for a given hill and the hill itself typically isolated into seperate articles by convention at wikipedia or is this judged on a case by case, best judgement by the user? AlaskanGrass (talk) 22:55, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

If it helps, the third item under WP:NOTMERGE says, Merging should be avoided if: [...] The topics are discrete subjects warranting their own articles, with each meeting the General Notability Guidelines, even if short (emphasis original). Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 01:23, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

This does help, I think this answers my question. Thank you Rotideypoc41352 AlaskanGrass (talk) 10:41, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

there are many alternative and fake site is available with the name of zlibrary which steal username info. if any one have idea about ew domain of zlibray you are free to provide details here. Ashishvrm (talk) 11:18, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

@Ashishvrm Please can you explain what this has to do with Wikipedia? Our Z-library article says that it is illegal in many jurisdictions and only available via the dark web. It sounds like caveat emptor would apply to anyone using such a site. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:35, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

@Michael D. Turnbull: that is linkspam. I have deleted the link. Polygnotus (talk) 11:53, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I created a list article: List of architecture schools in India, because pages such as List of architecture schools, Bachelor of Architecture and Master of Architecture included incomplete list of architecture schools in India. The inclusion/exclusion of schools on these pages were arbitrary, and the bulleted list was not organised (such as alphabetical, chronological, etc). I was concerned about academic boosterism. Therefore, intended purpose of the List of architecture schools in India was to provide a comprehensive list. The inclusion/exclusion criteria was simple and straightforward: Is the school approved by Council of Architecture to award UG degree?

The Wikipedia is not a directory, therefore, I tried to provide more contextual information, such as which of these schools are also approved by Council of Architecture to provide PG degree? What are these PG programmes? How did these schools rank in the latest National Institutional Ranking Framework's Architecture and Planning category?

When the One Source Template was added to the page, I did some further reading on Wikipedia policy but I am unclear on the following points:

• Do we need more sources, when the Council of Architecture is most authoritative and reliable source on the matter? Yes, it is primary source. But, when considering aspects such as accreditation of higher education institution, isn't it better to rely on the concerned board?

• Wikipedia's Common selection criteria says, If reliable sources indicate that a complete list would include the names of ten notable buildings and two non-notable buildings, then you are not required to omit the two non-notable buildings. However, if a complete list would include hundreds or thousands of entries, then you should use the notability standard to provide focus to the list.. As of now, the Council of Architecture's approved school number stands at 381. Should the number of entries be reduced? If yes, how do it without causing academic boosterism?

• Should this list article be deleted? And, the partial list of schools under each of the List of architecture schools, Bachelor of Architecture and Master of Architecture should be restored, but with some restructuring? If this list article should be retained, how can it be improved to comply with Wikipedia Standards and Policy?

SivanTroye (talk) 06:52, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Disjointed comments for SivanTroye:

1. The article is "List of architecture schools in India". It starts "This is a list of Architecture Schools in India recognised by the Council of Architecture for providing architectural education [...]". Are there, or have there recently been, architecture schools in India not recognised by the Council of Architecture?
2. The article is very heavily dependent on the say-so of the Council of Architecture. This is briefly described in the article "List of architecture schools in India". But the reader is told "Main article: Council of Architecture". And the article Council of Architecture is sourced to ... the Council of Architecture. Something's wrong here.
3. Can you find no comments from outside Japan India on either the Council of Architecture's standards or on how well institutions adhere to these (in reality, not just in theory)? A strange brainfart of mine! Corrected Hoary (talk) 23:07, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
4. There's no mention of doctorates. This puzzles me. Do residents of India (if sufficiently affluent or in receipt of large grants) do their doctorates outside India?

-- Hoary (talk) 08:46, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, @Hoary for your repones.

1. Probably there has been architecture schools in India not recognised by the the Council of Architecture. But, the graduates from these schools are not eligible to practice architecture in India (As per the Architects Act of 1972).

2. I have included two sources: The Architects Act of 1972 which outlines the roles and responsibility of Council of Architecture, as well as basic profile on the Council of Architecture by Indian Ministry of Education. However, I agree with you that main article, Council of Architecture, needs significant clean up.

3. I failed to think about sources outside India. Just found that Commonwealth Association of Architects (CAA) has published a directory of architecture schools which is a bit out-of-date compared to Council of Architecture. For instance, Da Vinci School of Design and Architecture lost its approval in Council of Architecture. But it is listed in the CAA's directory. Also, note that in the same document, Appendix II (Directory of National Regulators) enlists only Council of Architecture for India, whereas, Canada for instance has multiple regulators.

4. About doctoral programme, Council of Architecture only comments on PhD as an eligibility requirement for holding teaching positions in Indian Architecture School. To my personal knowledge, I think its because PhD falls under purview of University Grant Commission, and not Council of Architecture.

Can you please advise me on how to proceed further? SivanTroye (talk) 10:41, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

SivanTroye, perhaps it would be better if the article were retitled "List of recognised architecture schools in India". (NB this is not a suggestion; it's merely me thinking out loud.) I'm disappointed that nobody else has yet responded to you here. If nobody does so in the next couple of days, then I suggest that you repeat more or less the same question, but this time at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Higher education. It's been quite some time since I last asked a question there; but whenever I did ask, I was impressed by the informedness and clarity of the responses. -- Hoary (talk) 23:07, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Yes, it might good to hear thoughts of different people. Especially, on retitling it as "List of recognised architecture schools in India." SivanTroye (talk) 11:56, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I read the pages on customizing signatures, but i an not succeeding in adding this emoji. Any help? Cogito^MDCXXXVII (talk) 12:12, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be "ergo sum"? Polygnotus (talk) 12:15, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Some think that part was not proved by Descartes.Only the existence of thinking was proved.But what about the emoji? Cogito^MDCXXXVII (talk) 12:23, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

@CogitoMDCXXXVII It is still not permitted to use emoji in usernames(see WP:NOEMOJI). Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:44, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I know. I am talking about a signature now. Not a username.Anyway I found how to do it. Cogito!^MDCXXXVII (talk) 12:49, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I encountered sometimes articles of academics that looks more like Curriculum than Wikipedia articles. A recent example is Moran Dermot. The page has barely no sources. Moreover, it seems to be simply a copy-paste from a very long curriculum. What is the process when one encounters such pages? I put some warnings and opened a discussion but I wonder if it was the right thing to do. Is there a general process for that? Thank you in advance for your help. The Götzen Dämmerung (talk) 23:06, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm only a moderately experienced editor, but here's my take on it: it does indeed look like a CV, and it looks like most of the contents of the page came from two single-purpose accounts (here and here) that may have had conflicts of interest. The first question is whether the subject meets the notability standards for an academic. I poked around a bit, and I'd say that Moran meets one or more of the criteria; for example, he was awarded the Royal Irish Academy's Gold Star, which strikes me as a sufficiently notable award. In my experience, one problem with notable academics is that it can be hard to find acceptable sources for info about them. Often, the sources are not independent of the subject and/or are self-published, which is only sometimes acceptable. Since WP isn't a hosting service for someone's CV, I'd say that most of that article should be deleted (e.g., the entire sections on articles, book chapters, book reviews, and most of the awards, as they're not notable by WP standards). And as you noted, most of the contents is unsourced, so there's also a decision about whether to add a bunch of "citation needed" templates or to delete the unsourced content. Depending on your interests, you could try to improve the article by finding acceptable sources for some of the contents. Hopefully a more experienced editor will chime in. FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:09, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

It's a multi-stage process, The Götzen Dämmerung. I've carried out the first stage. Using WorldCat or whatever, look up a handful among the books and check that they are what they're claimed to be. (They probably are.) If so, then you can assume that the rest are OK too (unless you have a particular reason to be suspicious). The existence of each book requires no reference. (WorldCat's description of a copy of a book acts as a reference for the book's existence.) Everything else must be referenced. Just remove whatever isn't referenced. -- Hoary (talk) 01:14, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

@Hoary, a lot of the remaining books are hyperlinked to Amazon. Am I correct in assuming that those are not appropriate and the links should be removed? FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:42, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes indeedy, FactOrOpinion. The ISBN for a book (or more specifically the edition of a book) that has it; if it hasn't one, then the number of what seems to be a carefully composed OCLC record. -- Hoary (talk) 03:09, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @Hoary for these explanations, this is helpful. I agree with you regarding the fact that Moran meets the criteria of notability and that the article is valid. Good to know that the existence of each book requires no reference in general, and that everything else can be removed. The Götzen Dämmerung (talk) 14:45, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Dear all. I hope you are doing well. Please what do you think about this : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HEC_Paris&diff=1249231390&oldid=1244886612 on HEC Paris ; It looks like an article destroyed. Please do not hesitate to modify the article directly. I am not sure what to do. Thanks a lot in advance. Kind Regards. 110.232.86.40 (talk) 07:51, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

It looks like someone cleaned up the article. And that someone is @S0091: Polygnotus (talk) 07:58, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

It looks to you like an article destroyed; it looks to me (first impression) like an article stripped of unreferenced material (and with a number of other, minor improvements). I haven't looked at it closely, however: my impression could be mistaken. Could you point to one instance within it removal of clearly worthwhile material (which of course is reliably and independently sourced)? -- Hoary (talk) 08:02, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. You think so? Including removing sections correctly sourced (Financial Times or others)? --110.232.86.40 (talk) 08:03, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I give you one example. The MOOC section with the source : https://etudiant.lefigaro.fr/les-news/actu/detail/article/hec-paris-premiere-business-school-francaise-a-se-lancer-dans-les-mooc-3010/ has been removed. Please have a look closely. --110.232.86.40 (talk) 08:05, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

The MOOC section does indeed look pretty good. I suggest that you change what's between "<ref>" and "</ref>" to {{Cite newspaper | title=HEC, première business school française à se lancer dans les MOOC | work=Le Figaro | first=Lucile | last=Quillet | date=4 October 2013 | access-date= |language=fr}}, in order to show that it's a signed piece and in a respected newspaper. (Add your access date.) Also, replace or gloss "Currently" (e.g. "As of 2024"). In Talk:HEC Paris, suggest reinstating the section (with these minor improvements. If you get a yes, go ahead. If there's no response within one week, go ahead. If there's a negative response ... well, consider what to do according to the rationale expressed in the rejection. -- Hoary (talk) 09:29, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your feedback. You have more sections which are ok. @S0091: has to do it, he is the one who deleted everything. Or at least an experienced user. --110.232.86.40 (talk) 09:56, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

That's not how it works. Deleting unsourced material is an improvement to the article. If you (or someone else) disagrees with the deletion, you (or they) can put the content back again, but if it is unsourced it will likely be removed again. Just fyi: if you are coming from French Wikipedia, they are much more tolerant of unsourced material, which explains why articles here at English Wikipedia which are good-faith translations of a French Wikipedia article, are not infrequently gutted, or even deleted entirely. I recently reduced a fully translated draft of contraventions from a fully translated French article, down to a single sentence, for which I had to add citations to make it compliant with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I later built it back up again from scratch, but there was no imperative for me to do so, and it could have languished as a one-sentence Draft stub until it got deleted.

I haven't looked at the history of our HEC Paris article, but it would not surprise me at all if it was either translated from French Wikipedia, or worked on here by French editors, more familiar with French Wikipedia P&G than the P&G here, which are stricter, and applied more diligently. Mathglot (talk) 15:26, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi everybody. I have just seen this : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HEC_Paris&diff=1251076861&oldid=1251045915 ; So I quit, Wikipedia is not very serious or it is a place when anybody can do vandalism. Many thanks again for all your support. Have a very nice day. --110.232.86.40 (talk) 08:40, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi, 110.232.86.40, you're a fine editor, please come back. The linked diff above shows the removal by a third party editor of 7kb of your content from HEC Paris, including remival of the twenty-one citations that you added in support of your added content. This content removal has been undone, and all of your added material is back in the article. More at your Talk page. Mathglot (talk) 15:02, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I'm an instructor guiding students in creating Wikipedia articles on medical topics. We use the list of requested articles for medicine as a starting point. I am now planning the semester 2 syllabus and would like to establish best practice around 2  areas:

We've encountered issues with articles being declined for "already existing" under different names, despite being on the requested list. How can we better guide students in topic selection from this list? Should we advise against drafting articles that seem to exist under different names, or proceed assuming the request is valid?

Regarding medical content best practices, should writers of specialist medical topics still primarily target a lay audience? Our current advice acknowledges some articles may be more technical, but editor feedback often suggests content is "too specialist." How should we advise students on this balance? G.J.ThomThom (talk) 04:08, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable provides some guidance. Often, readers do not get past the Lead, so that section should be targeted down and not be jargon. David notMD (talk) 04:28, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Don't forget WP:MEDRS for references. And that having a PMID number for a sci journal article, https://tools.wmflabs.org/citation-template-filling/cgi-bin/index.cgi can be used to generate references. David notMD (talk) 04:29, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Note that the list is not actively maintained. It can be helpful for ideas, but there's no guarantee that the items there meet Wikipedia's notability requirements or that they aren't already covered in another article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:36, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

This is very helpful, thank you. The 2 sets of students we get to create articles are biomedical science students and pharmacy students. There is a requested article list covering specifically pharmacy topics. Just wondering if the stubs are organised per field or eos the list comprise all areas within medicine? G.J.ThomThom (talk) 06:23, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

@G.J.ThomThomI don't know how helpful this is (given that a lot of medical stubs remain stubs because they're hard to expand) but we have 12090 medicine-related stubs and 22929 medicine-related start class articles. These should all be notable, some of them will be badly in need of expansion, but they're often neglected. I know it's not the same as article creation, but expanding these articles could potentially serve a similar purpose. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 05:49, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

This response was meant for you: This is very helpful, thank you. The 2 sets of students we get to create articles are biomedical science students and pharmacy students. There is a requested article list covering specifically pharmacy topics. Just wondering if the stubs are organised per field or eos the list comprise all areas within medicine? G.J.ThomThom (talk) 06:32, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the very helpful answers to my first 2 questions. I have another one which may not have a straightforward answer but am putting it out there anyway. I'd like to improve our processes to avoid other issues we've encountered before. Here's our current process:

·      Our groups are made up of 20 students.

·      Students work in pairs on a single article they have selected from the requested article list.

·      Each student creates their own Wikipedia account.

·      All students join the education dashboard.

·      Only one account per pair is used for the draft that will move to the main space (total of around 10 articles by the end of the semester).

·      We encourage all students to practise editing in their own sandboxes.

We've implemented this structure because we want all students to learn Wikipedia processes. However, we've had a couple of incidents where students were accused of sock puppetry due to similar content appearing in multiple places.

Given a class of about 20 students working in pairs, how can we best organise this activity to:

·      Ensure all students learn Wikipedia editing processes

·      Avoid sock puppetry accusations

·      Maintain clarity in which account is responsible for the main draft

·      Use the education dashboard effectively

Should we modify our current approach? Are there best practices for managing student pairs in Wikipedia education projects that we should adopt? G.J.ThomThom (talk) 06:08, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

One more question about GenAI. Are there any written guidelines or a written policy regarding use of GenAI for article creation? I read recently there is a task force trying to clean up articles. G.J.ThomThom (talk) 06:15, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi! You should not do this. Please please stop. Do not do this.

Writing medical articles that fall under WP:MEDRS is one of the hardest things you can do on Wikipedia.

Creating a decent article takes a lot of time and effort, you need to know quite a bit of the literature to be able to give a decent overview of a topic.

Students will produce low-quality stuff, and our volunteers will have to waste their precious time cleaning the mess up, when they'd rather write them from scratch. Polygnotus (talk) 06:22, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Please stop what? We have our own very clear university policy regarding use of GenAI. I would like to guide students to a written statement or link if there is one pointing out the harms to Wikipedia etc. G.J.ThomThom (talk) 06:26, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

The project as a whole. Do not collaborate with the Wiki Education Foundation. Do not let students write articles about WP:MEDRS topics. It is a very bad idea. See WP:AICLEAN for AI-related information. WikiEdu is infamous for dumping a load of terrible articles on Wikipedia which require a lot of work to clean up. A lot of WikiEdu students are set up for failure because they don't get the guidance required and not enough time to write a decent article (which will always take way more time than predicted) and the result is that Wikipedians have to completely rewrite those articles or get them deleted which wastes volunteer time. If you do not listen to my advice, at least find an experienced Wikipedian who can determine which topics are or are not suitable. Last time you ended up with a bunch of declined AfC submissions; why was nothing done with those? Please read your talkpage: User talk:G.J.ThomThom. Polygnotus (talk) 06:27, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your input but telling us to abandon our project is not helpful at all. I value the Wikipedia community and am here to learn how to contribute more effectively. Our goal is to teach students about Wikipedia's standards and processes while contributing meaningful content. A lot of the issues we face come from a misunderstanding and I am trying to address the most common areas of misunderstanding. We're actively working to address any issues and improve the quality of our students' contributions and we're seeking constructive feedback on how to enhance our approach. Many of our students have successfully contributed valuable articles that have been accepted by the community. G.J.ThomThom (talk) 06:47, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

When someone is about to repeat a mistake, the most helpful thing one can do is yell "stop!". The people who accept or decline draft at the Article for Creation process just use a very simple flowchart, going through AfC does not mean that an article is valuable. It would not be wise to start a new course without learning from the mistakes from the past. Why was nothing done with the declined drafts from last time? Polygnotus (talk) 06:49, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Nothing you are saying is helpful. G.J.ThomThom (talk) 06:50, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Cool. Well, I spent quite a bit of time cleaning up after someone who started a WikiEdu course who knew little about Wikipedia and was completely unwilling to listen to advice. Polygnotus (talk) 06:54, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

G.J.ThomThom, your concentration on creating new articles is misguided. Look at the history of any good Wikipedia article, and observe how much work went into creating it, and how much into subsequently improving it. I support what GreenLipstickLesbian wrote above. If you can get your students to concentrate on improving existing articles rather than creating new ones, that will be better for everyone. Maproom (talk) 07:13, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

This is a programme that has been established for some time. I am new to it all and am keen to update it and implement better processes. Thanks for your suggestion. G.J.ThomThom (talk) 07:32, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

G.J.ThomThom: The education program, and your course, may have been around for some time, but that does not mean that experienced Wikipedia volunteer editors are enthusiastic about it. Ultimately, contributions to Wikipedia should support the goals of Wikipedia and follow its core policies, which may not necessarily align with the goals and policies of an education program. I would hope that you are already aware of the guidelines on student assignments; WP:ASSIGN#GUIDANCE summarises the main issues that can lead to frustration on the part of veteran editors. I echo GreenLipstickLesbian and Maproom's suggestions – I think it's valuable for all new editors (not only students) to learn how Wikipedia works by improving existing articles rather than trying to create new ones from scratch. — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 09:00, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

@G.J.ThomThom As someone who has went through the entirety of Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Missing diseases about 40% of the entries were redirects (meaning the articles already existed under a different name) and the remaining red links are mostly isolated case reports of diseases only diagnosed once or twice. If your students are interesting in writing about medical diseases then I can personally give you a list of which red links are notable as I have a running list somewhere on my computer. However I would like to instead suggest that you instead focus your attention to Category:Medicine stubs as most (not all) of these articles are notable enough for an article and they just require some dedication to bring them up to standards. Category:Pharmacology stubs may be of particular interest to your students. IntentionallyDense (talk) 02:08, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Yes please do pass on a list of red links which are notable G.J.ThomThom (talk) 02:31, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

A simple note - you wrote "...for the draft that will move to the main space." As part of the process, please, please have all drafts submitted to Articles for Creation (AfC) rather than being moved to mainspace. AfC usually has a backlog of thousands of drafts. Because the system is not a queue this means that drafts can be reviewed in days, weeks, or sadly, months. If the submissions are declined the students will get reasons why from an experienced reviewer. This is vastly preferrable to drafts forwarded to mainspace that are so flawed that they are worthy of deletion. Bad information in articles is always a problem, but in medical/health articles, may actually potentially harm readers who act on the information. I personally have deleted content and references from hundreds of medical/health articles that was misleading or just plain wrong. Inform the students that per WP:MEDRS, journal articles about individual clinical trials are not acceptable references. Ditto animal studies. And please, no AI. David notMD (talk) 13:08, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Listed: at WP:ENB, WT:MEDRS. Mathglot (talk) 15:38, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I saw one of Mathglot's notes. @G.J.ThomThom, may I invite you to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine? That's the page where you can find editors who like working on Wikipedia's medical content. We've got a grad student class that comes through every year and does some great work. We've also had experiences with first-year students with no medical background whose contributions were ...more mixed.

While I'm here, I think that there are two things you could consider as entry points for your classes:

• Learn how to identify and add a good source to existing content. For example: The data in the table at Disease#Burdens of disease is 20 years old. Could they find an awesome source with current numbers? (This is something you could do as a whole-class exercise, but statistics are frequently out of date, so you could easily find 20 articles that need a similar change made.) For another example, they could pick a medical article (popular ones listed here) and look for a sentence that is probably correct, but the source is 10+ years old/otherwise not a great source, and replace the old/weak source with a great source. (See, e.g., at least 20% of the sources in Autism.)
• Fix that outdated list. The huge number of synonyms is a fact of life, so this is a good learning experience. They can learn how to create WP:REDIRECTS. For example, Wikipedia:Requested articles/Medicine#Pharmacology lists Drugs and gestation, which should presumably redirect to the existing article about Drugs in pregnancy. They can also edit the list to provide more information and/or links to sources, to help the next person who looks at it. Even a note that says "might be same subject as Drugs in pregnancy?" is helpful.

But overall, I think your best bet is to stop by Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine and introduce yourself. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:45, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Also, I'd love to see a list of the articles your previous students have already created. It looks like the list includes Stomach reduction surgery, Cardiovascular agents, Amorphinism, Gout suppressants, Antipsychotics abuse, Drug antagonism, Subtalar arthroereisis, and more. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:50, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to write these great suggestions! G.J.ThomThom (talk) 22:41, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

@G.J.ThomThom: So, the WP:CONSENSUS is that you shouldn't let them write articles from scratch. Will you respect the consensus? And have you considered the suggestion of reflecting on what went wrong in the past, and how to avoid repeating those mistakes? Polygnotus (talk) 23:05, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that any discussion here reached a consensus. If the students intend to understand guidelines first, then their drafts are more likely to be Declined versus Rejected or Speedy deleted. Your responsibility is to view their drafts first, so that they are not just wasting a Reviewer's time. In the end, perhaps most of them will fail to get a draft approved, which is itself a learning experience. David notMD (talk) 23:15, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

If 4 people express the same opinion, and none disagree, that is a small consensus. Polygnotus (talk) 04:19, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't think student articles are particularly worse than your average entirely new Wikipedia editor, and quite frankly, I like them a lot better than the COI and paid editors (though, I like the average new editor a lot better than those as well so I guess that's not saying much). Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:42, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, but the problem in the previous iteration of this course was not the quality of the articles, the problem was that no one checked if we already had an article on that topic. In another course I was involved in the quality was far far lower. Lots of COPYVIO. Polygnotus (talk) 04:46, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

@Alpha3031, we pulled stats on WikiEdu student editors a while ago. About 2% of our registered newbies last year were student accounts. They were more than three orders of magnitude less likely to get blocked than non-student accounts (looking only at accounts that made edits, since almost all student accounts make at least one edit). They're far more likely to come back to edit a second day (which is a necessary precondition for reading any messages we post). There is no actual data that demonstrates that students are worse than other newbies on any metric we've ever checked. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:11, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Good to hear my impression that they're not any worse has some data in support. I can speculate why it might feel worse to reviewers working in the area (even though it has not been my experience), since we do tend to get a lot of similar articles at the same time, which would probably stick out. WikiEdu can be improved, sure, nothing is perfect, but if it's not worse than any other source of new editors, I don't see why we should treat it more harshly. Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:39, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

@Alpha3031: We seem to be having 2 parallel conversations in 2 different locations, can I invite you to User talk:WhatamIdoing? Polygnotus (talk) 08:33, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I think the other thing that sticks out is that the student editors don't give up as easily as ordinary volunteers. From the POV of a daily editor, this can be frustrating. If an ordinary newbie shows up at an article you (=the generic you, not you personally) WP:OWN and makes a change, you can revert them and they'll usually just give up. Half of our new editors never edit a second day. Many of them see that their contribution was reverted and give up right then. A student will come back another day to try again, or will ask you for an explanation, or will try to make sense of the rules. Engaging in collegial, cooperative, consensus-driven discussion requires a lot more effort than simply running off any newbies who dare to touch "your" article.

I do understand the costs of collegial work. To give only one small example, I've spent several years explaining to multiple well-intentioned newbies that it's not okay to make a sex-specific article be gender-neutral by doing a simple search-and-replace from "women" to people", because "80% of women" is not the same as "80% of people". I really like explaining things to people, and even I get tired of it sometimes. But we're here to build an encyclopedia together, not merely to get my personal way as efficiently as possible all the time, so somebody needs to give the explanations. And I am aware that I am going to die one of these days, so I need some of these newbies to figure out how to edit now, so that maybe a decade or two from now, one of them will be as experienced as I am now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:08, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Well if we are trying to build consensus then I for one disagree with this. I think student editors are a great way to get more people to edit Wikipedia and I don’t think we need to be so harsh about it. IntentionallyDense (talk) 06:14, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Then its 4 against one. One who is IntentionallyDense. QED. Polygnotus (talk) 08:35, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I also disagree that there is any consensus against these students writing articles. @Polygnotus, how many of the articles from GJ's previous class did you personally clean up? Can you give me a list? Looking at the ones I linked above, you touched none of them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:46, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

See above, and that is a straw man argument. But I did spend a lot of time desperately trying to clean up behind someone who did a WikiEdu course and ignored feedback from a bunch of experienced Wikipedians. And it sucked. MEDRS articles are among the most difficult things to write on Wikipedia. I felt bad for the students, who were doomed to fail and the teacher who seemed to have been dropped in the deep end. Learning to make meaningful contributions to existing articles is already a very difficult task, and Wikipedia articles are not like a normal essay. Polygnotus (talk) 04:19, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I have aqlso done massive clean-up - especially for dietary supplement and nutrition-related articles - and agree that successful article creation is difficult for new editors and doubly so in the medical/health arena. David notMD (talk) 15:08, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Is there a general list of all tags one can put on their User Page?

If so, where is it/what is its name? Narfhead4444, Gamer Ordinare 20:34, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Do you mean userboxes? jlwoodwa (talk) 21:05, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Thank you. Narfhead4444, Gamer Ordinare 17:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I attempted to submit this page and it promptly got deleted. Now I've done some research I realise why, so I've gone back and redrafted it in what I hope is a more appropriate form. I'm not sure if this is the best place to ask, but I'd be very grateful for any comments on how to improve it further and whether it's yet good enough for submission. Many thanks. User:Agapanthus49/John Wallace (trumpeter, composer, arts educator) Agapanthus49 (talk) 13:48, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

@Agapanthus49 Welcome to the Teahouse. I see several places where you haven't added inline citations for the information (e.g. Education section). By policy, biographies of living people need full citations, as that linked page describes. I assume you know how to submit your draft to the WP:AfC process but if not, ask again and this can be done for you. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:00, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Mike, for your speedy and helpful response. The problem that I have with the citations is that I am mostly referring to newspaper articles and the like which cover a number of the statements in one article. In order to put a reference to each statement I would have to refer to the same article again, which seems odd. How do I handle this, please? Agapanthus49 (talk) 14:19, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

@Agapanthus49: WP:NAMEDREFS allow you to re-use citations. Polygnotus (talk) 15:00, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

@Polygnotus Thank you, that looks to be just what I need. Agapanthus49 (talk) 17:18, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I just found that the surname "Sengupta" of the subject Barkha Bisht Sengupta is no longer required as her marital status suggests. Kindly, move the page to Barkha Bisht. Thanks. —𝐏𝐞𝐫𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨(𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔) 12:23, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

@Perfectodefecto Welcome to the Teahouse! A better place to make this suggestion is on the talk page of that article. You will need to back up your assertion with a reliable source. Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:46, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

@Shantavira: The same request is already on the talkpage since May. See also https://www.google.com/search?q=Barkha+Bisht+Sengupta+divorced and WP:NAMECHANGES. Polygnotus (talk) 12:56, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Since it is a WP:MOVEOVERREDIRECT I requested it at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests. Polygnotus (talk) 13:02, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

 Done Polygnotus (talk) 17:42, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

A few days ago, gray boxes started to be inserted into the Wikipedia articles that I had requested. The boxes originated from Wikipedia, and they offered to notify me of any research that was needed in any article that I was viewing. The boxes appeared for several days. I didn't respond to them immediately because I've been very busy lately. However, today things calmed down and I decided to try that new feature ... but the gray boxes have ceased to appear on my Wikipedia pages.

Is there any way to restore those gray boxes? ... or to sign up for those notifications? VexorAbVikipædia (talk) 04:12, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

VexorAbVikipædia, I'm not sure if this is what you're thinking of, but for a few days, there were gray boxes appearing that mentioned this Add a Fact experimental use of AI to improve WP. More info on that page. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:43, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I submitted an article for Creation which was declined... for the above stated reason in the 'subject'.. Any help to enable me re-submit my articles please?

Draft:Obeng Owusu-Boateng. Daasebre24 (talk) 17:43, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @Daasebre24. Please see REFB.

There should not normally be any external links at all in the source.

If a link is to a reliable source which virifes a piece of information about Owusu-Boateng, then please convert it into a citation. If it does not verify a piece of information about Owusu-Boateng (as your links to the colleges do not) then it shouldn't be a citation or a link. Only if you have a reliable source that said that he was associated with those institutions should they even be mentioned in the article.

As usually happens when an inexperienced editor tries the challenging task of creating an article, you have written it BACKWARDS: First find the reliable , independent sources which contain a significant amount of material about Owusu-Boateng, and then, if you can find several, write a summary of what those sources say, not of what you know.

At present your sources, even if you converted the links to citations, do not establish that he meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability. Unless you show that he meets these criteria, the draft will not be accepted.

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. ColinFine (talk) 17:57, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

@Daasebre24: "Any help" is too vague, and we will give advice but not do the work for you. When you have read the advice that has been placed at the top of your draft, and on your talk page (both of which incude "Please learn to use inline citations with the links given above"), please come back here and tell us what specific parts are not clear to you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:01, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

He does not meet the criteria for WP:NACADEMIC. No amount of work improving the quality of the article and references will qualify him as Wikipedia-notable. I recommend that you request your draft be deleted by putting Db-author inside double curly brackets {{ }} at the top. David notMD (talk) 18:22, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm in the process of setting up a list of articles to use as sources for an article I want to contribute to, but am faced with an sfn dilemma. These two links (1 and 2) are respectively the beginning and end of a single published article. Is there a way I can set up the {{cite news}} template to refer to them together or do I have to cite them singly as if they were separate articles?

As always, your help is very appreciated. Thank you. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 19:16, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I think Template:Sfn/doc § Adding a URL for the page or location might be what you're looking for. jlwoodwa (talk) 19:28, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

@Jlwoodwa Thank you. So don't include the URLs in {{cite news}}, but instead only use each separate one as needed when citing in the article? —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 19:38, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, each {{sfn}} can get its own URL – but I'd also put some URL in {{cite news}}, for the sake of anyone who browses the References section directly (rather than going through a {{sfn}}). jlwoodwa (talk) 19:46, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help, @Jlwoodwa! —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 19:51, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Teahouse hosts.
I've been back on the anti-vandalism battlefield but have noticed a lot of well-intended good faith edits across multiple editors, but need reverting because they do not contribute to the article or they do not know the stylistic elements of Wikipedia. However, when I revert the edits, I use the rollback summary tool to revert these edits—as I have been inactive for quite some time and have lost my knowledge of policy, I would like to ask you, the hosts: am I overreaching/abusing my rollback powers through reverting good faith edits, or is reverting through rollback perfectly reasonable in cases like this? Thanks. — 3PPYB6 ^{(T / C / L)} — 05:43, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi 3PPYB6, if I remember correctly rollback is strictly allowed to be used in clear cases of vandalism. However, it can also used to to revert "widespread good faith edits" which need to be undone, provided you supply and explanation on a relevant talk page. To revert good-faith edits on a case-by-case basis while patrolling recent changes, tools such as WP:UV or Twinkle are recommended to use. --Ratekreel (talk) 07:05, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

@Ratekreel – OK. I had been assuming that since the tool allowed me to explain my rationale on a case-by-case basis then I had free license to use whatever reversion tool I wanted under the condition I explain it in a generated edit summary; perhaps I should tone down the usage of rollback summary in future cases then. Thanks. — 3PPYB6 ^{(T / C / L)} — 03:21, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

@3PPYB6: Some people, like myself, get really annoyed when vandalism tools are used to revert my good-faith non-vandal edits. I recommend using WP:UNDO for all good-faith non-vandal edits. Polygnotus (talk) 08:45, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

@Polygnotus – thanks for letting me know. I'd also definitely feel disheartened if someone else just straight-up rolled back my edit without providing a summary—with regards to if they rolled back my edit with a summary I'd be more understanding but it's nice to get other experienced editors' perspectives on this. Thanks for letting me know; I will tone down the usage/applications of rollback to obvious vandalism/problematic edits only. — 3PPYB6 ^{(T / C / L)} — 03:25, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

What does a newbie do when he was such a victim? IamNeutrality (talk) 20:25, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

(Posting this to Commons:Help desk as well: Commons:Help desk#2 questions regarding the public domain)

I am currently attempting to determine when exactly the oldest feature-length animated films (I will add more films to this list later, but for now let's stick with the 7 listed here) will become public domain in three jurisdictions:

• Canada (my home country)
• The mother country of a given film
• The United States

From my understanding, for a file to be allowed on Wikimedia commons, it is required to be in the public domain (or freely licensed) in both the United States and (if its mother country is somewhere other than the United States) its mother country. Meanwhile, for a file to be allowed on the English-language Wikipedia, it is only required to be in the public domain (or freely licensed) in the United States, even if it is still copyrighted in its mother country. (I need to know if these works are (or when they will be) public domain in Canada because I wish to caption/subtitle these works and upload them to my YouTube channel, and I need to make certain that my doing so will be legally above-board.)

In my attempts to determine the copyright/public domain status of these films, I have realized the sheer complexity of this topic. If anyone more knowledgeable on this stuff could answer these two (somewhat interconnected) questions with some degree of certainty, it would make my endeavour much more straightforward:

1. Who is/are considered the "author(s)" of a film (i.e. a work created by many people working together). Is it the director(s)? The writer(s)? The producer(s)? Some combination of these? If so, which of them? I know I've seen copyright tags on files that say something to the effect of "the last author of this work died in 19xx, so this work is in the public domain in countries with a copyright term of life + yy years of shorter", so are the authors a combination of the above people, and when the last one of them dies, then the copyright last for however many decades? If the director(s) is/are the author(s), do "sequence directors" (as listed in the credits of many old Disney films) count? Is it the studio(s)? If so, how does the "life + x years" copyright term apply, given that companies don't generally die?

2. What is "joint authorship" in terms of copyright law? In regards to the rule of the shorter term, Canada's entry here reads "Yes [Canada applies the rule] for foreign works of joint authorship, except for countries party to the Canada–United States–Mexico Agreement, i.e. U.S. and Mexico". Clearly, written works with multiple listed authors would fall under the definition of "joint authorship", but if a film has one author, does the rule of the shorter term not apply to that film?

After writing all that out, I'm starting to realize that I have many more than 2 questions. Any help at all is greatly appreciated.

Thanks — Toast for Teddy (talk) 23:43, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I have a Encyclopedia set, I was wondering if it would be considered reliable.

It is The New Book of Knowledge, 1986 copyright date.

I understand that it is a little out-of-date but some things don't change with time. Sheriff U3 (talk) 16:28, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @Sheriff U3. The New Book of Knowledge doesn't appear to have ever been discussed at WP:RSP; but judging from our article about it, it looks as if it is probably reliable. Be aware, though, that it is a tertiary source, so where possible find a secondary source. ColinFine (talk) 16:38, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick response. Sheriff U3 (talk) 16:48, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The New Book of Knowledge looks like a decent tertiary source to me. Older sources can be superseded by newer ones, but 1986 isn't old enough to wholly deprecate it. Use your discretion for what's likely to be outdated, and take particular caution before using it as a medical source. jlwoodwa (talk) 16:48, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for responding.

I figured that it would not be too old, but wanted to make sure. Sheriff U3 (talk) 16:51, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Actually, a lot changes with time. According to the Wikipedia article, The New Book of Knowledge made it to a 2007 edition, and even that is too old for many topics. David notMD (talk) 18:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I understand that some things change with time.

But some things don't, such as:

• Math (Things may be added, but the basic ideas don't change.)

• Chemistry (Things may be added, but H²O stays the same.)

• Basic Science Principles (Some topics in science do change over time.)

I could try to come up with other cases but I don't think that is needed.

I am not trying to fight back, I am simply stating that some things don't change with time.

While to your credit lots of things do change:

• Production methods

• Laws

• Geography (Countries borders) Sheriff U3 (talk) 23:44, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

It's probably worth mentioning that, once you're considering a specific place to cite a source, you can ask at WP:RSN whether it's reliable in that context. jlwoodwa (talk) 19:57, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for informing me of that page. Sheriff U3 (talk) 23:22, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I did not ask for my inquiry to be closed. It doesn’t matter how many “policy” pages about social networks or therapy are shoved down my throat, I am making edits and talking to people. Therefore, I am being productive while also receiving socialization. Why am I being victimized? I’m not doing anything wrong. I’m not really furious, just a bit disappointed. 2603:8001:C2F0:7D0:A8A5:BCAF:5476:2D2 (talk) 05:52, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Are you here to help build the encyclopedia? If not, you will be blocked. Cullen328 (talk) 06:09, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I am building it by contributing to it. I don’t want to be blocked. I need this site. 2603:8001:C2F0:7D0:A8A5:BCAF:5476:2D2 (talk) 06:11, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Which encyclopedia articles have you improved? Cullen328 (talk) 06:13, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

This one, DoggoLingo for removing unnecessary politics, Wikipedia:Seven Ages of Wikipedians by removing amatonormativity, List of suicides attributed to bullying by removing harmful hotlines 2603:8001:C2F0:7D0:A8A5:BCAF:5476:2D2 (talk) 06:19, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't think your edits were helpful. They seemed to be guided by your emotional outlook right now rather than reliable sources. You can't let your attitudes and life experience influence content decisions. And you are not being "victimized", this is advice we tell lots of other editors who show up every day at the Teahouse. This is a collaborative writing project so there are a lot of rules and policies here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:32, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

There’s nothing wrong with my emotional outlook. I just think those things are unnecessary to be put in articles. The doggolingo is about slang, not politics. The seven ages are about wiki behavior, not relationships. And the suicides are about documenting them, not preventing them. 2603:8001:C2F0:7D0:A8A5:BCAF:5476:2D2 (talk) 06:36, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I, too, do not see those edits as improvements. To me, that looks like you pushing your jaded, negative and cynical point of view into Wikipedia, while ranting in edit summaries. Please stop that behavior. Cullen328 (talk) 06:42, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

IP is temp blocked for 72 hours. Your article edits were reverted. The recommended next step is to open a discussion on Talk page of the article. Some of your contributions to Talk pages of other editors were deleted by them. Editors are permitted to delete content on their own Talk pages. There is an assumption that this act means they have read the content, but proof of that is not a requirement, nor is a need to reply. David notMD (talk) 10:44, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Your previous post was a request for social interaction with other editors. Many in good faith mentioned therapy. You responded on their Talk pages that you did not find a link to WP:THERAPY helpful. Fine. I (and I assume others) hope you can find places for social interaction, but everyones' position is that this is not what Wikipedia is for. David notMD (talk) 10:52, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

no one wants to talk to me, they wont respond to me or i chase them away with my abrasive behavior and beliefs. its impossible for me to make friends or to get close to people because i either feel alienated by what they say or im too possessive and get mad that they priortize other people, especially their significant other over me. im too much of an envious person to be liked 2603:8001:C2F0:7D0:9139:2B86:A9D2:C98 (talk) 23:59, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi. I provided changes to this page User talk:Sharmon1961

how do these changes get confirmed?

thanks. Sharmon1961 (talk) 20:25, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

@Sharmon1961: As far as I can tell, you have only made one edit (before posting here). It was three days ago, to the article Steve Glazer, and it was reverted one minute later by AntiDionysius. Is this what you mean? jlwoodwa (talk) 20:44, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

You added a lot of referenced content to Steve Glazer. It was reverted (reversed) primarily because AntiDionysius asked if you have a conflict-of-interest with this topic, and I will add a query about a paid connection. See WP:COI and WP:PAID. Either needs to be declared on your User page, and if either exist, you are limited to proposing changes on the Talk page of the article rather than editing directly. David notMD (talk) 01:37, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I am trying to make a page about a holiday but the page 3 Tammuz already exists and is a redirect to the Tammuz (Hebrew month). I cant edit it at all and change it from a redirect to an actual page, whenever I go to the link it just automaticaly redirectd me to Tammuz (Hebrew month) and i cant do anything about it. for now i had to make the page 3 tammuz but it is not propper because it is lowercase. also I am very new to wikipidia so if i messed anything up or am missing something obvious plase understand. YisroelB501 (talk) 08:08, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi, YisroelB501! You should be able to backtrack from Tammuz to 3 Tammuz via the link in the note "(Redirected from 3 Tammuz)" just below the article title, BUT, I recommend that you create a Draft article about your subject, using the Wikipedia:Articles for creation route (even if technically you don't need to). When you submit it and the Assessor approves it (though a few rounds of "Declined because of X, Y, Z; please improve and try again" can be expected), it will be the Assessor's job to sort out the most appropriate title, deal with existing redirects, create a disambiguation page if necessary, etc. Hope this helps. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.6.86.81 (talk) 08:32, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I couldnt find any kind of link under the article of Tammuz (Hebrew month). and i cant even acsess the page 3 Tammuz it automaticly redirects me. so i cant backtrack anything YisroelB501 (talk) 08:44, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

If you open this link: 3 Tammuz, after you get redirected look near the top of that page, under the title, it says: "(Redirected from 3 Tammuz)". If you click on that it adds the parameter redirect=no to the URL.

To look at the page you can also use this link.

Looking at the associated talkpage I see that it has been redirected in response to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chabad holidays discussion. I will WP:PING @Havradim:. Polygnotus (talk) 09:01, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

ohh i didnt realize that tysm @Havradim:. Polygnotus and 94.6.86.81 YisroelB501 (talk) 09:04, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I was thinking about adding top 15 most common Colombian surname to most common Hispanic last name and I was wondering if Most Common Colombian Surnames & Meanings (forebears.io) from forebears.io is a good source. 50.91.26.176 (talk) 14:27, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I doubt it. They disclose little about the source of their information. Polygnotus (talk) 15:02, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree that this is a dubious source, and presumably the information is available from the actual source. National statistical bureaus tend to have these statistics, so maybe check out DANE. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 15:08, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

IP editor. Despite the above comments this search shows it has been used about 1200 times in articles. There are comments about it in the archives of the Reliable sources noticeboard. See this RSN search. You could ask again there for current views. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:13, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

@Michael D. Turnbull: See here. Polygnotus (talk) 20:57, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

@Polygnotus: That may be the difference between WP:FOXNEWS and WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS. I haven't checked. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:05, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

So technically, forebears.io is not a good source? I was thinking about adding Colombian top 15 surname to most common spanish last names. 50.91.26.176 (talk) 22:09, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I have a question that is asking so it is not a good sources? 50.91.26.176 (talk) 02:42, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

how do I know my article has been approved and when will it appear on google search. this will be my first ever article. thanks Izmaiqbalmemon (talk) 22:44, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Your article Ghulam Muhammad Memon has many flaws. New articles that bypass Articles for Creation review are supposed to be evaluated by New Pages Patrol. It is possible that your article be reverted to draft, nominated for deletion or even Speedy deleted. David notMD (talk) 23:20, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Start by removing ALL BOLDING except the first appearance of his name. David notMD (talk) 23:22, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for responding, I removed all the bolding. what are the other flaws you believe might get my page nominated for deletion? I made a lot of efforts and dont want them to go it vain. can i still submit my page for review? thanks Izmaiqbalmemon (talk) 05:56, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

David notMD Izmaiqbalmemon (talk) 05:56, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Now at Draft:Ghulam Muhammad Memon. Wikipedia articles cannot be references, and mention his "batchmates" who are article subjects does not contribute to his notability, so delete all that. Second, refs have to mention him, so the 'refs' to his education that go to the school websites with no mention of him are not valid refs, so delete. In Lead, too many refs provided to confirm positions he has held; keep at most two for each. Find a ref(s) that confirm his education. Most important, much of the career content is not referenced. David notMD (talk) 10:14, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I have removed the refs to his education official sites, his batchmates etc only leaving us with articles. someone moved my article to draft article saying this looks like a advertisement or promotional page. and also a COI. So far after that, I have tried to make it more neutral. but what else can i do before i submit for review? thank you. @David notMD Izmaiqbalmemon (talk) 06:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

If you do not have a COI, meaning that you do not have a personal connection (or a paid connection) to Memon, state that on your Talk page. If you do have a COI state that on your User page. People with a COI are allowed to create drafts and submit the drafts to AfC. Before submitting the draft, address the problem that the education section and large parts of the career section do not have references. David notMD (talk) 10:53, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

My wiki page Draft:Gamezop got rejected because of the following reasons

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

• in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
• reliable
• secondary
• strictly independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia

I have edited the article multiple times. it will be great if anyone can edit the article based on references.

Feel free to remove the statements and reference links if it's not align with Wikipedia guidelines.

Here the our article link - Draft:Gamezop Morekiranwiki (talk) 08:24, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

First, it was Declined, which is not as severe as Rejected. Second, Teahouse Hosts are here to advise, not co-author. David notMD (talk) 11:09, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

• A wikipedian introduced new theory on how Valles Marineris on Mars had been created. User:EXVM EXVM (talk) 10:57, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

EXVM Hello. If you are asking why this event isn't posted to In the news, it's because no one has nominated it yet and consensus has not been reached to do so. You may nominate it at WP:ITNC, but you would need to show that the news is significantly covering this- and it's doubtful that a theory would be posted to ITN unless it is about the general acceptance of the theory by the scientific community. 331dot (talk) 11:07, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

@331dot: I think that, in the near future, it is more likely that someone nominates their userpage citing WP:NOTWEBHOST than that their theories are accepted by the scientific community. Polygnotus (talk) 11:45, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

As predicted. Polygnotus (talk) 11:56, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

How should I cite articles from Google News Archive? Should I just cite the article without any reference to the archive or should I include a link to the archive page? If so, would the news archive URL need to be archived in the Internet Archive? For example, I am trying to cite this article for Paul Mulvey, and I'm not sure how I should be going about it. RustyDigitalis (talk) 12:01, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

The Internet Archive recently got hacked so they are currently in read-only mode.

You could use:

<ref>{{cite news |last1=Wevurski |first1=Pete |title=Johnson No Longer Pens' Center Of Attention |url=https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=N4wcAAAAIBAJ&pg=PA46&dq=paul+mulvey+penguins+trade&article_id=3337,421143&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjulvu7p5CJAxWzTkEAHV0OG0wQ6AF6BAgGEAI#v=onepage&q=paul%20mulvey%20penguins%20trade&f=false |access-date=15 October 2024 |work=The Pittsburgh Press |publisher=The Pittsburgh Press |date=1982-03-01 |language=en |pages=B-9, B-12}}</ref>

Polygnotus (talk) 12:10, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

So is it the consensus to include the link to the Google News Archive for a citation? RustyDigitalis (talk) 12:30, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

@RustyDigitalis: I think the consensus is that links to the Google News archive are not required, but are appreciated because it makes it easier to fact check. But we are allowed to use sources that are more difficult or costly to find, see WP:SOURCEACCESS. In some cases the newspaper in question has a website hosting its own archives, in that case (all else being equal) I would probably prefer the archive of the newspaper. Polygnotus (talk) 12:41, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the help. RustyDigitalis (talk) 12:45, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Please show me how to be an admin? RAPGOD500 (talk) 12:23, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi @RAPGOD500. You can read more about the role and requirements of becoming a Wikipedia Administrator at Wikipedia:Administrators. You would need to show significant positive contributions to the encyclopaedia through intensive editing over several years, with many thousands of edits and a clearly demonstrated understanding of our policies and procedures.

New users simply do not (and should not) become admins. Qcne (talk) 12:53, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Note that the MediaWiki software that Wikipedia uses is free. So the best way to become an admin is to install MediaWiki on your own computer. Polygnotus (talk) 12:58, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello @RAPGOD500, and welcome to the Teahouse. One of the important criteria for becoming an admin is that you make a convincing argument for why you need the admin tools to do the things you want to do on Wikipedia. I have been here for nearly 20 years, and have over 25000 edits, but I have never applied to be an admin because I have all the tools I need to do the things I want to do. ColinFine (talk) 13:06, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

There is a persistent page editor who makes repeated changes to the Wikipedia page (Department of Politics and International Studies, University of Cambridge) with a skewed view of reality. Let me be clear that I am very aware that a user cannot curate a Wikipedia page to only show the sunny side, but I also don't want inaccurate or biased information on there doing the opposite.

Let me give you an example of what I am talking about.

The editor has replaced this sentence:

"The University of Cambridge is currently ranked top in the UK for politics by both The Guardian and the Complete University Guide  The University is also ranked in the top 5 for international relations and public policy."

with

"The department prioritizes teaching over research performance, ranking top in the UK for the teaching of politics by the Complete University Guide. As a result, in the latest Research Excellence Framework (REF) exercise the department fell from 6th to 21st place in the UK, ranking lower than nearby institutions such as the University of Essex or the University of East Anglia.

Since 2021, there has been a wave of departures from the department from scholars in political economy and development, including Ha-Joon Chang, Lucia A. Reisch and Chong Hua Professor of Chinese Development William Hurst."

So, I am not sure what to do. The department doesn't prioritizes teaching over research performance at all - but I don't have a verifiable reference to prove that. The REF ranking that the editor uses to prove it is not an accurate measurement of the department's commitment to research, so while he does offer a ten year old document as an example of a current reference, it does not prove the statement that he makes. This person also removed other positive rankings - which were accurately referenced. Can those be added back?

I also have a question about emotive language, like in the second paragraph. There has not been 'a wave of departures' from the department. Three people have left in 4 years, which is pretty good in HE, all of whom the department still has good relationships with. So, because it's not actually inaccurate - these people have all left the department - though one still guest lectures for it - can that be altered to remove the negative bias?

Sorry this is so long. It's being done by a person with an axe to grind and I fear this could go on and on. There are other incorrect and exaggerated things on the page as well, but I think your advice on this issue could help inform the other issues. I just want to know what can be done, within the rules, to help mitigate the damage the editor's trying to do.

Thank you so much for your help. Any advice is gratefully received. Comms POLIS (talk) 13:49, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

@Comms POLIS: This sounds like something that belongs on our 'neutral point of view' noticeboard. Before posting there, please read and abide by our CoI and paid editing policies. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:56, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

The above account has been softblocked as a role account. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:01, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

A claim such as "The department prioritizes teaching over research performance", supported only by primary sources in the form of university rankings, is original research, so I'll remove it from the article. Such interpretations of primary sources need strong, reliable secondary sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:16, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, First of all, Thank You for inviting me to the Tea House. I appreciate it. I’ve been working on a draft stub article about Draft:Shehzad Poonawalla, which I believe is notable due to the number of news articles available on him. The topic is restricted to admins only due to multiple recreations in 2018, and I was advised by the administrators to create a draft and submit it through the Articles for Creation (AFC) process. However, my submission has been declined multiple times. I would appreciate it if someone could take a look at the topic to see if it fits the criteria for an article, as I still believe it is notable. If anyone has the time to guide me, especially with sourcing and editing, I would be grateful, as I am still learning. Also, I want to clarify this beforehand that I am not being paid for this work—I’m doing it voluntarily and learning as I go. Thank you! AstuteFlicker (talk) 07:29, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

@AstuteFlicker: you ask if someone could take a look at the topic to see if it fits the criteria for an article – but that's what AfC reviews are! You have also got some extra assistance on the draft talk page. At this point, four experienced editors have agreed that the person is clearly not notable, since there is no significant coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources. --bonadea contributions talk 10:54, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello Dear Bonadea,

Once again, thank you very much for your time and assistance. I would like to ask you a final question regarding the draft Draft:Shehzad Poonawalla. Have you had a chance to see any other news articles or sources about the subject? As this has taken much of my time, yours and other admins as well, I want to apologize all and assure you this will be my final inquiry on this matter.

In the future, I would love to seek your assistance again if I have any queries regarding other drafts.

Best Regards, AstuteFlicker (talk) 14:38, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Why does Prison overcrowding redirect to Prison overcrowding in the United States? It definitely isn't just an American phenomenon. I know for example its a big topic in the UK as well. Zinderboff(talk) 03:27, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Zinderboff. The answer is pretty simple. So far, the only volunteer editors interested in writing about prison overcrowding have focused on the United States. You can start an article about the problem in the United Kingdom or worldwide, if you choose to do so. Cullen328 (talk) 03:48, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Zinderboff: It looks like, on 17 April, Mathglot renamed "Prison overcrowding" to "Prison overcrowding in the United States" with the message This article is solely about the United States; the old title should be reserved for a parent article about all countries. Then Liz created the redirect as a stopgap measure to fix the resulting broken links. I don't know if this means that there was a wider initiative to create or restructure multiple articles on the topic or if there really are a number of potential "Prison overcrowding in X" just waiting to be written (sadly). — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 03:59, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. There is no initiative, other than what individual editors choose to do. As Cullen stated, all volunteers writing about prison overcrowding so far, have written about prison overcrowding in the United States. Zinderboff, it would be great if you were the editor to start an article about Prison overcrowding in the United Kingdom, Prison overcrowding in Brazil, or just plain 'Prison overcrowding' (in the world). Mathglot (talk) 04:10, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I know something about the middle one (Brazil) because I wrote the article Brazilian criminal justice, and there is a small section on overcrowding in it. Up until five minutes ago, that Brazil link was a red link, because there is no article about it, but now it is a blue link, because I created a redirect to it. There are a great deal of reliable sources about Prison overcrowding in Brazil, it is unquestionably a WP:Notable topic, and could become an article of some length. Probably the same thing is true about Prison overcrowding in the United Kingdom, and it would be great if you would write it. Mathglot (talk) 04:32, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Zinderboff, and not creating a redirect was intentional, and the links to the old name were not 'broken', as ClaudineChionh said, they were WP:RED LINKs, as they should be, for an article about 'Prison overcrowding (in the world)' which does not exist, and when there is no article for a topic, the links should be red. I don't know why a redirect to it was added from 'Prison overcrowding', it clearly led to confusion in the mind of the OP, which presumably would have caused no confusion, if the link simply remained red. Imho, creating the redirect was not helpful. Mathglot (talk) 04:43, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Mathglot: you're right, red links is probably better than "broken" – I got that word from Liz's log message which suggested to me there might have been a larger number of articles caught up in some kind of confusion. — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 04:49, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I understand why she did it, and there's an argument to be made for it, but I just see it differently. Not enough to make a big deal out of it [or even a little deal]; it is what it is. Mathglot (talk) 04:51, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

ClaudineChionh, there were previously 302 links to Prison overcrowding, but the vast majority of the links came from two templates which contained them, but they have been fixed to point to the article, so that will reduce the numbers considerably. I am fixing some of the articles that legitimately mean to point to the U.S. (a couple dozen), and came upon two that clearly target the UK and turned those into red links to Prison overcrowding in the United Kingdom. There are more such articles, and this search will find some of them (watch the context for false positives) if you feel like adding more red links for the UK. Having a bunch of red links will make it more likely that someone will create the article.

Note also that the guidelines for Navboxes are agnostic about the presence of red links, but are much more likely to be encouraging about it when there are numerous red links in articles already for that title. So, for example, you could add a red Prison overcrowding in the United Kingdom to Template:Incarceration, and then you would right away have 120 articles that transclude it showing the red link, which would make it even more visible as a needed article. That is the tack I would take, if I had more time and were interested in that topic, and I encourage you to follow it up, if interested. Mathglot (talk) 14:51, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

As a new editor, I am trying to understand why I can't cite a wikipedia article as a reference when articles written here are backed with verifiable references which may be considered as facts. I just need help understanding that. Eucharia Ukwueze (talk) 14:40, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

@Eucharia Ukwueze Welcome to the Teahouse. This is discussed in the essay at WP:WINRS. The idea is that you should evaluate the sources in our articles and use these elsewhere if acceptable for the content you wish to verify. Article text can change, so if you cited just the article, it may not later confirm what you said: it may have been vandalized, for example. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:52, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I've just added a reference on a page (Nutcracker (bird)), and it has come up with "{{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |first1= (help)". How do I get rid of it, so that the 'et al.' can show without this error message? The reference I'm citing has a huge long author list, far too many to waste time entering the whole lot. The instructions at the "(help)" link are hopelessly unclear and unhelpful. Thanks! - MPF (talk) 15:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

@MPF You can use the whole list of authors with |display-authors=n. The WP:Citation expander or citer at toolforge, will get the author list automatically from the doi. I never do author lists "by hand". Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:25, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks both! - MPF (talk) 15:34, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I want to create a new wikipedia article but the interface is not great for doing so. I have never created one before therefore I need help Joshua E Ferreira (talk) 12:44, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I would recommend reading WP:GNG and H:YFA. There is an easy to use interface over at Wikipedia:Article_wizard. Polygnotus (talk) 12:47, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Oft-given advice is to put in time working to improve existing articles before attempting to create an article. That helps understand Wikipedia's rules and guidelines. David notMD (talk) 13:03, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Ferreira, and welcome to the Teahouse an to Wikipedia. My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. ColinFine (talk) 13:07, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello Joshua E Ferreira, before I wrote my first Wikipedia article I did two things: I read over Help:Your first article numerous times to double check my topic met all the rules about being notable, and having good reliable references for all the information I would include. I also studied every article I could find on similar subjects, as a guide on how to go about organizing and arranging all I would write. While I was studying those similar articles I checked their references, for ideas on where I might find reliable information. (I wasn’t trying to be exactly like the other articles, I just got ideas about what seemed to work well.) Writing encyclopedia articles is a lot of work, so don’t be discouraged if it takes a few tries to get your article accepted. Karenthewriter (talk) 16:13, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi everyone, could you please help me understand how I can improve my draft article?

Link: Draft:OnePageCRM

I removed promotional tone and added several independent and reliable sources that mention OnePageCRM. Forbes and Forbes Advisor covered OnePageCRM as well as The Irish Independent, The Times, Local Enterprise Ireland Office, University of Galway, and also TechCrunch.

Some of them are globally known (Forbes and TechCrunch). Others are well known and established in Ireland, like University of Galway or Chambers Ireland, the federation of chambers of commerce for the Republic of Ireland, that officially endorsed OnePageCRM on their website (the link included in the references).

Pipedrive has a similar number and quality of references (they were also covered by TechCrunch and Forbes) - Pipedrive

Another Wiki article has no reputable references but is still published - Really Simple Systems

Could you please let me know how I can improve the draft? I'd appreciate your feedback. Anastasia (Nastia) (talk) 09:12, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

You asked this at the AFC help desk, please don't use multiple forums to seek help, as this duplicates effort. 331dot (talk) 09:16, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

So I see a few flags right away.

First who published the Forbes and Forbes Advisor articles? Most all of Forbes and Forbes Advisor articles are not reliable sources.

Also any other reference will need to not come from one person, it need to have been made by a team at least.

Yes there may be other less reputable articles, but they are now stricter about new articles.

That is why you should base it off of a Feature Article.

I will take a look at your draft to see if there anything else. Sheriff U3 (talk) 14:34, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, @Sheriff U3. I received a few suggestions on the Help Desk, re-worked the draft and re-submitted it. I used the list of reliable sources, which @DoubleGrazing shared with me and added references from The Guardian and a few Times articles. There was also coverage from independent media in Ireland (The Irish Examiner, Silicon Republic and Business Post). Although they are not included in the list above, I added these references too.

Forbes and Forbes Advisor articles were written by contributors. The company is not affiliated with them but there's no way to prove this, so I now understand why they are not considered reliable sources. Although this one seems to be written by Forbes Advisor staff (not external contributors). Plus, OnePageCRM doesn't have any affiliate links on Forbes Advisor. Do you think this particular article can be considered a reliable source?

If you have time to have a look at my draft and share any other feedback, I'll be grateful. But in any case, thank you for taking the time to answer my question. Anastasia (Nastia) (talk) 15:46, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I would say that it could be there, but it would be best to have a second one to help back it up. Sheriff U3 (talk) 16:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello. When making an addition to an article and the source I want to use is already in the reference section of the article, how do you ascertain what to put in the <ref> tag so I don't have to go through the whole process of sourcing my addition? Appreciate your help. Thank you.Theairportman33531 (talk) 16:54, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

You can re-use references, as explained over at WP:REFNAMES. See WP:IBID and Help:References and page numbers for more information. Polygnotus (talk) 16:56, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello everyone! I have been editing an article on Wikipedia and it has come to my attention that the article might either be plagiarized or content from Wikipedia has been copied over to other websites.

The article in question is Highway to Hell, referencing AC/DC's sixth studio album. I was almost complete with my edits and looking for additional sources for the article when I noticed that it was word for word the same as multiple different websites, including fandom websites, Facebook pages, and other miscellaneous rock websites. You can find these websites by simply copy and pasting the first sentence of the background section. I have made quite a few edits to the article where it is dissimilar from the original source material, but if you look anywhere before my edits, you can find the information to be exactly the same. I am unsure where the original excerpt originates, but it seems clear to me that there is blatant plagiarism here.

Is there anything that should be done regarding this article?

Theprofessionalsimp (talk) 17:03, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

@Theprofessionalsimp: Hiya! No worries. If you look on the history page there is a link called "Find addition/removal". I put a sentence in there, noted the date it was inserted, and then I searched Google before that period. Nothing showed up. So Wikipedia, specifically this edit was the original. And of course all those other sources are not respecting the WP:LICENSE by re-using content without attribution but we don't really make a big deal about that. Polygnotus (talk) 17:19, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Theprofessionalsimp: there are any number of sites that mirror or fork Wikipedia content, see WP:MF. Which is mostly okay, given that Wikipedia content is licensed for re-use. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:19, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I have a client who wants to update the logo on their Wikipedia page entry. I don't edit on Wikipedia and it seems it takes some time to get an autoconfirmed account, 4 days + 10 edits. I'm not particularly interested in making edits to Wikipedia generally to fix my client's page. Is there any way around this? Is there admin support for this?

Moody's Ratings Culver King (talk) 16:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Culver King make an edit request at the associated talk page. Also, since you are being paid to edit Wikipedia, you must disclose this status on your userpage or risk being blocked. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 16:20, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

@Sungodtemple: The page you linked to says "Editors receiving payment must disclose their employer, client, and affiliation, on their user page, talk page, or in edit summaries." Declaration is a requirement; making one on the user page is not. Give that this was the only page Culver King edited, the declaration above is adequate for now. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:10, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I posted my first wiki article at Chief AI officer and got it accepted with 3 issues that I tried to address in my notes. Can you help walk me through the process to address outstanding issues and see if I'm missing somthing? I don't know who to ask to remove it and don't know if, as author, I'm allowed to given a conflict of interest. Thanks - Jon J2000ai (talk) 19:54, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

@J2000ai You declared a conflict of interest regarding a biography you wrote but not specifically for Chief AI officer, which I guess is a much more generic topic. Please read the COI guidance I have linked and decide how much any COI might affect your further editing (e.g. because you want to use sources you wrote). Authors are normally free, indeed encouraged, to improve articles in mainspace but if you are in any doubt about your COI you can instead suggest improvements via the article's Talk Page. There is an edit request wizard to help draw your suggestions to the attention of others. Mike Turnbull (talk) 20:45, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for you reply. None of the 3 issues tagged to my "Chief AI Officer" article are related to conflict of interest (COI). Nonetheless, I updated my bio page so my position as an interdisciplinary AI researcher hopefully allays this concern in the future. For the CAIO article I have no conflict of interest in writing this general article on the emerging CAIO executive position per Wikipedia's COI guidance. There are no citations to sources I or anyone I know wrote. The sources are nearly universally esteemed and well-recognized (CIO mag, IBM, McKinsey, Harvard, etc.). It was just an important topic that I know about and thought should have a wiki article.

However, to speak to the original issue of the 3 issues tagged on the CAIO article, do you know how long it will take for someone to review my changes to address each of them? Is there something more I can do to accelerate the process?

Thanks, J J2000ai (talk) 06:09, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

@J2000ai Your choices are either to be bold and remove any tags that you believe no longer apply or to WP:PING to the Talk Page the editor(s) who applied the tags, which you'll find in the history tab of the article, asking them if their concerns are now addressed. As you are a relative newcomer here, I'd advise the latter approach but if you get no response after about a week, go ahead anyway based on WP:SILENCE. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:44, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Mike, thanks for the quick feedback. I apologize for the 20 questions, but can you help me identify who applied these tags? Looking at the Talk Page for CAIO I don't see anyone posting (which made I thought these were automagically applied by some parsing/QA rules).

It's been an adventure learning the complexities of wiki style and editorial guidelines as well as the vetting process. And here I thought academic publishing/editing is sometimes persnickety. All for the better I guess. It's better to have an over-tuned system to control quality issues that come with scale than the alternative. - Regards, J J2000ai (talk) 14:51, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

@J2000ai The history tells me that Sohom Data added two tags just after accepting the article from Draft, immediately followed by jlwoodwa adding the "orphan" tag. Then a bot removed that tag once the article was objectively no longer an orphan. Editors adding/removing tags don't always expand on their concerns on the Talk Page, although best practice is to do so. Starting a discussion on a Talk Page to get people to justify their tag (or ask if their concern has been resolved by later edits) is always acceptable. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:20, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the insights. Although I'm still learning the ropes, I should've known to check the history for the page to find who the editor was.

The 'orphan tag' was legit when I first posted it, but I learned it can take a week or several after creating inbound linked from related wiki articles for the automated bot to sweep and update this status.

Per your advice, I've notified Sohom of the updates and requested a review.

Regards, J J2000ai (talk) 18:29, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

For some reason the visual editor is not working on this article. getting the message "sorry this element can only be edited in source mode for now".

Why might this be the case?

Is this normal or is there a problem that has to be fixed? BruceSchaff (talk) 20:06, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

@BruceSchaff: Works for me. Try clearing your cache; and if that doesn't work, restarting your browser. If you still have no joy, try asking at WP:VPT. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:13, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello everyone, My draft for Ben Etiaba have been declined and the reason also stated, but I also need help with clarifications on what I can do better. Thank you all for your kindness Eucharia Ukwueze (talk) 11:54, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

See Draft:Ben Etiaba. You have received a message on your talkpage, which part would you like clarified? This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. and the draft contains words like numerous, prestigious, renowned, world-class. Polygnotus (talk) 11:58, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I need tips on how I can better maintain neutrality, and also are Published News from news outlets not considered Verifiable sources? Eucharia Ukwueze (talk) 12:08, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

oh Thank you Eucharia Ukwueze (talk) 12:08, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Many people here don't know how WP:RELIABLE Nigerian news sources are, because they live in other countries. It is sometimes difficult to judge if a source is reliable when it is based in another country. Polygnotus (talk) 12:10, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Please see your user talk page. 331dot (talk) 12:11, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Formatted stuff, but no idea about validity of references. David notMD (talk) 15:04, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Here is a resource that can help evaluate the reliability of Nigerian sources. --bonadea contributions talk 14:10, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much! This has been helpful Eucharia Ukwueze (talk) 14:29, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

@Eucharia Ukwueze On sources, some guidance at Wikipedia:WikiProject Nigeria/Nigerian sources. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:30, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I know this is going to be a simple question"

How to you join a Project?

Sheriff U3 (talk) 20:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

@Sheriff U3 See for example "How can you help?" at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history. Afaik, most or all WikiProjects work like that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:36, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you.

That was to project I wanted to join too! Sheriff U3 (talk) 00:11, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry about the badly worded title, I'm trying to figure out how one expresses the opinion that a page should be deleted. Looking into some page deletion discussions, there are lots of references to particular points on Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Do all page deletion requests need to use that page as proof an article is not meant to be on Wikipedia?

My example is Arena Football League on television. I found this page through random search, and not only does it feel badly written, but also redundant with the existence of Arena Football League. The "on television" page seems to me like it doesn't need it's own page as it is perfectly good as a section in the parent article. The details in the "on television" article feel like random trivia facts which don't need an article of their own. I can't find any points on Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not that effectively communicate this, so does that mean the article should stay?

Any explanation or clarification is appreciated, TIA. The words are unavailable (talk) 03:48, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, The words are unavailable. There are many reasons why an article might be deleted in addition to it violating the "What Wikipedia is not" policy. The most common reason that an article is deleted is that editors agree that the topic is not notable. Articles can be deleted if they are copyright violations or personal attacks or promotional articles created by undeclared paid editors or for several other reasons. In this case, the issue is whether this particular article about TV coverage of this defunct sports league should exist in addition to the main article about the league. You can find out more about the underlying issues at Wikipedia:Splitting and Wikipedia:Merging. Cullen328 (talk) 05:00, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello Everyone, I noticed that in many articles, changes made by editors (even when logged out and editing with an IP) get reflected almost instantly in the search engine results when you search for that topic. However, when I make changes, such as to the Khan Sir article, it seems to take a long time for the updates to show up in search results. Is there a reason for this difference in how fast changes are reflected in search engines? Thanks in advance! Regards AstuteFlicker (talk) 05:11, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, AstuteFlicker, Unless an article was written by an editor with the autopatrolled user right or reviewed by a member of the New Pages Patrol, it will not be indexed by search engines for 90 days. The Khan Sir article is about 90 days old. That is most likely the cause of the difference that you see. As a general rule, search engines do a better job of displaying Wikipedia articles that are more comprehensive, more detailed and better referenced. Cullen328 (talk) 05:54, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Part of a series on
Zoroastrianism
Primary topics Ahura Mazda Zarathustra Asha Vohu Manah Persia/Iran Faravahar Avestan
Divine entities Amesha Spentas Yazatas Ahuras Daevas Fravashi Angra Mainyu
Scripture and worship Zoroastrian literature Avesta Ashem Vohu Ahuna Vairya Yenghe hatam Airyaman ishya Fire Temples 101 Names of Ahura Mazda Adur Burzen-Mihr Adur Farnbag Adur Gushnasp Cypress of Kashmar Gathas Yasna Vendidad Visperad Yashts Khordeh Avesta The Rivayats Ab-Zohr
Accounts and legends Dēnkard Bundahišn Book of Arda Viraf Book of Jamasp Story of Sanjan Chinvat Bridge Frashokereti
History and culture Zurvanism Mazdakism Khurramites Calendar Festivals Initiation Kushti Sedreh Marriage Burial
Adherents Afghanistan Armenia Azerbaijan China Sichuan India Iranis Iran Iraq Pakistan Parsis Russia United States Uzbekistan Persecution of Zoroastrians
Related topics Criticism of Zoroastrianism Zoroastrian cosmology
Religion portal

This style template doesn't seem to be working?

• Template:Zoroastrianism sidebar/styles.css

Black text on a dark red background was difficult to read (example shown), I wanted to change it to white, but it looks like it was already intended to be white? my only idea was changing it from #fff to #ffffff and didn't help. The word "show" is white, maybe the title itself is a different variable name? Industrial Metal Brain (talk) 06:11, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

@Industrial Metal Brain: browser dev tools show that the element has color: var(--color-base); style but color-base variable is not defined; it might default to black then. MKFI (talk) 08:27, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

what do base and element refer to in that? Industrial Metal Brain (talk) 12:39, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Is there a documentation page or guide somewhere for template styles? I think I need an introduction that explains the basics. The templates themselves each have a docs page, but I'm not really sure what the "…/styles.css" page is as such, if you know what I mean? Sorry, I'm not sure if that question makes sense? I'm at the "not even knowing the question" stage. Industrial Metal Brain (talk) 12:48, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

@Industrial Metal Brain: "Element" refers to HTML element, in this case <div>. Template:Zoroastrianism sidebar/styles.css is a CSS style sheet that defines colors and other formatting. Templates are complicated since they are often dependent on other templates. In this case the color: var(--color-base); is set in Module:Sidebar (row 385) and that module has it's own stylesheet (Module:Sidebar/styles.css). In this case it might actually be a problem in Module:Sidebar. I have raised this in Module_talk:Sidebar#Missing_CSS_variable?. MKFI (talk) 13:20, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

@MKFI, did it link to some other things that weren't well documented? can you please add a "this style uses that module" note in the documentation? when I saw it, there was just a few lines of unannotated code, or was I just not looking in the right place to find the documentation? Industrial Metal Brain (talk) 08:18, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

@Industrial Metal Brain: no-one has created a documentation page for Zoroastrianism template. If you look at the template code you can see that it is based on Template:Sidebar with collapsible lists which does have a doc page and also includes a mention of Module:Sidebar. MKFI (talk) 08:43, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

@Industrial Metal Brain: I was unable to add CSS variable declaration to Template:Zoroastrianism sidebar/styles.css so I instead overrode that by adding !important to color declaration: color: #ffffff!important;. MKFI (talk) 07:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

@MKFI thank you. I was going to ask how to do it for next time, but it sounds like this one was a bit atypical? Industrial Metal Brain (talk) 08:13, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Recently I became aware that you can actually check the contributions of an entire IP range as opposed to the one address. For example, Special:Contributions/5.133.46.67 as opposed to the whole range at Special:Contributions/5.133.46.0/22. Is there a user script or tool to simplify this process of checking the whole range? It gets quite confusing with IPv6 in particular because of how dang long they get! I'm asking because I've been doing a lot of vandalism reverts lately, and it can be a pain to manually review each IP address individually. Sirocco745 (talk) 10:12, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Which part do you need help with? In preferences -> Gadgets you'll find Allow /16, /24 and /27 – /32 CIDR ranges on Special:Contributions forms, as well as wildcard prefix searches (e.g., "Splark*").

And in Preference -> Beta Features you'll find "IP Information".

We also have {{IP range calculator}} and mw:Help:Range blocks/IPv6.

So let's say you go to Special:Contributions/2403:6200:8814:B64B:A956:4DD4:A440:9194 and then click on the (/64) at the end of the title you will end up here. Polygnotus (talk) 11:57, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

@Polygnotus: The (/64) isn't there by default – it's added by one of your installed user scripts, User:Tollens/subnetContribs.js. jlwoodwa (talk) 20:02, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

@Jlwoodwa: Ah, thanks. I have too many userscripts. Polygnotus (talk) 20:10, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Yoinked! Thanks a bunch, both of you :D Sirocco745 (talk) 02:56, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I tried the Gadget one out, but it doesn't seem to work. What I want is just a quick and easy thing that lets me check the contributions of an entire IP range quickly without me personally having to remember which parts of the IP address I need to change to do so. I'm going to try out that userscript you have there, the one by Tollens. Sirocco745 (talk) 03:38, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Update: that userscript works for IPv6, just like it was meant to. I also want it to work for IPv4 addresses, how would I do that? I'm not very familiar with Javascript. Sirocco745 (talk) 03:41, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi all, brought here via my user talk. It's a little more complicated for IPv4, since there isn't really a direct equivalent to the /64 range. I could add /24 for IPv4, but the potential issue there is that I've seen those ranges cover more than a single network not infrequently, unlike /64 which is nearly always what is assigned to a single customer by ISPs (as far as I have personally seen, I wouldn't call myself an expert in networking so I could very well be wrong). Polygnotus, you might know more than me about this, if so do you have any suggestions? If not perhaps I could ping a CU or two, who I assume would be more familiar with this than me. Tollens (talk) 20:00, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Didn't see your username here until just now, jlwoodwa - if you have any suggestions they would be welcome also. Tollens (talk) 20:01, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Even the range given as an example here does not jump out to me as being one person behind the range (even considering the /24 rather than /22). Tollens (talk) 20:20, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

@Tollens: I am not an administrator, but since IPv4 addresses are rather scarce, ISP just give most customers a single IPv4 address, not a range. Polygnotus (talk) 21:58, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

That was my impression too – I think I'll leave the script without a button on IPv4 contributions, Sirocco745, given that it's just for cases where you can be essentially certain it's the same person – I don't want anybody to blindly assume all the buttons show you contributions from one person. I haven't looked at how this interacts with the upcoming temporary account changes yet so it might not be possible to provide this script anyways fairly shortly (though if it is I will). Tollens (talk) 05:04, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I understand, I prefer to check for similar edits rather than assume the whole range is the troll/vandal. Sirocco745 (talk) 09:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

The CIDR range gadget come from before the time you could do 'native' lookups of IP ranges. I consider it deprecated, though it may have still have some niche uses. The problem with all IP addresses, both IPv4 and IPv6, is that there is no definitive range you need to look up. Sometimes the WHOIS will provide some hints, but even that can be misleading. For IPv6 it's true that most ISPs assign /64 ranges, but it's really not as common as many think, and ISPs will often assign a bunch of different /64s over time (usually within the same larger range). Here's how I approach this problem. First, do not think in terms of ranges which look like 5.133.46.0/22. Instead, just write 5.133.46.67/22. It basically works the same. You can do the same for IPv6 addresses. Pick one IP, then just append the / prefix. You will have to experiment with each range to find the right prefix and I'm afraid it helps to remember just a couple of numbers. With IPv4 you should look at the /16 and /24. For IPv6 look at the /32 and the /64. Many IPv6 ISPs will work around a /40 range, or sometimes /48, or some other value. All you have to do is type a / and these 2 digits at the end of the IP. Keep making the number a bit smaller or larger until you have your target. Going into this particular example, I'd agree that the 5.133.46.67 range is shared, but the IPs are relatively static within the range (ie probably a few weeks at least). I'll tell you a great pro-tip for this and some other UK ISPs, and mostly for IPv4. Look up the geolocation. At the geolocation site, change the address to a different part of the range and see if the location changes. For example, 5.133.46.67 and 5.133.46.167 are in the same place. 5.133.47.67 is somewhere else. As long as the place isn't London, this often works well. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:49, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Greetings, I have been a Wikipedia editor for a few years and a while ago I tried to publish my first article about a new Chancellor of the University I work for. As recommended by the Manual of Styles, I did my research and identified a few academic leaders with almost similar profiles like his and modelled the article exactly like these other published profiles. I also, as required, declared my conflict of interest. But the article was tagged for speedy deletion and was deleted almost immediately. A little while later, the Chancellor received an email from a Wikipedia editor saying that his profile has been deleted by this editor can help put it up. We did not contact this editor as it did give an impression of pay-to-play. I tried again to beef it up even tighter, providing even more sources for the content, but the same thing happened, speedy deleted and an editor reaching out again suggesting that they can help. Later, I decided to search for another editor and shared the content, asking for critical review and publishing, but it was speedy deleted again. I even tried to contact the editors that deleted the articles for detailed advise as to what exactly was wrong with the article as the reason given was generic. So, just want to ask, how do I get help to publish an article? I have read everything recommended, tired to follow the regulations, and I see some published articled similar to the one I created, but mine keeps getting deleted. Who do I contact to get help and support? Gureni (talk) 05:28, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Hiya, my name is Polygnotus! The email is a WP:SCAM. This is the correct place to get help and support (WP:TEAHOUSE). The person who deleted the article is Jimfbleak. I have invited Jimfbleak here. The reason they provided was "G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion". On Wikipedia we have to be, somewhat, neutral. See WP:NPOV. So when I write an article telling everyone how great something or someone is it will get deleted quickly. It looks like that is what happened here. I am not an administrator so I can't see the deleted article. Polygnotus (talk) 05:38, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Gureni (talk) 10:33, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

• From the deleted version: Dr. Tod Laursen, an esteemed American scholar and engineer, currently serving as [...]. With a wealth of experience in academic leadership, he has led leadership positions in various institutions across the globe, including [...]. And so forth, sprinkled with "prestigious", etc. This promotional tone has now gone. Good, that's a great improvement. Now, please look at the edit I've just made. It wasn't required, but I think it was an improvement. I suggest that you make similar edits to other sections of the article. -- Hoary (talk) 06:08, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

• Thanks for ping. I made this edit, otherwise happy to leave it to the reviewers now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:53, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you very much for this help. Will update with all the feedback I received and resubmit. Gureni (talk) 10:32, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

  I have resubmitted the article with all the edits some editors here and you, have helped to make. When you have time, if you can please check and approve if it now meets the standard.

  Thank you very, very much. Gureni (talk) 12:02, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very, very much. This is very useful insight and example. Will make the advised changes and try to post again. Thank you very much. Gureni (talk) 10:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Gureni, and welcome to the Teahouse.

I have two things to add to the replies others have given you:

1. 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.

2. Wikipedia has many thousands of seriously flawed articles, mostly from an earlier era when we were not so strict about sourcing and verifiability. In an ideal world, they would all have been improved or deleted, but this is a volunteer project, where people work on what they choose. But this means that relying on another article for any aspect of your draft is risky, unless the article you are relying on is a good article or a featured article. See Other stuff exists. ColinFine (talk) 09:30, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Gureni (talk) 10:33, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you everyone for your very helpful inputs. I have incorporated the suggested edits Hoary as well as Jimfbleak. I also got another input from Theroadislong to remove the Dr. designation throughout the article.

I have now resubmitted the improved version. If any of you can please review and it it is up to the standard, publish it. If there will be any additional feedback, please do let me know and I will work on those as well.

Thank you all once again for your support. Gureni (talk) 11:42, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello! I'm confused on how I do add the latest software version from Wikidata to a Wikipedia infobox. Can anyone see what I'm doing wrong here?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sonatype_Nexus_Repository&diff=prev&oldid=1251103049

d:Q130349202. PhotographyEdits (talk) 07:24, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

@PhotographyEdits I edited the infobox using just {{wikidata|property|P348}}, which I think corresponds to the instructions at {{wikidata}} and seems to have done the trick. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:11, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Awesome, thank you! PhotographyEdits (talk) 12:06, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I am currently working on an article in my sandbox. (See link) https://w.wiki/BYpH

On my first submission attempt, it was rejected stating that I lacked secondary, independent sources.

I was wondering if anyone could review my sources and explain why they are not secondary and independent?

Thank you so much! ScienceOcean (talk) 04:14, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

ScienceOcean, your sources are simply repeating the talking points of the Taiwan Health Ministry and the Taiwan No Alcohol Day organizers, including quoting them directly. There is no independent reporting, at least in the English language references. Cullen328 (talk) 04:33, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Hey there, looking at the article I feel like it could for starters use more sources. An example is when you referenced a cancer organization saying alcohol is linked to cancer, but neither you nor your sources provide a reference for this info. @Cullen328, could you add a bit of explanation as to what independent reporting is? I think that might be what confuses @ScienceOcean, and frankly I don't feel like I fully understand it right now as I'm rather new. The words are unavailable (talk) 04:47, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

The words are unavailable, consider two scenarios. In the first, a property developer sends out press releases and organizes a press conference announcing the upcoming construction of a new skyscraper. Several newspapers, TV stations and online news outlets publish similar coverage, all including the same quotes from company executives, the same budget numbers and projected job numbers, and the same architectural drawings. That is not independent reporting. In the second scenario, a news organization gets several unrelated tips from different people claiming that a prominent politician is corrupt. The managing editor assigns a team of reporters to investigate. They inteview numerous people, search obscure public records, double check and triple check all of the facts, and eventually publish an investigative article accusing the politician of taking bribes. That is independent reporting. Cullen328 (talk) 05:29, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

@ScienceOcean and @The words are unavailable There is guidance about the difference between WP:PRIMARY sources, WP:SECONDARY ones and WP:INDEPENDENT ones at these linked pages. As an encyclopaedia, Wikipedia prefers articles to based, in the main, on secondary, independent sources, which also need to be reliable, of course. We summarize all that in our golden rules. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:28, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Taiwan No Alcohol Day was Declined, which is less severe than Rejected. I fixed section formatting. David notMD (talk) 12:25, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Been trying sporadically to improve Phasmatodea articles on my own, but have been struggling in prioritising. Anyone here want to join WikiProject Phasmatodea and help me out? Wolfgang likes bugs (talk) 03:21, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I suspect that few people here will be aware that Phasmatodea are what most of us call "stick insects". Maproom (talk) 07:48, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

@Wolfgang likes bugs: You're more likely to find people who can - and want to - help you by asking at WT:WikiProject Insects. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

is it allowed for me to copy a page from EverybodyWiki (https://en.everybodywiki.com) if it doesnt exist on wikipidia. the page fits very well with wikipidia formating and has corect sorces. YisroelB501 (talk) 23:32, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Considering that wiki says, Everybodywiki tries to save articles which are currently marked for deletion on Wikipedia, I think using it would violate WP:RUD, specifically Deleted articles may not be recovered and reused from Wikipedia mirrors, online archives, or the view-deleted administrator right. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 00:37, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

@YisroelB501: What you may be able to do is ask for the equivalent article on Wikipedia to be undeleted and placed in your sandbox, where you can work to bring it up to the necessary standard for republishing here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:14, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

After initiating an article, how does one find appropriate categories to list, other than personal knowledge? Could AI be used to help? Pbergerd (talk) 09:44, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello! See Wikipedia:Categorization#Categorizing_pages for a detailed explanation. What sometimes helps is to look at how related articles are categorized. AI unfortunately has a tendency to hallucinate, which is incompatible with Wikipedia's mission of providing accurate information. Polygnotus (talk) 10:16, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

thanks, I'll try that Pbergerd (talk) 15:46, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I sometimes look at a similar article for inspiration. Also good for finding WikiProjects for the talkpage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:20, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

thank you Pbergerd (talk) 15:47, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello Teahouse members,

I’m seeking advice on how to improve the article on Mohiuddin Ahmed, a key figure in the Bangladesh Liberation War and a former senior diplomat. The article is currently facing a deletion discussion, and I’m looking for guidance on how to strengthen the notability and verifiability of the content.

Mohiuddin Ahmed played a significant role during the war, defecting from the Pakistan High Commission in London, and later served in senior diplomatic positions. I’ve added sources that highlight his contributions, but I’m looking for advice on further improving the article. Any help or pointers would be appreciated.

J1477 (talk) 16:37, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

This COI user has been blocked for WP:FORUMSHOP. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:54, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I wish to question a recent decision to reject my submittal (Robert E. Bourke Jr.), based on the above criteria. There are existing Wikipedia entries specifically related to my submittal subject with the same number of professional, verifiable references and footnotes as my submittal. As a consequence I would like the opportunity to have this submittal process revisited. Thank you - Richard Bourke Legendt9455 (talk) 22:55, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Robert E. Bourke Jr.
@Legendt9455: For the benefit of other Teahouse helpers, I see there's been some discussion at User talk:Legendt9455#Your submission at Articles for creation: Robert E. Bourke Jr. (September 3). This is not a subject area that I can help with; I only want to address your query about other Wikipedia articles that may be of a similar quality to your draft. Wikipedia is now 23 years old and the standards for notability and quality have increased over those decades – new drafts that are submitted today will need to satisfy today's requirements, and it's possible that pointing out older articles may prompt editors to either work on improving them or suggesting that they be deleted.
And I only just noticed your surname. I realise that "Bourke" is a fairly common name, but if you are related to Robert E. Bourke, you must read about our conflict of interest guideline and follow the recommendations there. — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 00:07, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt reply. For full transparency, I thought I had previously indicated that Robert E. Bourke Jr. is my father. The draft submittal states he had two sons, Robert and Richard. Legendt9455 (talk) 17:02, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Legendt9455, first of all, your draft has been declined. not rejected. Rejected means that the draft will not be considered further. Declined means that you can resubmit if you actually improve the draft. After all, it says in the box right at the top of your draft If you would like to continue working on the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window. Secondly, you must fully disclose any conflict of interest relationship you have with the Bourke that you are writing about, especially since you say your surname is Bourke. Be full and frank about the disclosure.

At first glance, it appears that your draft has 53 references but a large percentage are the same book used over and over again. That book is Bridges, John (1984). Bob Bourke Designs for Studebaker Nashville, TN: J.B. Enterprises. So, I wanted to find out more about the book and I started out with the publisher and could find very little. I could not find any reviews of the book although they may exist offline. I did notice that Abe Books has a used first edition copy listed for sale that includes several photographs of that first edition that is autotographed by both the subject and the author. The photo of the inside flap caught my eye. At the bottom, it says Jacket design by Robert E. Bourke. That is strong evidence that Bourke (the other Bourke, not you) was heavily involved with publishing this book and that it should not be considered an independent source for the purpose of establishing this man's notability. To be frank, that is a major problem. I also noted elsewhere in your draft that Bridges describes Bourke as My Friend , which is an additional indication that the book is not truly independent.

Another problem is that a significant percentage of the content of the draft consists of overly detailed descriptions and praise of the cars he helped design. Certainly, articles about automobile designers should mention the cars they designed, but extensive details about those cars belong in the Wikipedia articles about those cars, as opposed to the biographies of their designers.

Then, we get to the "Testimonials" section, where now the draft is less about Bourke or the cars he designed than the book about him. And that book's independence is in doubt. What you present is three of six promotional quotations that were printed on the back cover of the book jacket. The Notability guideline for books says This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book. What you have is flap copy and if that type of promotional content, which is not independent, cannot help establish the notability of a book, then it also cannot help establish the notability of the subject of the book.

In conclusion, I think that Bourke is probably notable, but that your draft in its current form obscures rather than highlights his notability. Unless I am totally wrong about the independence of the Bridges book, it should not be used as a reference for the purpose of establishing notability, and instead should be listed in the "Further reading" section. The backbone of your draft needs to be the reliable sources entirely independent of Bourke that devote significant coverage to Bourke. Remove all the content that is not impeccably sourced, and try resubmitting. Cullen328 (talk) 06:45, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your detailed reply! I will address your helpful suggestions and resubmit the draft. Legendt9455 (talk) 16:58, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

To add to Cullen328's very full reply: Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 09:24, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply and additional clarification! Legendt9455 (talk) 17:03, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm suspicious of edits that introduce videos from Facebook like this, but should I be? I believe social media is mentioned as a no-no in WP:ELNO, but should that be extended to a formatted media link? ☆ Bri (talk) 17:48, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Based off of that I would say that the links should be removed.

I would also say that you should state your reasons for removing the links in the talk page of the article. So that if it is a mistake the person understands why you did it. Sheriff U3 (talk) 17:58, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I was reading through an article (not linked here to avoid calling out/shaming the editor who wrote the piece in question) and there was a statement along the lines of "X is the best for Y. If X is no longer found to meet the needs of Y, Z may be used instead." It was a fairly esoteric software package page so I don't think it matters too much, but such a statement without a source feels like it just reflects the opinions of the editor who wrote the statements, not facts about the topic at hand. Is this the kind of thing I should submit an edit for, especially on a page that doesn't get much attention? How would you go about recommending sourcing or adjusting the statement? I don't want to be a nag or recommending inappropriately. jakeydus (talk) 21:56, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, jakeydus, and welcome to the Teahouse. I agree with you. The first sentence is a judgment or opinion, and doesn't belong in any article in Wikipedia's voice. (If an independent reliable sources says it, then the article could say it, cited to that source).

The second sentence falls foul of NOTHOWTO, and also doesn't belong in an article.

Feel free to be BOLD and remove those, and make sure you explain why in your edit summary, so that a vandalism patroller doesn't see unexplained removal and think it's vandalism.

Bear in mind the policy of in "BOLD" above: if somebody disagrees with your removal and reverts it, you can have a discussion with them. ColinFine (talk) 22:07, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

To add to ColinFine's answer: as well as citing sources for opinions, jakeydus, it's also important to clearly attribute them in-text, as explained at WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:48, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you both! This was very helpful. jakeydus (talk) 18:21, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

By the way, jakeydus, please do be specific when asking questions here. In this case you were precise enough that I was able (I think) to give you an appropriate answer, but very often when people avoid being specific, we can't give anything like a full answer.

Don't worry about calling out the editor(s) who put that in: if they are still around, they might have learnt better in the meantime; and if they haven't then you can teach them about Wikipedia's requirements. In any case, once you've made the edit, it will be in your contribution history and the history of the article anyway, so somebody who is interested could go back and find the editor. ColinFine (talk) 22:16, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I am new to editing, but I signed up because I saw that certain LLMs were being listed as "Open Source" on the Open-source artificial intelligence page when they aren't. I have proposed a general idea for a restructure of this page and creation of an additional one to resolve this issue without removing any information, on the talk page, but this is a rather big edit for someone who has only done one smaller one beforehand, and it is also on a somewhat contentious topic.

Any thoughts on how best to proceed or best practices when it comes to these kinds of edits? JacobHaimes (talk) 02:59, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

JacobHaimes: Welcome to Wikipedia! There are a few approaches to implementing major changes to an existing article (some of it comes down to personal preference). What I find useful is to copy the text of the article or section to a user sandbox or off-wiki text editor and work on revisions there. Using a sandbox on-wiki would be preferred for changes that need to be discussed with other editors. Then, when you have a version that's ready to go, I'd recommend doing this in small sections, and tagging the article with {{In use}} (when you are actively implementing the changes) or {{Under construction}} (when changes are being planned). — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 03:26, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm also a newer editor, but I just started a bigger rework of a bigger/higher profile article. Along with sharing proposed edits, people recommended posting on the Talk pages for the linked WikiProjects letting them know you've shared a proposed bigger rework so that interested people can have input if they'd like. And then wait a week or so before making big changes. Cyanochic (talk) 06:39, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

JacobHaimes, one problem with single, large edits that touch a lot of different sections of an article, is their monolithic nature. Let's say, your large edit sprinkles changes all over, and 90% of them are okay, but 10% is problematic for one reason or another. It may be very laborious and very difficult for another editor to come along, and just fix the stuff that needs fixing. I have been in this situation before, and had to regretfully revert their edit, which means the 90% good stuff goes away, along with the 10% bad stuff; I usually leave an apologetic edit summary, but I just can't justify the time required to make lots of little fixes all over the article, meanwhile worrying that another editor will come in with some unrelated change, meaning mine cannot be saved, and the effort is entirely lost. It is far, far easier to just revert the whole thing, and let the original editor fix it up.

To avoid this situation, I often recommend an editor to 'chunkify' their big edit, into five, or ten, or twenty smaller edits, where each one is limited to a particular section or subsection, and has their own edit summary explaining what it was about. In that case, if 10% of the whole problematic, it will be far easier for another editor to fix up a smaller edit in one section, and if they give up and just revert that one, well, that's just one of your edits, and your other nine or nineteen edits survive unscathed. Other reasons to use smaller edits is that they are less likely to result in WP:EDITCONFLICTs, which you can read about. Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 19:37, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Where do I go/How do I upload an image from the web for an article? Ianjaffe11 (talk) 19:48, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi there! Most of the time you can't upload any photo from the web because of copyright, but there are exceptions. See Wikipedia:Image use policy for more information on that. :) SirMemeGod  19:53, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Ianjaffe11. If you can prove that the image is in the public domain or that it has been freely licensed appropriately and in writing, then the image can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. Non-free images can only be uploaded to the English Wikipedia if they fully comply with the stringent policy limits at non-free images. Cullen328 (talk) 20:26, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello! English is not my first language (I'm swedish), and thus I'd like to avoid editing english articles so that I don't mess up the grammar, but I would still like to see the english interface. I'm not sure what the warning on the language change option in preferences mean, does anyone know how to change the recommended language to edit while still keeping the rest as is? I'm adding an image of what warning I'm talking about. Thanks!

FJW (talk) 15:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

@Frejowa: I'm not sure what you mean by changing the recommended language to edit. If you want to write an article in Swedish, you should do so on the Swedish Wikipedia. jlwoodwa (talk) 20:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Hej, FJW, och välkom till teehuset.

That dialogue is in the English Wikipedia, and sets the interface language to English or something else. The Swedish Wikipedia is a separate project.

If you want to edit in Swedish, but want to see the interface in English, go to sv:Special:Inställningar, and you can set it there. ColinFine (talk) 21:33, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello Teahouse, I have some edits I'd like to add to a current article but am being told that Wikipedia is very strict on how much I can change or what/when I can change them. I've been advised that only a few edits can be made at a time for the page to not get shut down. After reviewing your help section information, I don't find this to be the case. Is there a 'best practice' on adding edits to an existing page so it doesn't get taken down or taken back to the original article?

Link to the current page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Stearns_High_School

All information is regarding the success of the basketball team as they had a great run with a specific coach. The information about the coach was added (I'd like to add a photo) but I want to make sure that if I upload information about the team, their state championships, and athletes that made the All-State teams, that it won't be rejected.

Any help is appreciated. Worldtraveljunkie (talk) 16:01, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

You say I've been advised that only a few edits can be made at a time for the page to not get shut down. Very strange advice, Worldtraveljunkie. Where was/is this advice given? ¶ The article is already dubious. The most recent addition includes He is considered a transformative figure in Maine basketball [...]. How so? Is he considered to have transformed it into Maine volleyball, or into New Hampshire basketball, or what, exactly, was this transformation? And who considers him so? -- Hoary (talk) 21:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Worldtraveljunkie. No, there is no limit on how much you may add to an article (though if you have much to edit, it is usually better to do it in a series of smaller edits, so that if there is a problem with part of it, another editor can revert that part and leave the rest.)

But bear in mind that all information you add should be verifiable from a reliable published source - and most such should be from a source wholly independent of the subject. So I guess that you could add raw scores from a non-independent source, but anything discussing their "great run", and anything in any way evaluative about the coach, must be traceable to a published ource wholly unconnected with the School. (I say "traceable": there is no formal requirement to actually cite the source, unless the information refers to a living person; but since you must have found the information in a suitable source ih order to add it to the article, it makes sense to cite it - see REFB for how to do so - and editors tend to revert edits that add uncited information.) ColinFine (talk) 21:40, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello everyone,

I recently translated a page on Wiki for the first time. Unfortunately, I made a mistake with the title and I'm not sure how to correct it.

Can someone help me with this? IlEssere (talk) 17:37, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

You can edit the page to fix it.

Or if you want me to you can show me it to help you correct it. Sheriff U3 (talk) 17:53, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Could you please clarify where on the page you’re referring to? Are you talking about the first sentence? IlEssere (talk) 18:55, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I am sorry but you were asking for help and I don't even know what page yet.

So I have no clue at all what you are talking about, other than you were wanting to edit a page.

Sheriff U3 (talk) 19:03, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I noticed a misspelling in the title of the page I translated into the new language. I'm trying to figure out how to fix it. IlEssere (talk) 19:05, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I would think that you need to contact a Admin to do that.
I would also state the issue on it's talk page.
Sheriff U3 (talk) 19:18, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! IlEssere (talk) 19:20, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

@IlEssere: Are you talking about Athens is the New Berlin? You can move it yourself to a different title. jlwoodwa (talk) 20:11, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

No, I am talking about Keramikou 28. IlEssere (talk) 20:15, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Could you explain what the grammatical error is in that title? jlwoodwa (talk) 20:16, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

It should be Κεραμεικού 28 not Κεραμικου 28. IlEssere (talk) 20:54, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Are you saying the title is incorrectly transliterated into the Latin script? jlwoodwa (talk) 21:03, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

No, its incorrectly transliterated into Greek. IlEssere (talk) 21:26, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm very confused now. The article title is Keramikou 28, which contains a Greek-language word written in the Latin script. What do you mean by It should be Κεραμεικού 28 not Κεραμικου 28.? Both of those are in the Greek alphabet, and neither is the current title. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:34, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Keramikou 28 is the English version, I am referring to the Greek version Κεραμίκου 28.

In the Greek version, it is written as Κεραμίκου 28, but should be written as Κεραμείκου 28. IlEssere (talk) 21:37, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I understand now. Just so you know, this page is primarily meant for help with the English Wikipedia. If you ask a question about another language's Wikipedia, you should make that clear upfront to avoid confusion.

Since you're autoconfirmed on the Greek Wikipedia, I think you might be able to move the page yourself. But if not, I'd suggest that you ask for help at el:Βικιπαίδεια:Βοήθεια χρηστών, which appears to be the Greek equivalent of our help desk. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:45, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello. I was doing some research on states that expanded Medicaid on January 1st, 2014 (basically, the earliest possible date they could). It is stated that "when the ACA fully came into effect in January 2014, 24 states and the District of Columbia adopted Medicaid expansion" (so, 25 total). There is a table within the Wikipedia page with 50 columns that demonstrates this.

However, if we are including the District of Columbia, then this table should have 51 total columns (50 states + DC). I was counting the number of 1/1/2014 states and kept coming up one short, wondering what was missing. I now realize that for whatever reason, Oregon is completely omitted from your table altogether. Per the Kaiser Family Foundation, Oregon expanded Medicaid on 1/1/2014. The word "Oregon" does not appear once in the Wikipedia page (I was searching to see if there was some special circumstance involving Oregon, but it appears there is not). Can someone please edit the table to include Oregon? 2601:58B:1680:4540:71A5:F304:6498:43E (talk) 20:36, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, IP user, and welcome to the Teahouse. Thank you for pointing this out. You could do this yourself, but table syntax is a bit hairy, so the best place to make this suggestion is on the talk page Talk:Medicaid coverage gap. ColinFine (talk) 21:52, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I've added it. (ColinFine, I only saw your comment after I figured out how to add it.) FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:58, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! I wasn't sure where to post my query and hadn't had much experience working with tables. Appreciate it, FactOrOpinion. 2601:58B:1680:4540:71A5:F304:6498:43E (talk) 22:03, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Could anyone help me with changing a name of "Steel Arena (arena)" to just "Steel Arena"? Thank you.

Steel Arena (arena) Samuelbodi (talk) 00:01, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

@Samuelbodi: It is named that way because Steel Arena is already used by the disabiguation page RudolfRed (talk) 00:34, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

There are articles that use British spelling and some that use the American spelling. Which form of grammar shall be used on this site or does the grammar vary from article to article? Rager7 (talk) 20:33, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

See WP:ENGVAR Polygnotus (talk) 20:36, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

So the English grammar varies depending on the editors preferences? Rager7 (talk) 21:01, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

@Rager7: Welcome to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1238. It depends. MOS:TIES is a guideline that articles with subjects that have clear geographical ties to a region should use that region's style of English. Otherwise the relevant guideline to follow is MOS:RETAIN, in which editors conform to whatever style first existed outside of a non-stub revision. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:49, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Ah I see, the grammar depends on the subject of the article. In which said grammar varies from subject to subject. Rager7 (talk) 01:53, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello,

I'm not very familiar with using Wikipedia, but I have a question as I am suffering from defamatory content.

There is defamatory misinformation in a BLP (Biographies of Living Persons) article. The problem is that the content is sourced from a news article, but the media outlet reported the information maliciously, and no matter how much I request, they refuse to correct it.

I have an official document issued by an investigative agency that refutes this claim. However, since it's an official document, unlike a news article that is publicly accessible, I would need to upload it.

Q1. Can the PDF file of the official document I upload be used as a reliable source on Wikipedia?

Q2. Have there been cases where Wikipedia's Legal team has accepted email requests to remove defamatory content in such situations?

Q3. Are there any other methods I could try?

Thank you for your assistance. Breakingtheboy (talk) 04:34, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Breakingtheboy, your first step should be to give us the precise title of the biography article, so that experienced editors and administrators can look into your concerns. Please also read Problems in an article about you and Wikipedia:FAQ/Article subjects. Cullen328 (talk) 05:49, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard is another option. Cullen328 (talk) 05:51, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Also see WP:LIBEL. 331dot (talk) 10:00, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I feel like this was already mentioned in an article, but I cannot tell if a web show would be notable enough for a page.

If so, would it need as many sources? Or any at all? ViceVersa76 (talk) 02:32, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi ViceVersa76. Welcome to Wikipedia. The basic criteria for notability can be found in WP:GNG. So a web show might be notable if it received extensive (non-trivial) coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:53, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @ViceVersa76, and welcome to the Teahouse. Being mentioned in an article has absolutely no bearing on notability as far as Wikipedia is concerned: I am mentioned in an article, but I am certainly not notable. ColinFine (talk) 10:07, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I've been updating the page for David Bishop (writer). His pen name D.V. Bishop is listed on the page CWA Historical Dagger (in the table, 2023 winner), but I can't see how to link this to David Bishop (writer). Can someone help. Thanks. Blackballnz (talk) 03:17, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Blackballnz. Please read Wikipedia:Piped link which explains the software technique. Cullen328 (talk) 06:17, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi - I'm not sure if it's a piped link (I know how to do those). It looks like this: |D. V. Bishop Blackballnz (talk) 09:27, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, that's not very helpful, but if you look at the source code you'll see what I mean. Blackballnz (talk) 09:28, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I see the problem: "D. V. Bishop" is not simple text, it's in a sorted table where it's entered as "|{{Sortname|last=Bishop|first=D. V.}}". I myself don't know how the names in the table that do link to articles are doing so. Perhaps someone else does? (My cludge would be to create a redirect page for D. V. Bishop, but that's doubtless clumsy.) {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.6.86.81 (talk) 09:58, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @Blackballnz. If you look at Template:Sortname, you'll see that it has an optional third argument which is the link name.

So if you replace that entry with

{{Sortname|last=Bishop|first=D. V.|link=David Bishop (writer)}}

that should do it. ColinFine (talk) 10:12, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I have a COI on Draft:Damola Ayegbayo, the draft has a good number of Reliable, independent and significant sources to pass Notability. Would like to request for it to be reviewed ? Sophia2030 (talk) 08:35, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

What has changed since it was declined for the 4th time? Polygnotus (talk) 08:47, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

This (very little) is all that has changed since then. The draft cites 25 sources. Sophia2030, which of these 25 would you say are the best three? -- Hoary (talk) 09:23, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, and that edit happened after I asked what has changed. Polygnotus (talk) 09:35, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

See @Hoary: [2], [3] [4] Sophia2030 (talk) 15:50, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I'll take these three in order. "Ayegbayo Damola, Communicating Power, Beauty Of Black African Women" is based on an interview. It thus doesn't count towards showing notability (as this is understood here in en:Wikipedia). "Artistic landscape for best African painters" seems (with "Ayegbayo is undoubtedly one of the most famous painters today", etc) to tend toward hyperbole, but I suppose it's usable. "Beauty of African women at World of Women NFT art project" is OK too, I suppose. If these are the best three sources, then Damola Ayegbayo is borderline "notable", I'd say. -- Hoary (talk) 22:16, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

See @Hoary: here are more additional 3 to also support previous one Notability. [5], [6], [7]Sophia2030 (talk) 06:22, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

@Hoary: Can you please assess this also.Sophia2030 (talk) 20:56, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Which one of those three? -- Hoary (talk) 21:19, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

@Hoary: The first two above can go but since you need one see [8] .Sophia2030 (talk) 07:28, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Sophia2030, "‘Nigeria’s Art Scene Has Gained Independence, Global Recognition’" seems somehow promotional to me. The promotionalism isn't so blatant but it reads to me as if the writer intended to impress readers with the greatness of the artists' work. (I often, perhaps even usually, get this impression from Nigerian sources.) -- Hoary (talk) 08:15, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

@Hoary: please see this one also [9] .Sophia2030 (talk) 08:44, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

No thanks, Sophia2030. You decide when you believe Draft:Damola Ayegbayo is ready. When you think so, submit it. -- Hoary (talk) 11:08, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

@Sophia2030: a simple statement like "Damola Ayegbayo (born Dec 29, 1988) is a Nigerian contemporary visual artist and painter." does not need four sources to support it. The one thing in that sentence that does need to be supported is the DOB, which for privacy etc. reasons should not be added unless it can be reliably sourced; yet none of the four sources cited against that sentence gives this person's DOB. More generally, you need to ensure that the sources actually support the information, and avoid citing more sources that is needed to verify the contents and to establish notability. It is better to cite five solid sources than 25 flaky or unnecessary ones. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:35, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Looks like someone already explained it before me. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 22:46, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing: , @AlphaBetaGamma: I have made adjustments to your concerns to back them with appropriate sources and removed the D.O.B not reference, I hope better now ?.Sophia2030 (talk) 20:56, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Is Flags of the World a reliable source? Many B-Class rated articles use it and i'm wondering if it is. Flags of the World (FOTW) is a member of the North American Vexillological Association after all which is a reliable source. WikiPhil012 (talk) 00:44, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

The Reliable sources Noticeboard would be a better place to ask this question, and a quick check the archives also indicates that it's been discussed there previously. FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:12, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

WikiPhil012, I've seen references to FOTW removed as ^{[user-generated source]}

WP:FOTW (an anchor to the website's entry at WP:RSP) lists it as generally unreliable. Citations to this website should be replaced with better sources. Folly Mox (talk) 11:17, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I would like to request some assistance to move a page. Our company rebranded and the page title is our old name. This is causing Google to keep showing our old name as the company name in SERPs and on this page: https://www.google.com/search?q=About+https://www.govocal.com/nl-be&tbm=ilp&ctx=atr&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiM3LzzrpWJAxWx2gIHHeTdMc0Qv5AHegQIABAR. I have an open request: Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests#c-CFA-20241016134000-Sören3300-20241016071500 Sören3300 (talk) 12:01, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Your request will be processed in due course by a volunteer. I'd suggest you read WP:COMMONNAME; to be frank, we aren't concerned with Google search results or knowledge panels(for which a Wikipedia article is only one input)

You must formally declare your status as an employee, see WP:PAID, I will also post instructions on your user talk page. 331dot (talk) 12:23, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

What is the speed of continental drift per year? 166.91.253.40 (talk) 18:00, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

What is the speed of continental drift in 1 century? 166.91.253.40 (talk) 18:01, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello! About 2.5 cm a year, per Continental drift and the cited source. You might want to ask these kinds of questions at WP:REFDESK/S. NotAGenious (talk) 18:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Specific plates can be moving more or less slowly, and parts of a plate can have different rates relative to nearby plates. For example, the Juan de Fuca plate off the coast of the Pacific Northwest is subducting up to 42 mm per year according to this. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:47, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

And please OP, the Teahouse is for advice on editing, WP:NOTFORUM. Ahri Boy (talk) 12:46, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Page Amanmehrasuperstar (talk) 12:57, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

You have a total lack of independent sources, and that is what we base articles on. Theroadislong (talk) 13:05, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves, please see the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 13:06, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

@Amanmehrasuperstar What you've tried to do from a very early stage is creating an article, something difficult at times even for users with thousands of edits. This, while admirable, is generally ill-advised, as newer users tend not to be equipped with the right knowhow to make an article that meets Wikipedia standards.

Taking a quick peek at the page, I can see that the only citations you've added are both general (as opposed to inline) and directly related to the subject. It also appears to be promotional in nature.

In other words, it'll never pass the review process in its current state. What you need to do is have a look at the notability criteria for musicians, then look at some other examples of famous musicians as examples of how the article should be structured. Ideally, what you should really do is do some tasks to become more acquainted with how Wikipedia works. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 13:07, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

@Amanmehrasuperstar I will just qualify what @CommissarDoggo says above: no amount of "becoming acquainted with Wikipedia" is going to make your now-deleted draft article suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia unless and until you become famous enough that independent mainstream media write about you in detail and in depth, or if your music wins major awards, or reaches specific chart success. See WP:NMUSIC for these criteria for 'notability', without which there cannot be a page about you - and thousands of other skilled musicians or other people - here. See also WP:TOOSOON. Sorry. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:15, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello friends?

I'm back again as a new editor seeking assistance. This article: TECO Electric and Machinery, I believe fits the criteria to be deleted for multiple issues - primarily notability based on WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:NOTADVERT. There's a brief discussion I started on the talk page, but since both of us are new, I thought I'd bring the discussion here! Thanks for your help! Se7enNationArmy2024 (talk) 19:32, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Se7enNationArmy2024, you have two options here: if you think that the article cannot be fixed and that no one will disagree with you, you can do a speedy deletion. Make sure to read through the criteria there and decide whether this is the right strategy for this article.

If it's not, and you can't find sources that indicate the article subject is in fact notable, your other option is Articles for Deletion (AfD) which has its own criteria and instructions. With an AfD, you can make a case as to why you believe the article should be deleted, and other editors will look at it and give their opinions. There are several possible results, including keeping the article (and possibly improving it), merging it to another article, or deleting it. If the outcome is deletion, whoever closes it will delete the article.

Either way, I very much recommend you use WP:Twinkle to help you out - it adds a little extra tab that will allow you to simply put in information and have all the necessary pages and notifications created for you. It makes dealing with articles in general a lot easier! I hope this has been helpful, and wish you happy editing. StartGrammarTime (talk) 04:18, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes thank you! That was very helpful. I already had Twinkle enabled so I have decided to go with the option of AFD.

I appreciate you taking time to help answer my question! Have a great rest of your day! Se7enNationArmy2024 (talk) 15:06, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I came across this Nritoday article -- a magazine for Non-Resident Indians -- which doesn't cite any sources. I've never tried to nominate an article for deletion before, so I read up on that (which is a lot of info to take in). Tried an internet search to see if I could find evidence of notability and improve the article, but found no sources for notability (though it's hard to search for that, as the search pulls up a lot of results from NRI Today itself, and there's another news outlet of the same name, and the acronym NRI also has other meanings). I also couldn't figure out how it might be merged with another article. I am now thinking of PRODing it. However, that process says to confirm that "it has not previously been proposed for deletion." The PROD article doesn't say how to do that. The AfD process has archives one can look though, but I don't see archives for PRODing. Do I just look in the article's history to confirm that there are no edits with a PROD summary? FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:08, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

You can check this by typing "WP:Articles For Deletion/name of article". Industrial Insect (talk) 17:16, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

@FactOrOpinion There's a search box at WP:AfD which can be used to find old deletion discussions. Nritoday doesn't appear there. If it had been prodded/unprodded before then there would not necessarily have been an AfD discussion, so User:Industrial Insect's method won't work. However, that article has a very short edit history and it is easy to see there are no prods. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:35, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

@Industrial Insect, @Michael D. Turnbull, yes, I had already checked the AfD archives; sorry, I should have said that. Thanks for confirming that then it's just a matter of checking the article's edit history, FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:44, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

FactOrOpinion, best practice when contesting a proposed deletion is to drop an {{Old prod}} on the talkpage. This is not always done in every case, but it's the first thing I check for. Folly Mox (talk) 11:24, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

@Folly Mox, thanks for pointing that out. If someone else contests the article that I Proded and hasn't added that to the Talk page, I will be sure to add it, and if I'm ever tempted to Prod another article, I will first check for that to help me figure out whether I need to check the edit history. FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:43, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi there!

My article was declined because of "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified.".

Tell me please, if I add to my english article ukrainian media (reliable sources), will this help in resubmitting the article for review?

Thank you in advance! DenNumberOne (talk) 14:58, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

If the Ukrainian sources comply with English Wikipedia's criteria of reliability, then probably yes: sources do not have to be in English. Where a foreign language-source and an English source are equally good, then for obvious reasons we would prefer the English one, but if there isn't a good English one, non-English is fine.

However, bear in mind that probably very few editors/assessors (if any) on this English Wikipedia can read or speak Ukrainian, so it will likely take longer for an assessor to determine whether a source (a) is reliable and (b) appropriately verifies the fact(s) for which it is cited. Hope this helps. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.6.86.81 (talk) 15:15, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

You can post on the draft talk page a description of what the Ukrainian sources say, which may aid the reviewer. 331dot (talk) 15:16, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @DenNumberOne. I observe that none of the sources cited in uk:Shadu give names of who wrote and published them: they're mostly just a title and a URL (usually to an archive, but that's OK).

For reviewing a draft, the first thing a reviewer needs to know is where a source is the bibliographic information such as author, title, site/publisher, and date, because often that allows a quick decision about whether the source is likely to meet English Wikipedia's criteria for a source that can establish notability.

I see that in your draft Draft:Shadu you have provided that information: well done.

If you do as 331dot says and post information about the Ukrainian sources, please make sure you include that information. ColinFine (talk) 16:40, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Welcome! All Wikipedia articles must be verifiable through reliable sources, please look at Help:Referencing for beginners to learn how to cite a source. Electrou (formerly Susbush) (talk) 18:51, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello there, I have a question about notability of Andrea Guerrini, he is an Italian poet and my teacher wants to create a Wikipedia page for him. so I was doing some research and found out that it is not that easy, there are so many rules as well. could anyone help me to check if it is possible to create a page and how can I verify notability of this poet thank you everyone Nurmukhammed2997 (talk) 08:35, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

@Nurmukhammed2997 Welcome to the Teahouse. There doesn't appear to be an article about this Italian poet on Italian Wikipedia. One wonders why not? The starting point for any article is not to worry about all our instructions and rules, but to concern yourself solely with "Notability". Without a topic meeting our criteria for notability, there can never be an article here about it. In essence, we need evidence that any topic you want to see an article about has been taken notice of by the world at large. That means we expect you to find books, magazine or mainstream news articles - or perhaps even research journals - about that topic and to base a draft article on them (not on your personal knowledge). If it's a person, not a thing, then we need evidence of independent, in-depth sources that have written about that person. We ignore their own writings, musing or personal websites and social media streams, however. It's what others have said about them that matters.

These sources do not need to be online; they can be properly paper published books or journals of any age that are theoretically available (on request) at any library, anywhere in the world. At a very quick check, there's nothing online that I could find about this person. So could I put the question back to you and ask what sources do you already have that show Andrea Guerrini meets our notability criteria? These can be found at HERE or HERE.

Having established that they might be notable, the next step is to learn the basics of editing. (Article creation is hard for all of us; even moreso for a brand new inexperienced editor.) It's well worth gaining experience by making simple edits to understand the key requirements. Think of it like making the very first steps of driving in a car in a quiet car park, compared to roaring up the motorway at high speed on your very first day behind the wheel).

You may find advice at Help:Your first article and Help:Getting started well worth reading through. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:00, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

The only thing I can think of to add to Nick's excellent answer is that non-English sources are fine, but like he said, you need to master the art of citing them correctly in the WP environment. I searched, but I didn't come up with anything that seemed on-topic, if you have any links/sources, you can mention them so we can take a look. Sadly, archive.org is down atm, that is sometimes helpful. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:11, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

When I search about him on google italy I get this article from local newspaper

https://www.genova24.it/evento/genova-gli-ex-allievi-del-mazzini-raccontano-adriano-guerrini-linsegnante-il-poeta-il-letterato/#:~:text=Adriano%20Guerrini%20fu%20docente%20di,di%20via%20Reti%20a%20Sampierdarena.

I get links on bookshop websites for his books

https://www.libroco.it/dl/Adriano-Guerrini/De-Ferrari-Editore/9788855036276/Raccolta-di-poesie-Di-noi-qualcuno-un-giorno-un-grande-mito-narrera/cw830874033720115.html

Another media platform of another Italian city talk about him

https://alessandria.today/2023/04/16/la-poesia-di-adriano-guerrini/

There are couple of books on amazon

he received an award along with his colleague

https://www.culturaveneto.it/it/beni-culturali/libri/premio-colli-euganei-1960-andrea-zanzotto-adriano-guerrini Nurmukhammed2997 (talk) 09:31, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

@Nurmukhammed2997@Nick Moyes I'll give you my view.

• genova24: This has some good info, but it seems (I'm using google translate) to be a post/ad by the event-holder, his school I think, so for WP:N purposes, I don't think this counts as independent. The info can at least to some extent be used in a potential article, though.
• libroco.it: Confirms that someone is selling his books, but it doesn't help.
• alessandria.today: WP:BLOG.
• culturaveneto.it: I don't know anything about this award

I think it's quite possible there are useful sources around, but they are probably in WP:PAYWALLED sources like digitized newspaper collections (or the actual papers, of course), academic article collections and the like. These are harder to get at and it takes some work and passion to do it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:06, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Again, I don't know Italian, but this book [10] might be about him. Perhaps [11] has something too. If so, that is the kind of stuff you want. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:13, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I also have this research that my teacher did

. Stefano Verdino, Adriano Guerrini, in La poesia in Liguria, a cura di Id., Forum/Quinta Generazione, Forlì 1986, pp. 148-152.

Francesco De Nicola, Introduzione a Guerrini, Poesie (1941-1986), 1996, pp.

XIII-XXII.

• Davide Puccini, Adriano Guerrini saggista: fra poetica, polemica e didattica,

«Resine», n.s, XXII, 85, 3° trimestre 2000, pp. [551-60.

• Stefano Verdino, La stagione del "Diogene", in Coerenza e dispersione. Contributi per Gian Luigi Falabrino, a cura di Franca Guelfi, Viennepierre, Milano 2000, pp.

23-45.

• Stefano Giovannuzzi, I "penultimi" di Guerrini, introduzione a Guerrini, Jon il

Groenlandese (2016), pp. 7-19.

• Adriano Guerrini, in Dodici poeti liguri (1960-2020), a cura di Anna Sansa, II

Canneto, Genova 2021, pp. 71-89.

could this be useful? Nurmukhammed2997 (talk) 10:52, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @Nurmukhammed2997: yes, it is likely that some of these will be useful. But it will be necessary to see them to determine:

1. Are they reliable? This is mostly a matter of who published them. A book published by a well-known publisher, yes. A book published by its author or by a vanity press, no. Some if not all of those are surely reliable. A book published by a gallery who have exhibited the artist may be reliable but not independent (see the next point).
2. Are they independent? This depends on who wrote and edited them, and possibly who commissioned them. Also if the material is mostly an interview (so the artist's words, not an independent write), then no. (This is common in articles: it is less likely in books, but possible).
3. Do they contain significant coverage of the artist? Several of those you have cited almost certainly do; but it is possible, for example that they contain much about his works, but little about him.

ColinFine (talk) 11:26, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Is it possible to get help in this ?

Could anyone indicate someone who can rewrite about this poet and do a check up if he would pass a notability check? Nurmukhammed2997 (talk) 13:59, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

@Nurmukhammed2997 I'm afraid that is as far as the Teahouse can go in guiding new users (unless an individual just happens to read this and they independently decide they want to look into it further).

It is now up to you to find, research and assess sources for yourself, having digested the above advice on Notability and coming to a decision. Few of us speak Italian to be able to assess those sources for you. You would then have to create a draft and submit it for review. But we do have a wizard to help with that step, which you can find at the Articles for Creation page HERE. We do not object to foreign language sources being used, you'll be pleased to know.

But if this is an Italian poet, why not first look to Italian Wikipedia to create an article about him? They probably have less stringent notability criteria than we do, and it would be more relevant to Italian speakers?

But either way, do gain some experience first in editing and improving existing articles. Give it some months to learn the basics before embarking on the hardest tasks anyone can perform here - creating a new article from scratch - which is especially challenging for brand new users. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:49, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Folks,

I would appreciate a specific reply to the Visual Editor. I have old newspaper stories I am using in my draft article. I had inserted them manually under news. Most of the stories were found using Proquest. The Proquest links seem to have vanished after I hit publish.

I am wondering if I ought to manually cite the news stories as under a website, rather than under 'news', as these old stories were acessed under Proquest. I am also wondering if anyone might know why the Proquest url disappeared when I sent my draft for publication.

Here is the link to my draft:

Draft:Zipporah Ritchie Woodward

Bizzyfan (talk) 17:58, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

You have not edited the draft after you submitted it last week (7 October 2024). Perhaps you can try again now: just fix one reference, click "Publish", and see if the draft updates. If it doesn't, you can check the draft's edit history and your own contributions log.

I prefer to cite under "news" than the generic website. That way, if the link rots and cannot be rescued, a "news" citation allows the link to be removed entirely and the newspaper article to be cited as if it were an entirely offline citation (i.e. citing the hard copy). Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 18:50, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I very much appreciate the reply and the help. I will give that a whirl. To clarify: you are suggesting I edit a citation, by keeping it under "news", but adding in the Proquest link - i.e. try to add in the Proquest link again. Correct? Bizzyfan (talk) 19:06, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

@Bizzyfan Have you checked the Visual Editor referencing tutorial at WP:INTREFVE? It is a much easier way to reference and it shouldn't take too long for you to convert the plain-text references into the cite news reference. Remember, the Visual Editor works with in-line citations, you create the citation in the body of the text and it automatically generates a reference list. Qcne (talk) 20:55, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi! Yes, for sure I checked the Visual Editor referencing tutorial at Wikipedia:INTREFVE. Before doing the references, and then again after my draft was declined. I can't figure out what I am doing wrong. I put in all the citations, and the Proquest links manually, under the news category. Bizzyfan (talk) 21:21, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

@Bizzyfan, don't put them in manually. The software will create the numbers. Put each source at the position in the articles instead of a number like [4], following the instructions at Help:Introduction to referencing with VisualEditor/2. The software will create the number there and list the reference at the end of the article even though the actual text is in the article. A link to proquest is not needed. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:30, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you folks, very much. I am now unclear as to whether I actually need to include the Proquest links or not. User:StarryGrandma is suggesting I don't need to link to Proquest.

But without inserting a link, how can an editor verify my sources if he/she/they can't view them online?

Thank you User:Cordless Larry for the Template:ProQuest link. Despite your excellent instructions, I still am unsure as to how to make use of it, via the link. If only I had someone to stand over my shoulder in PERSON (what a concept!) that would make this go so quickly.

User:Rotideypoc41352 thank you for going to my draft and helping with the citations. User:Rotideypoc41352 what are your thoughts - do I need to add in a way for an editor to verify my sources?

Much appreciated from bizzyfan in Vancouver. Bizzyfan (talk) 18:25, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

If you want to use that template, you can just copy-paste it from my example below, replacing the document ID with the one for the newspaper article you're referencing. You can also copy-paste the citation template, replacing what's after each equals sign with the relevant information from your article. It is indeed unnecessary to link to ProQuest - it might be nice for those with access to be able to verify the source there, but sources don't need to be available online in the first place to be usable (see WP:SOURCEACCESS). Cordless Larry (talk) 18:46, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you folks, very much. I am now unclear as to whether I actually need to include the Proquest links or not. User:StarryGrandma is suggesting I don't need to link to Proquest.

But if so, how can an editor verify my sources if he/she/they can't view them online?

Thank you User:Cordless Larry for the Template:ProQuest link. Despite your excellent instructions, I still am unsure as to how to make use of it, via the link. If only I had someone to stand over my shoulder in PERSON (what a concept!) that would make this go so quickly. Bizzyfan (talk) 04:26, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I already answered these same questions above, Bizzyfan. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:06, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Bizzyfan. When I'm citing something from ProQuest, I don't include the full URL in the address field of the citation template, because I think it includes some things specific to the library you access ProQuest via, so it's not much use to anyone without a login for that library. Instead, I use Template:ProQuest, which allows for linking just using the document's ProQuest ID. I use that template after a citation template, which I fill in as if it's for an offline newspaper source. Here's a recent example: <ref>{{cite news|title=Campuses ban alleged church cult|first=Michael|last=Paulson|work=Boston Globe|date=23 February 2001|page=B1}} {{ProQuest|405379940}}.</ref> That will appear as: Paulson, Michael (23 February 2001). "Campuses ban alleged church cult". Boston Globe. p. B1. ProQuest 405379940. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:41, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Proquest links are not required, but they are nice to have. Without them, anyone verifying the info will need to either search on Proquest themselves or find a copy through a library. I think if you've gone through all the hard work of locating the Proquest links, you might as well put them in the draft, as you have with the first one (Woodward's obituary in The Province newspaper). Formatting them to look nice is something you can gradually pick up later. The important thing is that the source is cited in the correct place and that the citation contains all the important bibliographic info (title, author, date, newspaper name, etc.). Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 23:29, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Due to an NPOV dispute, there is currently discussion for a title change on one of the articles I'm working on, per WP:RM. The change has some support by other editors but we don't know how to determine if it is a good/better fit. The subject is referred to by two phrases which essentially mean the same thing. What is the best process for determining commonality in usage. For example, do we simply use google to look at the number of search results for each and go with the one that has more results? Thanks for the help. Cheers DN (talk) 23:40, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I should also say, one of the more serious concerns I have here is WP:POVFORK. There is a subtopic on a separate article that currently shares the same name. One of the editors suggested a redirect, in addition to the title change, to the subtopic which is described differently than how it is in our article. I'm feeling apprehensive about it.DN (talk) 01:05, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

POV forking aside, I'll say that Google search hits don't really mean much, but Google ngram results do have some weight in showing how often certain phrases appear in published books. https://books.google.com/ngrams/ ~Anachronist (talk) 01:33, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello! I published this article Croisière des Sables Expeditions on the 4th of October, and it hasn’t been reviewed or seen by any other editor yet. Also, I don’t know which Wikipedia project this can fall under. Can someone help? Thanks! Bollardant (talk) 06:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Bollardant. Newly created Wikipedia articles go into a queue of new unreviewed articles. It can take a month or so for it to be reviewed. The only advice we can give you is just to be patient. Hope that helps. Softlavender (talk) 06:50, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the swift response. I will keep that in account. Bollardant (talk) 06:51, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

[Edit conflicts] Hello, Bollardant. When you create an article directly (rather than through the Wikipedia:Articles for creation process), it is not automatically reviewed. The New pages patrol will try to get to it, but their numbers are limited (remember, everything on Wikipedia is done by unpaid volunteers like both of us).

If the NPP do review it, and approve it, they will make it visible to search engine web crawlers. If they don't, this latter will happen automatically after 90 days. It is likely that there are many articles amongst Wikipedia's ~6.9 million that have never been reviewed.

You can ask for a 'peer review' of the article at Wikipedia:Peer review. Hope this helps. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.6.86.81 (talk) 06:58, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I may potentially consider asking for a peer review. Bollardant (talk) 07:01, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello! Correct me if I'm wrong, but I remember 4 years ago reading the article about President of the United States, and found it very clever to have a section which was essentially a gallery of the living former presidents- Carter, Bush, Clinton, Obama and Trump. I since could not find this anywhere. Did it exist? If it did, why was it removed? Thanks! Mr. NeutroPositive (talk) 03:59, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

@Mr. NeutroPositive There is a featured article at list of presidents of the United States which may be what you are remembering. It has all the presidents, not just the living ones. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:25, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

@Mr. NeutroPositive: You are right. It was removed in 2022 with edit summary: "This fits just fine into the preceding subsection. The portraits are superfluous; all these men are pictured together at the top of the section."[12] The last version is here. It's a fairly large article at 160 kB and content is often removed from articles. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:40, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello All Fans I just added Sources per WP:SOURCES, also the contestants lists who was competed, results in a Infobox. Mostly Declined the resumbit, can someone move the Draft into a Article. 77.77.218.177 (talk) 10:43, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

If you have made changes since it was declined, you need to resubmit it. 331dot (talk) 10:48, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

IP editor. It was declined again today because you had re-submitted it without making changes relevant to the issues about sourcing/notability and had also removed the prior decline notice. Such gaming of the system is unlikely to succeed. Please attend to the issues raised by User:Bonadea. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:53, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I made page about public figure, why you delete it? What should I do to make my page is working and public? Hanichaa (talk) 08:17, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Hanichaa, if you're asking about Draft:Gustigina, its most obvious problem is that it's not written in English. This is English-language Wikipedia, and only accepts English-language articles. Perhaps you could submit it to id.wikipedia.org (maybe I'm wrong about the language). Maproom (talk) 08:39, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

@Hanichaa If you are talking about Gusti Gina, it's there at Indonesian Wikipedia. If you mean Draft:Gustigina, you need to fix the referencing and remove the WP:EL from the article text. I have no idea if this article meets the demands of WP:N or not. And it's not in English, the language of this website. If you mean something else, we need more info. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:41, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Hanichaa, as "Hanichaa", you have never edited, let alone "made", any article in English-language Wikipedia that was subsequently deleted. You ask what you should do. Answer: Make constructive edits to existing articles. When you've had quite a lot of practice doing that, then you can think of creating new articles. -- Hoary (talk) 11:31, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I’ve submitted a Wikipedia article Pride of KP Awards that’s awaiting review, and I’m looking for feedback to improve it. Any suggestions on structure, clarity, and adherence to Wikipedia's guidelines would be appreciated. I'm open to edits to ensure it's well-sourced, neutral, and ready for publication. Namra Tariq (talk) 07:22, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

@Namra Tariq The draft has been reviewed today and declined, with the reasons for that explained by the reviewer. One of the problems is that sources include press releases from the organisation giving the awards. What is needed to show that these awards are wikinotable are sources which are simultaneously reliable, independent of the awarding body and have significant coverage of it. You can try to improve the draft if you can find such sources but, if not, you will have to give up. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:15, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. I appreciate the guidance, as I'm still familiarizing myself with the notability requirements. Following your suggestion, I’ve found a few reputable, independent media sources that provide significant coverage of the event and the awards:

میٹرکس پاکستان (humnews.pk)

https://mashriqtv.pk/latest/372771/

خیبر پختونخوا کے 12 نمایاں افراد کو پرائڈ آف کے پی ایوارڈز میں اعزاز دیا جائے گا (humnews.pk)

I believe these addresses the notability concerns and would be happy to revise the draft accordingly. Please let me know if this is acceptable. Namra Tariq (talk) 11:47, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

@Namra Tariq You can certainly continue to revise your draft. I have no idea whether these sources are considered reliable: they have not been discussed in the archive of the relevant page at WP:RSPS. You can ask about reliability of sources at the helpdesk for that, which is WP:RSN. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:06, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Namra Tariq The draft has been Declined for weakness and lack of independence of references. The draft says annual, but it appears this is the first year the awards exist. Listing recipients does not contribute to establishing notability (none of them are subjects of Wikipedia articles), so all that should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David notMD (talk • contribs) 10:13, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Welcome! Your article is not supported by reliable sources, and is written in a promotional tone, and has been declined. See NPOV and referencing for beginners for more info. Electrou (formerly Susbush) (talk) 10:55, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Henry Simmonds is a Canadian architect of some note. He already has an entry based on his representing Canada in the Olympics as a sailor. I added some information on his architectural career but the info box still focused on this sailing. I'm not sure how best to revise it to be a more general biographical entry.

Henry Simmonds Jreiss17 (talk) 16:39, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

The article uses a "sailor Infobox" so there doesn't seem to be a paramter to include another occupation. Theroadislong (talk) 16:59, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Jreiss17, and thank you for wanting to add information. Thank you also for citing sources - which the existing article does not.

Infoboxes are not an essential part of an article (some editors actively dislike them): in any case, they are much less important than citations. What you're saying is like to "This jerry-built shack, which may fall down any minute, has a rather nice window, and I want to make the window nicer".

Having said that, we are all volunteers, so there's no requirement on you to do the more important (and possibly harder) work of sourcing the information already in there - any more than there is for me!

The existing infobox uses the template Template:Infobox sailor, so of course there is no provision in it for architecture. There is also a Template:infobox architect which could be added.

Since he was apparently both, probably the best solution is to use {{infobox person}} with the other two embedded: see WP:IEmbed for how to do this. ColinFine (talk) 17:02, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you all for your advice. I changed the infobox to person and embedded sailor successfully and did some other reorg.

I then tried to embed a second infobox architect but was not able to get it to display correctly. Left it without the embedded infobox architect which I'm fine with. Useful to learn about infoboxes, and embedding them (somewhat) and may use in other entries though I also have mixed feelings about them.

Entry is improved, if not perfect. Jreiss17 (talk) 17:55, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

That is indeed improved. All we need now is enough good citations to establish that Simmonds meets Wikipedia's criteria for WP:notability. ColinFine (talk) 19:31, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

What is the name of the article? I can work on the citations. Sheriff U3 talk 22:33, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Sheriff U3, I'll wager it's Henry Simmonds. Good luck digging around the newspaper archives. -- Hoary (talk) 23:49, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks I take a look. Sheriff U3 talk 15:52, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I wanted to know the process about creating a new portal. The portal already exists as an example on the Arabic Wikipedia and can be found on this link: [13]. Any advice is much appreciated! Surayeproject3 (talk) 02:35, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Have you digested Wikipedia:Portal, Surayeproject3? -- Hoary (talk) 04:10, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I believe I have in the past but I haven't taken a good look at it. I will later today but I'm hoping for more specific information on how to create a Wikipedia Portal if anyone or it can provide any. Surayeproject3 (talk) 18:51, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Maybe it's my age, but I was surprised to find that when typing in the name "Miss Kitty" into the search bar, it took me to this page: The Kat. I'm not diminishing this BLP, but knowing only one "Miss Kitty" from Gunsmoke, I'm wondering why she gets the direct link over the others on the disambiguation page: Miss Kitty (disambiguation)? Considering her real name, versus her stage name; which is actually "The Kat". When one types in "Miss Kitty" into Google Search, Gunsmoke is most relevant, with An American Tail: Fievel Goes West and others. But not the wrestler. At the very least, shouldn't the disambiguation page come up first, if Gunsmoke is not going to be the direct link? (I'm sure there's been a discussion already that I've missed) Maineartists (talk) 13:37, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Mainartists. The determination of the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is a matter of editorial discretion. If you want to argue that there is a better choice in this case, I suggest doing so at Talk:Miss Kitty (disambiguation). ColinFine (talk) 13:50, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Out of curiosity: 162 etc., would you happen to remember if there was a discussion for a primary topic takeover of Miss Kitty three years ago (move log entry)? I didn't find anything in the edit summaries of related edits on the redirect or the dab. Talk:The Kat § Requested move 2 November 2021 does not mention the dab at all, so it may have been a WP:BOLDMOVE situation. Probably still needs a formal WP:RM if contested, but was just curious. Please feel free to correct me. Thank you, Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 14:37, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Rotideypoc41352 Quick question: which page receives the RM? It's a bit confusing since "The Kat" has so many title links: The Kat, Stacy Carter, Miss Kitty, etc. Would the RM go on the Miss Kitty (disambiguation) page with "Miss Kitty"? Isn't the re-direct page that needs the RM? Not the actual pages in question? This is where I get a bit foggy. Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 17:52, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

You would put the request to rename the dab "Miss Kitty" on Talk:Miss Kitty (disambiguation). If your request succeeds, the dab would be moved to "Miss Kitty" over the existing redirect. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 18:26, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 19:16, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Rotideypoc41352 I was thinking the same thing: WP:BOLDMOVE; and that, overall, the topic does not get enough traffic to have been noticed. That, ColinFine, is why I brought it here first. I understand WP:PRIMARYTOPIC all too well (see: Talk:Saddle tramp). Discussion at Talk:Miss Kitty (disambiguation) is practically non-existent. Maineartists (talk) 15:22, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I think that may have indeed been a bold move, based on the fact that Stacy Carter has a full article of her own (a good article, at that), and the others are only mentions. No reason why it can't go to RM if anybody believes this is a NOPRIMARY situation. 162 etc. (talk) 15:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Hugo Moro (1954-), assemblage, born in Havana Hugo Moro (talk) 19:45, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Hugo Moro You appear to be trying to promote yourself, which is not the purpose of Wikipedia. In general, people included in lists should already have their own article on the English Wikipedia, which you don't have - Arjayay (talk) 19:52, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Hugo Moro, and welcome to the Teahouse. Lists in Wikipedia are not lists of people (or places, or any other subjects): they are lists of Wikipedia articles.

If you meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability then somebody could write an article about you, and then that article could be added to the list. But please do not try and write an article about yourself: autobiography is strongly discouraged.

Note also that an article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. ColinFine (talk) 20:08, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

i should have quit Jason pagan jr (talk) 18:28, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi! Creating an article requires a lot of work to understand exactly what kind of sources you need. It can be rough, so if you need a break, taking one is a good idea. You can come back to Draft:The International Phonics Script ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) whenever you are ready. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 18:37, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

status:deleted by you're member. Jason pagan jr (talk) 18:37, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Jason pagan jr, nothing has ever been deleted that you, while logged in as Jason pagan jr, have written for English-language Wikipedia. Your draft was rightly declined. -- Hoary (talk) 21:05, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Why are you deleting the National Historic District Mothers' Memorial Information adding to my page. I was the nominator for both the mothers' memorial and the Ashland Boys' Association for the nation recognition. I did this. The photos I have is my photos on other sites I uploaded. Please put this information back on the site with the national. Or guide me in the right direction. It's ashame I am trying to do right for my town and people are setting me back. AnthraciteCoalRegion (talk) 04:00, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

You should be asking the editor who reverted your addition, warned you for copyright violation, and tagged the page for a copyright revision deletion WP:REVDEL. That would be user:Randomstaplers. It appears that you made a verbatim copy from http://www.usgwarchives.net/pa/schuylkill/pdf/munsell.pdf , a page that is tagged "Printing this file by non-commercial individuals and libraries is encouraged, as long as all notices and submitter information is included. Any other use, including copying files to other sites requires permission from the submitters PRIOR to uploading to any other sites."

It's not clear to me that a transcription of an 1881 document is copyrightable, but certainly a lengthy, verbatim copy without attribution is not appropriate. Meters (talk) 04:16, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

It's irrelevant that you claim to have been the person who nominated sites for national recognition. As for the images, if they are your personal pictures then yes, you can release them for Wikipedia use, but you have to actually do so properly. There is at least one post about this on your talk page. Meters (talk) 04:22, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

In the future please link to a diff of the edit in question, or at least link to the page. I am assuming that the edit is [14] to Ashland, Pennsylvania. Meters (talk) 05:06, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

In regards to List of antisemitic incidents in the United States, is referring to/labeling an incident as antisemitic a WP:BLP violation if they weren't convicted of a hate crime? Furthermore, would it be a violation to refer to something as antisemitic if there were never charges or investigations into the incident as a hate crime, even if sources refer to the incident as antisemitic /potentially antisemitic?

I apologize if this isn't the right place to ask this question, but regardless, thank you in advance for your time. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 23:46, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:BLPN is the best place to ask. 27.134.49.176 (talk) 02:35, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Will do, thank you. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 02:45, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I would just add (from a UK perspective), that much speech and many acts were correctly identified as 'antisemitic' or indead 'antianything' long before the concept and designation of a 'hate crime' were introduced into legislations. Would you argue against something being referred to as a genocide if it occurred before the 1944 coining of that word and/or if no-person or regime had been officially convicted of it? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.6.86.81 (talk) 08:28, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I wrote a detailed section on the herbicide trifluralin's mode of action and the mechanisms weeds resist this by. But there are several other chemically similar herbicides that share an identical mode of action, e.g. nitralin, profluralin, other dinitroanilines. What should I do on these articles? I don't want to repeat the same information that is relevant to all of them, I feel like it it's clunky to make a whole article on just this topic and link all of them to it. Is it okay to write "nitralin has blabla mode of action, see (link to trifluralin's more detailed description)"?

The detailed description is not too long at the moment, but I plan to add to it and I really don't like the idea of repeating it across seven or eight articles. RustyOldShip (talk) 03:30, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

P.S. Trifluralin is the most widely used so if any page has the detailed explanation that should be it. RustyOldShip (talk) 04:17, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

How about this? Some musings about your question: repeat across pages sounds like template. Some short summary and a link to detailed information sounds like Template:Main. Together that means that you need two pages! One in the template space that contains the heading "mechanism" (or however you want to call it),transcluding of template:main, (pointing to the article page or a section on an article page) and a summary of the content of the article page. Secondly an article page or at least a section in one of the article pages you want to modify. There you can talk about the mechanics all you want. Please check the notability of the article page in itself to avoid to have it deleted from some editors who don't grok the whole construct and see the article page on its own. Otherwise you need to use a section.

In all articles that use that mechanism you only need to include a call to your template. 176.0.161.37 (talk) 04:35, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

So I could use this to automatically copy & keep up to date the same section (defined in its own article as part of another -- say a section in "trifluralin"?) on all the relevant articles? RustyOldShip (talk) 06:04, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

That's the idea. 176.0.161.37 (talk) 11:34, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi. I have a suggestion about adding safe interactive JavaScript elements to Wikiversity to make lessons more engaging. Where is the best place to discuss something like this? Отец Никифор (talk) 09:37, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

If you do not get an answer here, try asking at wikiversity:Wikiversity:Colloquium. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 09:39, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Already did but have no useful answers. https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity:Colloquium#Interactive_elements Отец Никифор (talk) 10:10, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

@Отец Никифор: For technical help, try WP:VPT. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:43, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello! This may sound like a really dumb question but I'm trying to see if there are any reliable sources for a draft I plan on making for a page named "Computer cart." Along with this, I'm unsure of any other names that could be used and may exist. (and may require the creation of a redirect). This is my first time looking for reliable sources that meet WP:N.

Thank you, Teahousers. hi (talk) 12:10, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I've tried having a look for websites or articles that have information on that, but I'm not really seeing anything other than online shops. Procyon117 (talk) 12:38, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Please ignore, as I just noticed that the page Laptop charging trolley exists. hi (talk) 13:20, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

 Done

The article William Joseph Williams was hijacked in October of 2024. I have restored it back to the original subject of the Americna painter. The editors are new. Please advise the next steps for notifying this action to appropriate forum if there is one. Thanks. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 23:02, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Update, the article has been reverted back to the non-notable musician. Suggestions for stopping this, please. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 23:17, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Update. Brilliantly resolved by WereSpielChequers. All set over here. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:05, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I have split William Joseph Williams (singer) from William Joseph Williams the painter. Hopefully those who want to write about the singer will stick to their new page. ϢereSpielChequers 00:07, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

After cleaning up some nonsense from now-blocked long-term abuser, I've sent the article on the singer to AfD as an unsourced biography. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:23, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

PLeas "ziwoo027" (talk) 14:49, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

@"ziwoo027": Welcome to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1238. As you are a newcomer, you should have a homepage that gives you some suggested edits. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:03, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I added a standard Welcome item to your Talk page, which has useful Wikilinks. I also suggest you start with looking to improve existing articles about topics you know, so you can add content, at the same time adding valid references. Content without references will be reverted even if true. Practice getting references formatted correctly in your Sandbox before pasting into an article. David notMD (talk) 15:38, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

"ziwoo", take a look at the Wikipedia:Community portal. Cullen328 (talk) 17:36, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I am a new wikipedia editor. I asked my mentor these questions, but I think he may not be available right now. (If you're curious, his user is Cocobb8) I was hoping to come here for a quicker response. Here's my first question: I wanna add company logos to articles that lack it, but I am not sure if I will get in trouble for copyright, am I able to add them? And the second question: I saw an article today that had grammar that wasn't so good. I have an app called Grammarly that fixes grammar for you. I was curious if I am allowed to use this for copyediting. Thank you! Liam9287 (talk) 19:25, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

@Liam9287: Copyrighted logos may be used for illustration at the relevant article. For the full policy and guideline, see Wikipedia:Non-free content. In short, use a low resolution image and upload it here at the Enlish Wikipedia (not Wikimedia Commons). The Wikipedia:File upload wizard will walk you through how to do it. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 19:51, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok, thank you, I will try this. Are you able to answer the second question? Liam9287 (talk) 19:58, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

There is no problem with using a computer program for spelling and grammar, but you are still responsible for the result, so before publishing you should check that the output makes sense and the meaning has not been changed. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 20:00, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok, thank you a lot! Liam9287 (talk) 20:01, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

@Liam9287 To exapnd on this, the thing you'll really want to watch for with automated grammar checkers is WP:ENGVAR. Basically, there's a lot of dialects of English- American, Australian, British, Indian, ect - and these can all have their own grammar/spelling rules. Automated grammar checkers will normally mark these alternate spellings and so on as "incorrect", and try to fix them. For example, my built-in spellcheck hates the fact I spell "favourite" with a "u", and it will try and correct me. If I was working on the article about US president Joe Biden, then I'd want it to correct me! If I was working on the article about King Charles III, then I would want to keep the British spelling. This is because on Wikipedia, we have a rule saying that if the subject of an article is closely connected to one particlar variety of English, or a country that uses that variety, we will also use that variety. On popular articles, you can normally find a banner telling you which variety of English to use on the talk page. On less popular articles, you go for whichever variety is currently present in the article.GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 20:09, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that makes sense @GreenLipstickLesbian, I will definitely be on the lookout for this. Here's an example of what Grammarly does, let me know if it's good! https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ksenia_Schnaider&diff=1251914345&oldid=1197442648 Liam9287 (talk) 20:16, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

At a glance, those seem to be improvements, but I think I can see a few errors it missed. On that article, I'd be more worried about the WP:PROMOTIONAL tone, but of course if you just want to improve grammar, that's completely fine too. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 21:23, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Liam9287. I agree with Maddy from Celeste, but there is another point to make: systems like Grammarly sometimes have rules in them that are not generally agreed, and so reject text that many people find perfectly fine. If you are making several edits to an article including some grammar fixes that aren't necessary, then I don't think anybody will object; but if the make a lot of edits where the only chanbge is to fix something that many people don't think is broken, then that may be seen as disruptive. ColinFine (talk) 20:05, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Good point! In particular, you should be careful not to introduce edits that change between different dialects of English without a good reason. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 20:07, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, okay, I will be on the lookout if it does that, thanks again! Liam9287 (talk) 20:08, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I believe Grammarly's grammar fixing is based on American English, which I think is the predominant accent of English in Wikipedia Liam9287 (talk) 20:11, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

That may be true, @Liam9287, but is not relevant to Maddy's point. See WP:ENGVAR. ColinFine (talk) 21:03, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Liam9287, American English is not an "accent", it is a national variation of the English language. Accents refer to spoken English and this is a discussion about written English. The accent of a less educated person from the Bronx is dramatically different from the accent of a less educated person from Alabama or San Francisco's Chinatown. The same is true of various communities in the United Kingdom and other countries. But we write the encyclopedia in an educated tone and register. Cullen328 (talk) 01:33, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I think I worded it wrong. Sorry about that. But yes, I understand the regional variants of English. When I use my tool I make sure not to interfere with words that are just words with a different spelling (e.g favourite, opposed to favorite) or any other different spelling. Liam9287 (talk) 18:51, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

do i become king of wikipedia 2001:8003:E49D:8501:88D7:AFE4:AF31:EC1F (talk) 04:57, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

2001:8003:E49D:8501:88D7:AFE4:AF31:EC1F (talk) 05:35, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, the question is moot because only administrators can delete pages, not regular editors or IP accounts. And there are safeguards in place to prevent any deletion of the main page as it happened, by accident, during the early years of Wikipedia. And Wikipedia has no monarchy, we are a collaborative editing project, sorry to disappoint you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:36, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I am now the king of wikipedia 2001:8003:E49D:8501:88D7:AFE4:AF31:EC1F (talk) 01:33, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

The main page has been deleted several times in the past, but none became Wikiroyalty. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 11:32, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

If you delete even the least part of content from the main page Zeus chains you to a mountainside and sets an eagle to eat your liver. David notMD (talk) 12:23, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

David notMD I hereby nominate this answer for the BEST Teahouse answer award of the year! Theroadislong (talk) 12:53, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Blushing David notMD (talk) 15:22, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Bow down to me, i am king 2001:8003:E49D:8501:88D7:AFE4:AF31:EC1F (talk) 01:33, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

dear friends , I thought I submitted everything based on the guidance

here is the draft Draft:My Muses Card Shop

could you please tell me where did I go wrong ? Abhisiva (talk) 04:24, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

its not notable enough and it sounds like self promotion, especially that last paragraph 2001:8003:E49D:8501:88D7:AFE4:AF31:EC1F (talk) 05:05, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

quillbot also says its 100% ai generated. you cant exactly expect a AI generated article of a non notable card shop to be on wikipedia 2001:8003:E49D:8501:88D7:AFE4:AF31:EC1F (talk) 05:07, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Abhisiva, if you have questions about the draft review, it's best to go to the editor who reviewed the draft with any questions you have or go to the AFC Help page at AFC. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:39, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Non-notable local awards do not contribute to Wikipedia notability. David notMD (talk) 12:40, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Given your User name, I am guessing this is about your own business. You have a conflict of interest (WP:COI). This does not preclude you creating and submitting a draft, but you need to declare your COI on your User page. David notMD (talk) 12:42, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

And now Speedy deleted as promotional/advertising. David notMD (talk) 08:18, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Hey you guys, i love the space here as a new wikipedian ha but im having problems with the page im working on so i can move to the next, i like to get the task done before i move on to the next, so if someone would please help i would be so thankful, thanks later. Wikimasterclassboss (talk) 01:18, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I understand that you want help. But what kind of help, and where you want it ... I haven't a clue. Please ask more concretely. 27.134.49.176 (talk) 02:38, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Looking at Draft:Lp certified, I don't think that subject is sufficiently notable for a wikipedia article - there doesn't really seem to be any third party coverage of this artist, meaning that there's nothing to form a wikipedia article out of. For now, I'd suggest making small improvements to existing articles before embarking on starting a new one. You could also benefit from reading Help:Referencing for beginners. -- D'n'B-t -- 03:11, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok thanks alot Wikimasterclassboss (talk) 03:48, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @Wikimasterclassboss, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia. I remember when I was a new editor, nearly twenty years ago, I so much wanted to "make my mark" by creating a new article. But if you look at my contributions, you'll see I've made over 25 000 edits, but only ever created a dozen new articles. That's because I have realised that creating articles is not the only way - and often not the best way - to contribute to Wikipedia. We have six million articles, and most of them are not very good. Thousands and thousands of them are terrible - mostly made in the early days before we had the articles for creation process, and strict standards for notability.

It is understandable that people often want to work on new articles rather than put in the spade-work to go back and fix old broken ones. But (especially given how much harder it is than people realise to create an acceptable article) most new editors could be improving Wikipedia hundreds or thousands of times as much by improving (or, sometimes, nominating for deletion) existing articles than by trying to create new ones. ColinFine (talk) 15:06, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok your right thanks so much i appreciate your words Wikimasterclassboss (talk) 16:23, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

None of your "references" are properly formatted as references (see Help:Referencing for beginners), and as noted in a comment, Apple and Spotify are not allowed. Unless you can find what people have published about him, as references, no potential to succeed. David notMD (talk) 08:24, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok thanks a lot for the help it means so much thanks Wikimasterclassboss (talk) 08:27, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I want to write a page about a Russian pianist and composer but I am not sure if it can be considered notable. I checked the notability page for musicians and have found three criterion that the pianist satisfies.

WP:MUSICBIO

Fulfills criteria 1.

He has been noted in various online magazines, news articles and has many interviews published.

Fulfills criteria 4.

Although Russian, he is very popular in Turkey and held many concerts and tours there. Also played in Berlin, Baku and Tehran. Many Turkish and Russian articles can be found about him that also cites his concerts and tours that take place in Turkey.

WP:COMPOSER

I am not sure if criteria 2 is fulfilled. His piano track has been used on a track by a famous Turkish pop signer as an instrumental base with vocals added. It mentions that this has to be done by a musician "who meets the above criteria". The above criteria being criteria 1, which the pop signer does not fulfill as he never wrote a piece for a theater. Flarerivered (talk) 08:23, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Flarerivered, in the end, it all depends on the quality of the sources that you cite. They must be reliable and they must be fully independent of the pianist, and they must devote significant coverage to the pianist. Three or four excellent sources are much better than 20 mediocre sources. Interviews are problematic because they are not independent. Note that WP:MUSICBIO says may be notable, not guaranteed to be notable. Cullen328 (talk) 08:32, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

English refs preferred but other languages allowed. David notMD (talk) 09:20, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I added a reply to this ANI discussion and am having a small panic about whether I'm even entitled to weigh in as a non-EC user. I tried to ask in IRC but I couldn't see the page properly & had to give up (apologies for that!). Can I please check if what I posted was ok and, if not, what should I do to resolve it? I don't want to delete anything from an official discussion without checking it's ok either, hence this post...

Many thanks!

Blue-Sonnet (talk) 10:52, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

You are very welcome to join in at ANI, Blue-Sonnet. I can see your post; it's a little confusing, in that I'm not sure who you are agreeing with when you say "I strongly agree with what you've written". You may want to go back and fix that by adding the name in parenthesis. Apart from that, it's fine. Bishonen | tålk 11:47, 20 October 2024 (UTC).

Thank you so much for the feedback! My phone is over a decade old so I'm fighting with it a little (hence me not editing often), but I'll go fix that right now ^_^

Blue-Sonnet (talk) 11:50, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

The title says it all.

The essay I’m referring to. Xanzs (talk) 16:17, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Also, there is a Scholastic book of a BFDI character guide. Unbiased source as it’s done by Cary and Scholastic. Xanzs (talk) 16:20, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh wait. Wikipedia isn’t Fandom. Xanzs (talk) 16:37, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

@Xanzs Because Wikipedia:Why is BFDI not on Wikipedia? is an essay, and not an article with reliable sources. Shantavira|^{feed me} 16:40, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

What? Xanzs (talk) 16:44, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but WP:NOTABILITY still applies here. It may be notable in the sense of popularity, but not in media coverage. hi (talk) 17:48, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Assuming the OP wants to put something about BFDI in another WP-article, the applicable policy would probably be WP:NPOV. NOTABILITY is about "should we have an article about X?" Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:20, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh, ok. Thanks for the correction! hi (talk) 13:18, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Carey doesn't have an article on WP, The Scale of the Universe has an article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:18, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I recently uploaded a logo for Shankh Air File:Shankh Air logo.webp in WebP format, but I’ve noticed that most logos on Wikipedia are in SVG format for better quality and scalability. Unfortunately, I don’t have the tools or experience to convert it to SVG. Could someone please help me convert the logo to SVG. Thank you Best Regards, AstuteFlicker (talk) 10:02, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

@AstuteFlicker you can ask for things like that at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Illustration workshop. Nthep (talk) 13:40, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello I am Ziwoo027 From Wikipedia, I was wondering If I could create a page on the affects of AI. Where I could make a page created by chat GPT4. Please respond as soon as possible. "ziwoo027" (talk) 14:53, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello @"ziwoo027" and welcome to the Teahouse. We do not accept articles generated by AI. The policy is at Wikipedia:Large language models. You might be interested to read WP:Your first article for more guidance in creating new articles. Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:09, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

@Shantavira: WP:LLM is an essay, not a policy. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:03, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @"ziwoo027", and welcome. In addition to what Shantavira said, note that a Wikipedia article should be a summary of what reliable sources have said about a subject. Your proposed subject, even if it wasn't AI-generated, sounds more like an essay, which are not permitted as Wikipedia articles.

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. ColinFine (talk) 15:12, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Artificial intelligence. David notMD (talk) 15:47, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello and welcome! Wikipedia does not allow artificially generated content by an AI or LLM. Try using tools called humanizers to make the text human written. We don't allow AI generated content, because that is original research. Electrou (formerly Susbush) (talk) 15:52, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariq_Nasheed

This page incorrectly describes FBA or Foundational Black Americans. FBA is a lineage not an ideology. The people freed by the Emancipation Proclamation are foundational to America and not immigrants in any way shape or form. The Black American lineage was created in the United states of America by ethnogenesis. 2600:8802:3A09:6400:FC66:3858:AE10:A42B (talk) 16:03, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1238. This is best discussed at Talk:Tariq Nasheed. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:10, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Welcome! This is the the Teahouse, which is for help about editing or using Wikipedia. For general help, see the village pump. This is best discussed on the article's talk page as @Tenryuu said above. Electrou (formerly Susbush) (talk) 16:37, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello everyone,

I recently decided to start contributing to Wikipedia.

After creating my account and reading some of the policies and guidelines, I feel like I don't have a clear sense of what to do next.

I would like to begin by editing or improving existing articles, but I'm unsure which ones to focus on.

I have technical knowledge in software coding, architecture and security, as well as gaming history (especially related to Nintendo games and consoles).

I’ve occasionally come across articles with a "Needs improvement" banner when searching for information on Wikipedia before.

Where can I find articles related to these topics that need improvement? Additionally, if there's an existing "kickstart" page with useful information for newcomers like me, a link to that would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks in advance! JosepSendra (talk) 10:40, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

JosepSendra, a large percentage of English-language Wikipedia's articles are defective. They lack sufficient references, they misrepresent what their references say, they exaggerate, they're sycophantic, they're based on junk sources, they're phrased obscurely, etc. Don't you notice this kind of thing when, as an encyclopedia user rather than editor, you read an article? If you do, then start by fixing what you notice. -- Hoary (talk) 10:48, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Would Automated guided vehicle be a good example of this? I recently did research on AGVs and found out someone had added hyperlinks to what seems to be a personal page about robotics in the latest edit (10 sept).

To me, these hyperlinks seemed like some kind of promotion, since they included heavy advertisement and paid products, and didn't really contribute to the content of the article.

Should I undo the edit? JosepSendra (talk) 11:08, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

@JosepSendra:. Absolutely: and probably tell that editor via their Talk Page that external links should hardly ever be in the body text of articles (see WP:EL) and certainly not spammy ones like those. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:15, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

JosepSendra, putting aside the matter of spam links, there's no reference provided for the sections "Wired", "Guide tape", and "Laser target navigation" -- and probably more, but I stopped looking. So for all we know their content could have come from anywhere: a conscientiously edited journal, or The Beano. -- Hoary (talk) 21:00, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I just edited these to correct them and add references. I will try to look into the Dorothy Circus Gallery one later, but I am no expert in art. JosepSendra (talk) 08:55, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Agree. It is quite troublesome, like you want to correct mistakes, say for spelling, but many of them are semi-protected and you can hardly find some you can edit, much less add content you may consider as suitable MiriamWestmoreland (talk) 18:00, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

@JosepSendra: Hello! There are many many things to do here. See for example the Wikipedia:Task Center and Wikipedia:Maintenance. See also Category:Wikipedia maintenance categories sorted by month. Polygnotus (talk) 10:50, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Very useful links, thank you! JosepSendra (talk) 11:08, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

If you know which topics you are interested in (e.g. you mention Nintendo) you can get a listing of articles needing clean-up using this source called bambots. There is also the newcomer homepage tab you should see when you look at your own userpage (currently a redlink). This will suggest simple edits to get you started. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:58, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Bambots has been helpful to find some projects I could contribute to. Thank you! JosepSendra (talk) 09:00, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

JosepSendra, I've just now come across the article Dorothy Circus Gallery. It has no warning templates on it and therefore doesn't appear in any list of articles needing attention. It does have some references and (though I couldn't be bothered to read much of it) it doesn't seem to have spelling mistakes. But it's very poor. (Can you count the ways?) And it's not exceptional. -- Hoary (talk) 11:27, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

You may have come across this as you went through some of the policies and guidelines, but I always like to point out WP:RSPS, a list of sources commonly asked about in terms of reliability. It's just for getting an idea of what kinds of sources Wikipedia is aiming for and under which contexts. Since you mention Nintendo, the Video Games WikiProject is fairly active. They have a project talk page for questions and their own sources list (tailored more to video game-related topics). Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 00:59, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I am trying to understand what is "exception of user space", in the context of ARBECR.

4) For the purposes of editing restrictions in the ARBPIA topic area, the "area of conflict" shall be defined as encompassing

1. the entire set of articles whose topic relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted ("primary articles"), and
2. edits relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, to pages and discussions in all namespaces with the exception of userspace ("related content")

Passed 6 to 0 at 05:06, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I thought it meant "page names that start with "User:", followed by your user name, followed by a slash (/), are in your user space." because that is the definition I have found in Wikipedia:How_to_use_your_user_space#Your_user_space

But I was warned and Informed by @User:331dot that my interpretation of the rule is incorrect, and in fact are no places in Wikipedia that are exempt from this rule. I was wondering what is the correct interpretation what what is exactly exempt.

thanks in advance for every answer

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Contentious_topics/Arab%E2%80%93Israeli_conflict#Definition_of_the_%22area_of_conflict%22 109.64.53.152 (talk) 18:54, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

You are on the brink of being blocked because you persist in attempts to edit regarding the Israel/Arab conflict. You have no userspace because you do not have a Wikipedia account. I advise you in the strongest possible way to drop this subject. Cullen328 (talk) 19:06, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

ok, so if I have understood it correctly, the meaning is for editor own user page

for example for that would be:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:109.64.53.152/example-user-page

am I correct?

if so, I whould think there are better way to convay this massage for example writing "own user pages" or "editor can only write on its own user pages" or something similar

as for your threats they have been taken by me and this will be my last comment in the subject, from now on no more trying to understand policy, only focus on becoming ECR Approved so I could Voice my opinion in that subject 109.64.53.152 (talk) 19:29, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Gaming the system merely to obtain ECR is not looked upon well in contentious topics areas. If you do so just to post your views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, you will likely be quickly sanctioned. 331dot (talk) 19:32, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

IP, you cannot get extended confirmed because you are an IP editor without an account. If you do have an account, and you're asking this while logged out, this kind of thing can get you in trouble - please see WP:LOUTSOCK. -- asilvering (talk) 18:10, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

How long does it take for ClueBot to start archiving things on my talk page? RedactedHumanoid (talk) 20:33, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, RedactedHumanoid. In your case, the answer looks to be 2160 hours (= 90 days) as you've used the default 'age' setting, and will keep a minimum of 5 threads there. But you can change it if you wish. It's unwise to make the bot clear out your talk page too frequently, or to remove all the threads, as it makes others have to work heard to delve into your archives unnecessarily if they need to check on past interactions. For more details, see the documentation at User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:10, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. RedactedHumanoid (talk) 22:12, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

@RedactedHumanoid: Furthermore, keeping at least four threads will ensure that a TOC (table of contents) will always be present. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:25, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

If you mean "how often does the bot run", I don't think it's on a regular enough schedule that anyone can answer that, though I might be wrong. Whenever I've added an archive to a page for the first time, it's come by within 2 days or so. -- asilvering (talk) 18:12, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi there,

I'm a newbie to the world of Wikipedia editing and (perhaps unsurprisingly) the editing police very quickly came down on me like a tonne of bricks because in deemed to have a conflict of interest in terms of the page I've been trying to edit.

First off, I have no issue with the COI allegation. The page I am seeking changes to is that of Anne Ferguson-Smith. Anne is the Executive Chair at the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC)

I am the Communications Lead for BBSRC and directly work with Anne - I now understand that my professional relationship with Anne is the root cause of the COI.

Anne has personally asked me to make some urgent changes to her Wiki page because some of the content is factually incorrect. As the content in question relates to her personal life she quite rightly wants it to be amended as a matter of urgency.

Which leads to my question to you wonderful people at the Teahouse.

As per the orders of the editing police, I have now drafted my proposed changes using the edit COI template (as directed) and posted them in Anne's talk page. I have added the specific editor who keeps reversing my edits with a request for them to please urgently review my requested changes independently (again at their request).

That was nearly five days ago now and all I've received in response is silence. The editor in question was very quick off the mark to revert my edits when I made them in good faith, but isn't quite as eager when it comes to reviewing my draft changes as directed.

As well as linking in the editor in question to my change request on Anne's talk page, I've also messaged the user direct to flag it. But again, all I'm getting in response is deafening silence.

Am I doing something wrong Teahouse? I know I made a mistake, but I've rectified it and followed due process. All I want to do is ensure Anne's information is accurate, but right now it isnt and I feel like I'm banging my head against a brick wall.

Any guidance you can offer will be greatly appreciated.

Thank you all in advance,

MikeSierra414 (talk) 14:32, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Please do not refer to fellow editors as "editing police", it's derogatory. You ought to read Wikipedia:Ownership of content and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Anne Ferguson-Smith does not own her article. We are not obliged to remove anything simply because someone asked us to. You will have to provide adequate proof that the information in the article is incorrect. Also, it is important to note that other editors are volunteers, so they might not have had a chance to review your draft. Industrial Insect (talk) 14:57, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

MikeSierra414 your edit request was incorrectly formatted so nobody would have been alereted to it, you included "no-wiki" code. I have added some of the changes with references. I see no reason to remove the spouse details, Wikipedia is not censored and the marriage is sourced. Theroadislong (talk) 15:25, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @Theroadislong. I'll reply to your specific comments in the talk page as I have re-drafted the content with reliable sources and I certainly don't expect anyone to re-draft the content for me! I just need to clarify the changes (ie change X to y as you advise) to make the request clearer.

Re: spouse details, Anne has very recently gone through a divorce, so the information is no longer accurate. The divorce just isn't common knowledge because Anne tends to keep her private life private. I'll have to think through sourcing that one.

Thanks again,

MikeSierra414 (talk) 19:57, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

The content is accurate in that she married Mark Gregory McHarg in 1988, you are free to add that she was divorced if you supply a reliable reference but the sourced content is unlikely to be removed. Theroadislong (talk) 21:47, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

@Industrial Insect sincere apologies. My intention wasn't to cause offence. As someone in the communications world I am sometimes playfully referred to as the 'grammar police'. I take it in light hearted jest, which is how it was intended. But I realise not everyone may feel that way. But for clarity, I was simply acknowledging that the editors in question were upholding their standards re: COI. Nothing more, nothing less.

As for the changes, Anne isn't so arrogant as to demand that content be removed 'just because'. She is requesting the information be removed because she is now divorced and the information is therefore factually incorrect.

Best wishes,

MikeSierra414 (talk) 20:06, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

@MikeSierra414: You may find WP:About you and our FAQ for article subjects useful. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:33, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

MikeSierra414 As Theroadislong notes, it is factually correct to say that she got married in 1988. That on its face doesn't necessarily mean she is married today. We can change it to say she's divorced, but we need something to cite. Where I live divorces are public record and published in the newspaper- even something like that might work as a source. 331dot (talk) 21:55, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

@Theroadislong, @331dot, @Pigsonthewing and @Industrial Insect thank you all for your help and guidance. It's much appreciated. I'll relay the information back and look into reliable sources that reflect the current relationship status.

MikeSierra414 (talk) 22:02, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I'd like to apologize, I took your comment the wrong way and reacted poorly. I hope you find the sources you are looking for. Industrial Insect (talk) 13:00, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I understand how it feels. It can sometimes hardly get editors who pass by to consider your request, because many articles have been around for years, like their "versions" are fixed and there is a tendency to resist changes that may get them considered as counterproductive and not accepted. MiriamWestmoreland (talk) 18:03, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

MiriamWestmoreland that is NOT a helpful response to a Teahouse question, please resist answering questions until you have more experience. Theroadislong (talk) 18:19, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I've been trying to improve the MiG-25 article for some time. There's an entire section about "western intelligence" that claims the USAF misunderstood the role/capabilities of the MiG-25, and created the F-15 and its capabilities as a direct response/overreaction. This is a very common claim on the internet, which has become wide spread in recent years - something I assume can only be attributed to Wikipedia.

I have done a fair amount of research into primary source DoD/CIA/USAF documents and read several books on the topic, including the citation in the article, and none of them seem to agree. But the difficulty here is in proving that something "didn't" happen - that the USAF didn't develop the F-15 as a direct response, and that it didn't misunderstand the MiG-25. The official, declassified USAF history makes no direct mention I've seen of the Foxbat in the relevant sections to its development - it names the Su-7 and Su-15.

Insofar as I interpreted the actual citation and the book itself, I did not read it as agreeing with the claim in the article, but maybe I'm wrong about that. I don't think the book is (legally) available online, but I included a quotation of the relevant page in the talk section.

I don't know how to go about actually arguing this point or getting it changed. Hopefully all this makes sense to someone - please help me. Rsemmes92 (talk) 17:08, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Rsemmes92. I don't know anything about the subject, and I haven't looked at the article; but it seems to me that unless a reliable source says that "the USAF misunderstood the role/capabilities of the MiG-25, and created the F-15 and its capabilities as a direct response/overreaction", a Wikipedia article should not make that claim. It's not about proving a negative, it's about whether a suggestion of motive is supported or not. ColinFine (talk) 19:59, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

@Rsemmes92 Adding to ColinFine's response: you have a number of options to address this.

• One might be to add a {{Template:cn}} at the end of the statement you are concerned about. It will appear like this ^{[citation needed]}.
• Alternatively, you could add {{dubious}}, which appears like this ^{[dubious – discuss]}. You are then expected to go to the talk page and raise your concerns and propose the sentence's removal and justify why. A discussion should then ensue in order to reach a consensus. That can take at least a week -possibly a lot longer for rarely visited pages.
• You could simply WP:BEBOLD and delete the unsupported statement with a clear edit summary explaining your rationale. But I suspect if there is a general assumption that this is a valid statement, you might be better off leaving it to a well-worked through discussion to gain consensus amongst other editors first. If you do mention books that you've read on the topic, don't forget to cite them all in that discussion so as to help other editors appreciate what checking you have already done. If you've not read the right books, then you will have potentially undermined your argument. You can deploy Template:Reflist-talk to ensure that any inline citations you add stay within that particular thread , and don't forever stay at the bottom of the talk page, even after subsequent posts are added.

The choice really is yours, and I hope this helps you a bit. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

You can try notifying the Military History WikiProject at the project talk page and ask them to comment under the relevant section of the article talk page. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 21:36, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Rsemmes92, I did some digging, and it looks like the unsourced claim about the F-15 plane being a response to the article subject was added 21 years ago. This should probably be taken into account as a possible source of CITOGENESIS if people are only finding sources to support the statement that are dated post-2003. Folly Mox (talk) 15:36, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

mwah 172.59.221.21 (talk) 18:32, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Will I be able to change my username if I moved my userpage to another title? Just curious... Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 15:23, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! Moving your user page will not change your username. However you can request a username change at Wikipedia:Changing username. Electrou (formerly Susbush) (talk) 15:45, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

OK, then I guess it's time to change my username (again). Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 15:50, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Here's a third, better option. Keep your current name. It seems OK. 27.134.36.177 (talk) 22:29, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

dear teahouse, there is an article on Blueberry (comic) which refers to Pingo Magazine (in the "Publication history" link). I would like to publish an article on Pingo Magazine since there is none whatsoever on wiki as it seems. Is that easy and possible? The article is already ready but I would like somebody to review it so that it does not get refused by the wiki-staff if there is such at all:) My sisters' collected fantasies (talk) 12:58, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Pingo (magazine) was deleted for lack of activity back in May, and today you submitted a request that it be undeleted. When that happens you can submit it and in time (days, weeks, sadly even as long a wait as months; the backlog is not treate4d as a queue) it will be evaluated by a Reviewer. There is no 'staff' for articles, we are all volunteers. David notMD (talk) 14:39, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

@My sisters' collected fantasies You can try making another draft on the same topic. Be sure to read WP:Your First Article and also WP:NORG as it is the relavent notability requirements. ✶Quxyz✶ 14:43, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Restored, much of content not referenced. David notMD (talk) 02:33, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I want a review on historical article based on Fort with tourist interest. I have written in Sandbox. Can some editor look at it please. Sare56 (talk) 05:17, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

@Sare56: If you feel it is ready for review, you can add {{subst:submit}} to the top of the page so that an Wikipedia:Articles for Creation reviewer will take a look at it eventually. As it is, there's no way it passes muster to be a Wikipedia article in terms of a near-complete lack of citations, as well as formatting. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:51, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for feedback, will improve and put for feedback Sare56 (talk) 03:32, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: User:Sare56/sandbox.   Sare56, here are some comments.

• It starts with a close-ref tag, a broken redirect, and your username.
• Near the top there's what I think is meant to be an image, but is a non-functioning link to a commercial site about the hotel
• The section headers are all messed up. You should use = signs but not boldface for section headers.
• It cites no sources (though it does list some). In creating an article, citations of reliable independent published sources should be your starting-point. Without these, the article is worthless. Everthing you write should be attributed to a source that supports it.
• The language is promotional: "a perfect holiday destination", "well-known sustainability entrepreneur Vithal K".
• The character  appears several times in the text.
• It's the fort, the building itself, that may be notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. It should be mentioned that it is now a hotel. But the long list of services provided by the hotel should be deleted. Maproom (talk) 07:02, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Made it look like an article (formatting stuff), but needs refs to confirm the fort is historically notable. David notMD (talk) 08:09, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

See WP:PAID for how to declare your paid connection on your User page. (You are still permitted to create a draft and submit it to AfC.) David notMD (talk) 09:24, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you David notMD for all support. I will improve and please check has cited first section. Please help to put template of facts at top. Not able to get it. Sare56 (talk) 03:36, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I will improve,meanwhile I have put citation for first section.Please check. Sare56 (talk) 03:34, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for detailed reply, I will improve, tried first section. Sare56 (talk) 03:38, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Missing_articles_by_occupation/Composers

The above wiki page has a "red link" composer. Can someone create the page and link for Abbie Ford. I have pictures and titles of some of her sheet music I would like to post. They are from about 1903, so there are no copyright issues Joplinplayer (talk) 04:18, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Joplinplayer! Sounds like you know something about this person, possibly at least as much if not more than many others. In order to have an article, the subject must be "notable", which means the WP:BIO guidelines, and the article's contents must be based on cited reliable sources. If you are able to find a few reliable sources that provide in-depth coverage of this person, that would go a long way to helping getting an article going. DMacks (talk) 04:42, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

You can also ask IMSLP (unaffiliated with Wikipedia and our sister sites) if they can also accept the sheet music. It looks like they may already have some of her compositions. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 05:13, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Below description is written in Monkey King (Sun Wukong) wikipedia page. "Five hundred years later, he accompanies the monk Tang Sanzang riding on the White Dragon Horse and two other disciples, Zhu Bajie and Sha Wujing, on a journey to obtain Buddhist sutras from India, known as the West or Western Paradise, where Buddha and his followers dwell."

However, the claim of obtain buddhist sutras from India is wrong. There is no description of India whatsoever in the original novel and the description for the West or Western Paradise was always refer to 西牛贺洲 or "Apara-godaniya". Which is an imaginary fictional mythical location that does not exist in the physical world.

Even we take consideration of real world scenario, Nepal as a high attitude region is much closer to the novel's description of "Spiritual mountain". Another evidence, Siddhartha Gautama who is the founder of Buddhism and was referred as "The buddha", was also born in Nepal. 69.181.111.173 (talk) 04:26, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

For convenience: Monkey King (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

IP OP, you are welcome to fix it only if you have a reliable secondary source. Given Journey's renown, citing a textbook or a peer-reviewed scholarly paper is your best bet. The equating of India with Western Paradise (and Tang et al.'s destination) comes from Britannica, so you will need a source better than that to gain consensus for its removal (courtesy link to entry on Britannica's reliability). Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 05:25, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

There is an interesting Native-American owned company in Oklahoma that has done community news work for several years. The latest comment on a twice-rejected page for them is: A very very promotional draft about a non notable news company. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 11:16, 20 October 2024 (UTC) ... this company is notable to people in Oklahoma as it is the only Native American-owned news organization in the state. Oklahoma has a high Indigenous population. Other news organizations in Oklahoma are tribally owned (there is a difference). It was also called out as a Native news leader in a recent report: DF_Ecosystems_2024_FullReport.pdf ... the page in question is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Verified_News_Network Should I just give up on trying to add Native American perspective on Wikipedia? Maybe it is too mainstream for Native American content? PorterCreator (talk) 21:32, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

The problem is the sourcing is quite bare here. Awards can't establish notability unless those awards are notable enough to have their own Wikipedia articles, and the simple act of receiving grants doesn't, either. That chops off more than half the sources right there and most of the rest are not independent. A passing mention in a 280 page report by a charity doesn't do so, either. The only sources listed that are usable are the news reports about the purchase of records being provided to Tulsa libraries. And that's not much to go on.

That doesn't mean that this organization doesn't do good work, only that notability hasn't yet been established in the Wikipedia sense. Part of the problem is that this draft is written backwards. Start with the reliable sources you can find, that are completely independent of the organization, and that are substantially about the organization itself. Then write a draft based only on the information in those sources. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 22:14, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, PorterCreator, and welcome to the Teahouse. "Notability" in Wikipedia is in some ways an unfortunate choice of words, because people think that it means the same as it does out in the world: it doesn't. It doesn't mean "important", or "popular", or "famous", or "influential", or "innovative", or "ground-breaking" or anything else of that sort. It means that it has been taken note of in reliable independent sources.

Since every single claim in every Wikipedia article should be verifiable from a reliable published source - and most of them from a source unconnected with the subject - it follows that unless there is sufficient material published in suitable sources about the subject, there is literally nothing that can go in an article. Only if several (usually at least 3) sources can be found that each meet the golden rule is an article possible.

(And, yes, we know that there are thousands and thousands and thousands of articles in Wikipedia that don't meet these criteria. For some reason, volunteers don't often choose to spend their energies fixing that problem. But the consensus is that we should not be accepting any more inadequately sourced articles. See other stuff exists). ColinFine (talk) 08:54, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Dear Mr.Yann Could you please tell why my client has been blocked? He's profile needs to be reinstated immediately? He's a high profile actor and the teams require this information for he's resume to pursue he's acting career. There has been a number of trolls reporting Angelo Montano on different platforms and he's done nothing wrong . I will taking to he's publicit ( Max Markson ) And the lawyers regarding this shameful and disgraceful barring from this site.. He's asked a team member from Wikipedia , on how the application works and he blocked me Montano for spamming? Which doesn't make any sense ?

My team will be giving your team 2 days to amend this issue.

Kind regards Ms Tangey 2001:8003:462A:DE00:D86C:6A72:184E:A921 (talk) 05:41, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't know who Mr Yann is but legal threats are not tolerated on Wikipedia discussion boards - see Wikipedia:No legal threats. While we're here, there has never been an article on the English Wikipedia with the title Angelo Montano. If someone has been blocked, they might want to read Guide to Appealing Blocks althuogh to be honest having made a legal threat will have already damaged their chances. -- D'n'B-t -- 06:19, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

FYI ping to @Yann, though I don't know that you are the Yann in question. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:32, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Ah: User:Angelo montano/User talk:Angelo montano. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:36, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Ms Tangey, Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing may be of help to you. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:38, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

"Ms Tangey", we do not respond well to threats and we do not permit incompetent attempts at self promotion and we have no social media style "profiles". We publish neutrally written, well referenced encyclopedia articles. As an administrator, I can read the deleted content and it was terribly written. You have no basis for complaining.

As for what happened on Wikimedia Commons, that is a separate project with different objectives, different policies and guidelines, and a different team of administrators. Cullen328 (talk) 07:01, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I blocked c:Special:Contributions/Angelo_montano on Commons for self-promotion and spamming. Yann (talk) 09:02, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Attempts at autobiographical articles rarely succeed, usually because the person with a new account and no experience has no understanding of the requirements for neutral point of view and verification of all content with references. Attempts may be Declined as not good enough yet, Rejected for showing no potential to succeed, or Speedy deleted for being wholely promotional. Angelo Montano's User page content has been Speedy deleted and the accounts indefinitely blocked at Wikipedia and Commons. Appeals have been denied by Administrators. Insertion of AM into cast lists for television shows and movies have been reverted. If Ms Tangey pursues legal threats then I expect that IP address will be blocked, also. David notMD (talk) 10:10, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

If Angelo Montano truely believes he is article-worthy then his publicist could create an account, declare paid status on his User page (see WP:PAID) and create a draft with references for all content using WP:YFA as a guide. That calls for the draft to be submitted to Articles for Creation for a Reviewer's evaluation and decision. FYI - IMDb cannot be used as a reference, or as a source of images, as IMDb is copyright protected. David notMD (talk) 10:38, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm curious to know what the difference between these two is 142.114.1.184 (talk) 17:48, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

IP editor. Wikipedia:Community sanctions are no longer relevant, having been superseded by the processes detailed at Wikipedia:Arbitration. If you have further questions after reading these linked pages, you can ask them here. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:04, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

This page needs an edit. It claims, the Kalergi Plan, is a 'right of centre' conspiracy. But whom, is credited, with 'debunking' this 'far-right' conspiracy theory? Only, the 'far-left' 'Southern Law Poverty Center.' Whom, are as partisan, on the left, as can be. THEY can NEVER be the 'arbitors' of what is considered, a 'far right' conspiracy theory. They, have 'skin' in the game. I would like this noted and/or this status us 'debunked' taken down. Not doing so, may look partisan. Not doing so, WILL appear to show, bias. RedBanana23 (talk) 07:44, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Kalergi Plan   Maproom (talk) 07:50, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, RedBanana23, the well-established consensus among editors is that the SPLC is a reliable source regarding extremist groups. It is an advocacy group with biases, so its assessments should be attributed to the SPLC rather than stated in Wikipedia's voice. You can find out more at WP:SPLC. You are, of course, free to try to challenge this consensus, but until it changes, you must respect it. Also worth noting is that the article has 12 references, only one of which is to the SPLC. Cullen328 (talk) 07:56, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

It is well known, to be a leftist group. Why should they, be the arbiters of what is and is not, a 'conspiracy.' I disagree strongly. This MUST surely mean, that most of these 'editors' ARE actually, lefties. Are you 'admitting' to a left-wing consensus, being in operation, here?? Perhaps the political persuasion, of these contributors, should be gathered, as the norm? 2A02:C7E:62ED:2300:980B:CA5F:E61E:F3FD (talk) 11:24, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Sometimes people just want an excuse to be angry. DS (talk) 14:55, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

What has it got to do, with you? Wind your neck in, lefty! 2A02:C7E:62ED:2300:E53D:2B12:C07E:68FC (talk) 12:09, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

What are the steps for disputing a non-admin RFC closure, and what policy governs this? Brusquedandelion (talk) 02:36, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Here's one place to start. I'd like to hear more information. BusterD (talk) 03:28, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Welcome! Go to Wikipedia:CLOSECHALLENGE. Electrou (formerly Susbush) (talk) 12:38, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Shania Bedward

How do I publish this athletes profile to articles? Athlete name: Shania Bedward (Team Canada sportsperson). Link: Draft:Shania Bedward Goldenlift5 (talk) 21:56, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

You start with properly formatted references. They're easy to make: Links on this page take you to relevant help pages. Once the draft seems good, you submit it for review. 27.134.36.177 (talk) 22:27, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Goldenlift5, and welcome to the Teahouse. In addition to what the IP says, I would urge you to stop thinking of it as a "profile" and think instead of "an encyclopaedia article about". It should be a summary of what independent commentators have published about her, not what she or her associates want to say.

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. ColinFine (talk) 08:56, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Welcome! Unfortunately your draft has been declined, because the citations need proper formatting. Electrou (formerly Susbush) (talk) 12:39, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I have submitted an article Draft:William and Sarah Storum which was rejected. I made corrections and I have received a second rejection with no comments although I had made substantial changes that addressed the original rejection.

What is my next best step?

What am I missing? I publish academically reviewed articles and yet this article for an African American couple active in the Anti-slavery movement and significant for their participation in the Underground Railroad is not deemed worthy of Wikipedia? Johneverettjones (talk) 15:38, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Johneverettjones Hello and welcome. I fixed the link to your draft, the whole url is unnecessary. Your draft was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in the draft process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted if you can address the concerns of the reviewers. Please see the comment left by the reviewer on the draft, it offers you a suggested pathway forward. 331dot (talk) 15:42, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @Johneverettjones. Nobody is saying that they are not "worthy of Wikipedia". Two reviewers are saying that, in their opinion, you have not yet provided adequate sources to establish that they meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability - which are not directly about importance, or fame, or "worthiness", but about whether there is adequate reliably published material about the subject to base an article on.

The comments near the top of the draft (below the "decline" boxes) explain what, in those reviewers' eyes, the problems are. It is a core principle of Wikipedia that everything in an article be verifiable from reliable published sources. See golden rule for more about the criteria that each source must pass in order to contribute to notability. ColinFine (talk) 16:47, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Mentioning the names and accomplishments of their children and grandchildren can be included but does not contribute to establishing notability for William and Susan. David notMD (talk) 10:22, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I will review the publications and make the revisions within what is published.

Ironically, a difficulty is that they were African American and therefore not included substantially within the publications about the abolition movement and the Underground railroad. See especially the Wikipedia entry for their white neighbor Cynthia Catlin Miller. Johneverettjones (talk) 13:52, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, history sometimes makes it difficult for us today to write about it- but verification is an important principle of Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 13:54, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Welcome! Your draft is not supported enough by reliable sources. All content has to be verifiable through reliable sources. See referencing for beginners to learn how to cite a source. Your draft has been declined for now, but if you would like to include a citation and/or add improvements, please do so. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave a message on my talk page. Thank you! Electrou (formerly Susbush) (talk) 12:58, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

What does harv-error mean? We are the Great (talk) 22:09, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi We are the Great. See Category:Harv and Sfn template errors for general help. If you want specific help like "How to fix X on page Y", then ask for that. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:23, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi We are the Great, welcome to the Teahouse! When you edited the article Kartavya (1995 film), you appear to have copypasted content from Dimple Kapadia. One of the copypasted references was not defined in the citation, but later in the § Bibliography (see Help:Shortened footnotes for how to do this).

This gave {{sfn}} no way to resolve the parameters Da Cunha|1995, so it threw the harv-error. You can see my fix here. When copypasting from one Wikipedia article to another, always double check that the references are defined in the copypasted text block, and don't conflict with existing references, or copypaste references defined elsewhere in the source article prior to copypasting the body prose, and you should be able to avoid this error.

Also, it's extremely helpful for later editors if you leave an edit summary mentioning the article you're copypasting from, and also technically required for CC-BY-SA licensing compliance, per Copying within Wikipedia. Folly Mox (talk) 13:07, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi, an editor moved the Constitution (Twenty-sixth Amendment) Act, 2024 article to an existing article i.e. Twenty-sixth Amendment to the Constitution of Pakistan instead of redirecting the former and merging the two articles. Would an admin intervene, merge the article history and somehow retrieve the content of the latter article? Mister Banker (talk) 04:35, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Mister Banker. Given the other article already existed prior to when you created your version of it, it would be confusing to hist-merge them (the edits would retain their timestamps, so they would be interleaved). Since the edit in question is only a single one, and you are the editor, it might be easier to revive that edit of yours somewhere else and then you can integrate it yourself into the live article. DMacks (talk) 04:48, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that would be helpful as I cannot find the edit in my contributions history. Could you please post the source text of my edit on the talkpage of the current article or somewhere else and let me know? Mister Banker (talk) 05:44, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I copied the content of your deleted edit to User:Mister Banker/Twenty-sixth Amendment to the Constitution of Pakistan. DMacks (talk) 07:36, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

@DMacks: thanks for your support. Mister Banker (talk) 13:18, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

How do I post the Cobbleskill, NY wiki post to Facebook? Jakeconrad (talk) 12:51, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

@Jakeconrad I assume you are referring to the Wikipedia article Cobleskill, New York. Anyone may use article content elsewhere provided they follow the guidance at WP:REUSE. I assume that you know how to make additions to your account on Facebook. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:30, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

@Jakeconrad It would probably be quicker and easier just to paste the url to Facebook. Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:32, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Clicking submit Special:CiteThisPage/Cobleskill, New York will give you a link specific to the current version of the article. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 14:50, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Do I have to meet criteria or something like that?

What tags do I have to add so that the "this is humor" warning appears? Lucasfergui1024 (talk) 19:57, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

@Lucasfergui1024, we don't allow articles intended as humor. You might find something of use at Wikipedia:Department of Fun. There is stuff like The Wrong Version (not actually on WP) and Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars (not an article). You might find some inspiration at Category:Wikipedia humor. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:39, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

@Lucasfergui1024 You might have more luck at Uncyclopedia. Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:17, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Traitor. Drdr150 (talk) 15:03, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi! I’m working on a Wikipedia draft about Ezekiel Adewunmi, which was declined due to a lack of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Since much of his early career took place during a period when internet use wasn't widespread in Nigeria, I’ve found it difficult to locate detailed online sources. Could you provide advice on how to source offline or alternative materials to help establish his notability?

Thanks for your guidance! Temitopeadeseha (talk) 11:52, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

@Temitopeadeseha The guidance for using offline sources is at WP:OFFLINE. Any published source used to establish notability needs to be simultaneously reliable, independent and having significant coverage. You could ask Adewunmi if he knows of any such sources, since you clearly know him, having uploaded his picture to Commons as your "own work". Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:42, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I want to clarify that my only interaction with Adewunmi was uploading a photo to Commons. This action does not imply that I know him personally or have any familiarity beyond that specific task.

After our interview on LinkedIn, the point of contact managing the LinkedIn page granted my request, but this does not establish any personal relationship with Adewunmi. If there are reliable sources that establish his notability according to Wikipedia’s guidelines, I would be interested in reviewing them. Temitopeadeseha (talk) 13:53, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

@Temitopeadeseha The copyright of photographs is that of the photographer in most cases. If you were not the photographer, you cannot claim it as your "own work" and cannot license it in ways allowed by Commons. If you are in contact with the photographer, you can proceed as described at c:Commons:VRT. Help desk volunteers here are unlikely to assist with finding suitable sources. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:00, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

First things first, you labeled these photos as your "own work." By your own admission here, they're not, and just asking someone on LinkedIn if you can use photos that aren't yours is insufficient. The copyright owner must explicitly provide the photos with a Wikipedia-compliant license that irrevocably grants the right for anyone to use these photos with attribution. More can be find at WP:COPYREQ. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:04, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

was given full rights to use it. I understand the importance of having a Wikipedia-compliant license, and I’m willing to ensure that all proper permissions are in place.

Could you guide me on how to appropriately document this right of use for Wikipedia? Any advice on how to properly attribute the photo or formalize the licensing would be greatly appreciated. Temitopeadeseha (talk) 14:12, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Again, details are at WP:COPYREQ. It's not enough that you assert you were "given full rights" to use these photos. In any case, you shouldn't be worrying about photos at this point anyway; the article needs a ton of work and the photo doesn't assist it. The problem is that this article is written backwards. The article seems to be written and then the sources are searched for, when it's supposed to be the other way around. That gives the article an overwhelming whiff of WP:PROMO and leads to citations that don't help establish notability (which is basically all of them in this case). CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:33, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback regarding the Wikipedia page I’m working on. I appreciate your insights on the issues with sourcing and structure. It’s clear that collaborative efforts can greatly enhance the overall quality of the article, especially considering the contributions from others who have edited this page.

I am dedicated to addressing the structural concerns and improving the content by incorporating credible references. Thank you once again for your input. Temitopeadeseha (talk) 14:53, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

@Temitopeadeseha Are you writing these replies with the help of an AI Chatbot? Don't do that. Qcne (talk) 15:20, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

No im online. my Grammly correct my engline and add the proper punction Temitopeadeseha (talk) 15:21, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

@Temitopeadeseha Grammly uses a large language model to re-write content, and it produces an inhuman, robot-like, cadence. We'd recommend not using it to re-write your posts. It's fine for grammar checking, but currently it makes you sound like a robot. Qcne (talk) 15:24, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Grammer check that what it does. And proper comma etc Temitopeadeseha (talk) 15:25, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

As CoffeeCrumbs alluded to above, this (adding sources to text already written) is not a good way of proceeding; we call this working WP:BACKWARD, and it is difficult, laborious and rarely works well. Instead, I recommend that you (a) put aside what you have already done, (b) collect all the Reliable sources that you can find which comply with the requirements described at WP:42, and (c) write a draft based only on those sources and cited to them. Once you have done that you can add a few non-controversial details from less rigorous sources if you need to. Hope this helps. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.6.86.81 (talk) 15:25, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for you input. First subject has helped me out. I appreciate your input too Temitopeadeseha (talk) 15:26, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I was tasked to add references on New Community (Co-op) and saw it doesn't have the normal reference template/formate and was searching around Help:Referencing and Wikipedia:CitationTemplates to figure out how to add it but came up empty handed. I was hoping that someone here could point me in the right direction or show/teach me how to do it.

- Atomic Testing (talk) 16:01, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

@Atomic Testing Were you looking for the reflist template? CommissarDoggo^Talk? 16:15, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that seems to be exactly what I was looking for thanks! - Atomic Testing (talk) 17:57, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello,@Atomic Testing, and welcome to the Teahouse.

New Community (Co-op) hasn't got any references at all in the sense that Wikipedia usually means the word. It has a section called "references", which contains a useless psuedo-citation of the subject's website. I suggest you remove that (probably move the link to a website parameter in the infobox), and start adding citations using one of the methods in WP:REFB. ColinFine (talk) 16:23, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi, so I asked a question a few days ago, about adding company logos to articles that lack them. The response mentioned low resolution image. However, I am confused what this means. My most prominent guess is that it means low quality, but that means you can't really see the logo, and it wouldn't look good in the article either. So I am not sure what exactly it means. Liam9287 (talk) 21:33, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

That is a reference to Image resolution. MrOllie (talk) 21:44, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

@Liam9287 There is a rule that says non-free logos etc that are uploaded to en-WP (not Commons, which does not accept non-free) can't be too high-res/high-quality for commercial reasons. However, as uploader, you don't have to worry, these days this is taken care of automagically by bots. Take for example my upload File:History of Diving Museum logo.png. As you can see on the history page [15], bots appeared and applied the rules, whatever the details are. Hope this helps. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:52, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

So basically I can send the logo in, and the bots will put it to the right resolution, and after I can add it to the article that it belongs to. Thank you a lot!! Liam9287 (talk) 00:23, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

@Liam9287 You don't even have to wait for the bots, you can add it to article-space right away. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 04:52, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

That's amazing! Liam9287 (talk) 20:01, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Low enough to not violate copyright, high enough to give an impression, that helps to differentiate from other companies. 176.0.161.3 (talk) 21:55, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Welcome! Do you mean image resolution? Electrou (formerly Susbush) (talk) 15:49, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! And yes, I do, but other people have answered already! Liam9287 (talk) 20:02, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi all, on the page Jeanne Renee de Bombelles there is a translated version of the poem fr:Pauvre Jacques. The translation doesn't have a reference / source so could possibly have been translated by a Wikipedia Editor... which would be WP:OR. Are there guidelines on how to handle this situation? I couldn't quickly locate the translation using a search engine, but it is entirely possible this was translated prior to widespread digitization and the text in the article should be properly attributed in this case. Shazback (talk) 18:41, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Shazback. You may wish to read guidelines at WP:TRANSCRIPTION and Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English sources. Even with my schoolboy French, I can see that this is a very close but not a literal translation of the French poem, and I might suggest modifying so that the first two lines better match. However, it would not, in my view, require a citation to a WP:RS unless there is a necessary amount of interpretation (such as use of idioms, analogies or humour which might not translate literally, and need to be significantly altered to still ensure the same meaning is got over). In that situation a citation to an English translation would be needed, I feel. But I suspect that's not the case here, and that it's not WP:OR. Does that help? Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 18:56, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, that's helpful & clarifies the topic for me. I'll see if I rework the translation then. Shazback (talk) 19:08, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

@Shazback OK. If you think a careful rework (not just pure machine translation) might be contentious, do consider posting your alternative version in the Talk page and asking for comments before adding it. Or, if straightforward, you could simply WP:BEBOLD and alter it straight away! Nick Moyes (talk) 20:02, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I have recently been working on the article Rita Cetina Gutiérrez. In it, I included an explanatory footnote that explains some different perspectives on when the La Siempreviva school was founded. I recently made some edits to the La Siempreviva article, where it makes sense to include the same information in a footnote. Would it be self-plagiarism if I were to just copy the footnote exactly, since I wrote the original? Or should I just rewrite the footnote for the new article? (This is what I did for now, but since the information is basically identical, it's kinda WP:CLOP of the original footnote that I wrote) Spookyaki (talk) 19:53, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Hey, @Spookyaki! Don't worry, you're allowed to copy material between articles. If you're copying material somebody else has worked on, you're required to leave a link in the edit summary to the other Wikipedia article. Seeing as you're the person who wrote the original footnote, you can just copy it across. (Although those of us working through the automated plagiarism checker would love it if you put a link in your edit summary anyway, and explained what you were doing!). But this is fine- Wikipedia really only cares aout self-plagiarism if you originally published the text on a different website, because then we have to worry about licensing. What you're describing is fine. I hope this helps? GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 19:59, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Gotcha, okay. Yes, thanks for clarifying! Spookyaki (talk) 20:02, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Im technically 'new' to Wikipedia, how do you reuse references? MarkofGorillaTag (talk) 12:34, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

@MarkofGorillaTag The basic help is at WP:NAMED. It depends a bit on which editor you are using, so you probably should also go through the relevant parts of the tutorial at Help:Introduction. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:15, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh thanks. 67.81.212.178 (talk) 13:26, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Welcome! It's very easy to reuse a reference, see introduction to referencing. You can click on the "Cite" button, go to the "Re-use" tab and select the citation you want to reuse. Electrou (formerly Susbush) (talk) 12:42, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

wow thanks! never knew it would be that easy. MarkofGorillaTag (talk) 20:47, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Please help me get this page approved: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:NLB_Services_Wiki_Page Ombisen18 (talk) 14:15, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Your paid editing at Draft:NLB Services Wiki Page is just blatant advertising, the draft has been declined and tagged for speedy deletion. Theroadislong (talk) 14:28, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @Ombisen18. Please read WP:NOTPROMO.

Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 14:55, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

its there please check my new draft removed almost everything only 2 para and 10 citations/ref. Ombisen18 (talk) 15:00, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

No it is still advertising, please read WP:SOLUTIONS too. Theroadislong (talk) 15:16, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

@Ombisen18 Please don't waste our time asking the same questions in two different places on the same day!

Whilst you might be getting handsomely paid, us volunteers do not get a penny. So, we get rather annoyed when paid editors ask the same questions and expect an immediate answer from us. It just wastes our limited resources and our ability to help users in genuine difficulty and in need of help. Your concerns have been clearly addressed HERE, and you have been told your employer does not meet our WP:NCORP notability criteria based upon the insider business citations you have based it upon. Please don't try again (unless it suddenly does meet WP:NCORP)! Nick Moyes (talk) 20:55, 21 October 2024 (UTC)