From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Skip to top
Skip to bottom

New and intimidated, could use some advice and encouragement.[edit]

Here's my situation. I could use something else to do to pass the time. I lost the taste for computer games quite a while ago, so that's a non-starter. Never been particularly outdoorsy, so all the outdoors things are a non-starter as well. Youtube's getting stale and transforming more and more into TV as time goes on, and I dislike TV so much that I haven't watched it in 12-14 years. While I do love to read, when it's the only thing to do, it starts to get old. Not to mention for an unknown reason I can't read a book more than 2-3 hours a day otherwise place names and character names begin to mean nothing to me.

I figured that I had this Wikipedia account I'm not using, so why not help out Wikipedia?

The thing is, even though I've looked through the new editors' tutorial and the introduction to contributing, I still feel completely intimidated! I'm worried I'm gonna mess something up and be told to go away and never come back. I do have some MediaWiki experience, so I feel confident in actually executing an edit, the markup isn't the scary thing to me. But I'm concerned I'm gonna break some rule or policy I don't know about or I may be interpreting differently than everybody else. Again, it's intimidating.

Advice? Thoughts? Kilroy Was Here 1856 (talk) 12:25, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Kilroy Was Here 1856, Welcome to Wikipedia.
You can begin your editing journey by visiting the Wikipedia:Community portal and fixing articles with maintenance tags. You must not be scared to edit, if you do something wrong (not repeatedly), someone will definitly notify you about it and rectify the error. If you have copyediting skills, improve the quality of Wikipedia articles..
If you need any assistance or have doubts, you can always reach out to me or any other editor or put up a question in the Teahouse. Leoneix (talk) 12:59, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Kilroy Was Here 1856 WP:TASKS, is also a good place to find tasks initially. Leoneix (talk) 13:06, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Leoneix Thanks for the help, those two pages definitely help. I feel a little less anxious about this whole editing thing now. Kilroy Was Here 1856 (talk) 20:26, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Kilroy Was Here 1856 You might make a mistake (which will get fixed by someone after you), but you won't break anything. One of the Wikipedia editing guidelines is WP:BE BOLD, so just go edit, and don't worry! Mathglot (talk) 09:44, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi @Kilroy Was Here 1856, I was in the same position a few months ago - there are so many policies and pages that it can be overwhelming for a new user! I would encourage you to find articles about things you are interested in and start small. I learned a lot from jumping in and starting, like add a fact to a stub article with a citation, fix typos or grammar, or fix markup that displays an error in edit mode. My suggestion is to explore categories in your interests and find tasks you feel comfortable doing. If there is an area you would like to learn, there are lots of friendly editors who can point you in the right direction. Good luck and welcome! NatFee (talk) 16:58, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@NatFee Thank you for the advice and encouragement. When you break editing down like that it does seem a lot more accessible and achievable. Thanks again! Kilroy Was Here 1856 (talk) 15:06, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As others have been saying, the general policy here is to WP:Be Bold, and sometimes bold changes are wrong, but that’s what everybody else is here for. I totally get the intimation. It seems like everybody has every policy linked and memorized and locked & loaded, but the truth is, those with the most knowledge self-select for making corrections! That’s what’s kinda great about it. It doesn’t mean you’re so far behind. Also small tip, don’t be too discouraged if one of your good-faith edits gets caught by a vandalism filter or bot and gets reverted. It can be discouraging, but it happens a lot and doesn’t mean you did anything wrong. Best to just chat with the person who made the revert over on their talk page and clear it up. This place really benefits from new editors, and there are doubtless many projects waiting for your interest, expertise and attention. Welcome! Wow Mollu (talk) 06:08, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Wow Mollu Thanks for your reassurance. It does seem like everybody"s got everything at their fingertips doesn't it? Glad to know it's more of a process of just applying the knowledge I already have. Your tips regarding the filters and edit reversions are welcomed and appreciated. Kilroy Was Here 1856 (talk) 15:11, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What a good question! I can share a little bit about my experiences along these lines. I started editing in part because of a chronic illness has made other activities that I previously enjoyed more difficult. Previous work and hobbies which involved reading, research, and writing have been put somewhat beyond my reach. But the piecemeal nature of editing Wikipedia has let me enjoy parts of what I feel like I'm missing, without exhausting my limited energy.
I have been editing with focus for less than a year now, and there certainly have been a lot of frustrations. I've encountered plenty of editors who are unfair, belligerent wrecking balls. And they tend to be loud, and can have the reflex to talk down to new editors, or to people wandering onto pages they have some investment in. And this attitude is unpleasantly brash and macho, deeply invested in some kind of social darwinist meritocracy. However, these editors tend of be loud, and they tend to be easy to identify.
There are many others who are thrilled at every little addition, who are tremendously patient, even though they explain the same things over and over again, or do the same little fixes repetitiously. Editors who operate like this tend not to stick out as much, tend to be quieter, less argumentative, and so it's easy to see just the scary ones.
I've personally gotten a lot out of offering people help, putting my inexperience up front, asking lots of questions, and I've learned to disengage more quickly once it seems like someone isn't going to be welcoming, isn't interested in collaboration. It's been tremendously satisfying, even with my reasonably little experience, to be able to help people out who have even less experience. It seems that the need to find ways to help new editors stick around is really underprioritized, so if there are tiny bits that I can do to make it feel welcoming—and to make the less welcoming editors a bit easier to ignore—that's very satisfying.
As for more practical advice, choosing a few types of tasks that you want to do can help to build confidence, and can limit the policy areas you have to be hyper-familiar with. I got a lot out of setting myself goals like "add ten short descriptions a day for a week" or "copyedit two pages a day for a week" to help push myself to actually practice specific tasks; I will also decide to focus on a particular topic area for a few days, which makes it a little bit easier to get things done. It's good to recognize that different types of tasks will in some ways open cans of worms as far as how much you have to read about, and to understand that if you're trying a type of edit, that may be a much bigger investment of time and energy than something you've done a dozen times already. I've gotten a lot out of looking over page histories to see the dynamics of how changes happen on pages, what sort of things are likely to cause conflict, what mistakes are commonly made, but also to identify what sort of edits by others seem valuable to you. When an editor makes a contribution that I find valuable in that way, I often click through to their user/talk/contributions pages to see what I can learn about their workflow, because sometimes I can learn valuable tips just by virtually shadowing someone else. I also find it has been useful to build a personal list of pages in the manual of style, or some lists, or essays by editors that I either frequently refer to, or are just inspiring/motivating in some way.
It has helped me to think of this as a hobby; I build patterns of investment in my work, I explore how others engage, and I try to set myself goals. A woodworker who tries to reinvent the wheel with every new project, not consulting how others have accomplished tasks before, and not investing in follow through will likely walk away from the half finished jewelry box, and wobbly chair, and dull tools pretty unsatisfied. There's an overwhelming amount to learn, but we can understand that every step along the way is just another small task, and that we never get to understand or master every part of it. Best of luck, apologies for being a bit long-winded, but I hope this has been helpful, and I'm very happy to help in any further way I can! Handpigdad (talk) 20:26, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What to do when multiple reliable sources publish misleading information?[edit]

In regards to Dave the Diver - Wikipedia this article. An administrator previously threatened to block a user for trying to edit the article to state that the game was not an indie game, when in fact it was. The admin's reasoning was due to reliable sources stating the game was "indie". Even though the incident appears to be resolved it makes me curious about how a similar incident would be solved for posterity 🅶🅰🅼🅾🆆🅴🅱🅱🅴🅳 (talk) 13:08, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Gamowebbed WP:RSN. Doug Weller talk 18:27, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Gamowebbed WP:DR might be of interest. When there's dispute about whether a source is reliable or not for any particular piece of information, and editors politely but persistently disagree, that tends to go to WP:DRN or WP:3O and maybe eventually WP:RFC. If someone is a dick about it or otherwise disrupts that process, that's when admins tend to step in. An admin shouldn't be using the threat of blocks to enforce a content issue like "what do the sources say". -- asilvering (talk) 12:18, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the info @Asilvering, I have decided to submit an ANI to seek administrator counsel. 🅶🅰🅼🅾🆆🅴🅱🅱🅴🅳 (talk) 14:27, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh dear. -- asilvering (talk) 16:12, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gromphadorhina picea[edit]

I can't find any reliable sources for this, its a hissing cockroach that is commonly mistaken for other hissing cockroaches which is why there is little to no information about it, do you guys have any information about it? Username but name (talk) 15:12, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Username but name, try asking at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:25, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Username but name I asked Bing's new AI-driven search engine and it gave me this source as well as a summary of other sources. Whether that's reliable or not is debatable. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:31, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you so much, this seems pretty reliable as i've seen some things on this site before and they have all been true. Username but name (talk) 19:14, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mobile table of contents inaccuracy[edit]

The first item in the table of contents that appears on mobile for the article Photographic print toning is “Sepia tone,” which I assume was maybe a previous title before a move. I’m having trouble finding how to correct this. It only seems apparent on mobile — on desktop the article title does not appear in the table of contents, it just starts with the first section header. Thank you! Wow Mollu (talk) 03:21, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Wow Mollu: That mobile view is showing the same table of contents as the desktop version, using a browser. Are you using a browser or one of the Wikipedia apps to view the article? RudolfRed (talk) 03:52, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You’re right! Now that I reload it, it shows the article title. I came to this article from the disambiguation page for Sepia. On that page, under Color, the link for Sepia tone redirects to a section within Photographic print toning. When it does, the first item in the mobile app table of contents displays as “Sepia tone” instead of the article title. This seems a bit confusing, no? Since the Sepia tone section is way down the page, nowhere near the top. And tapping on that item brings you to the top of the article, which is not about sepia. Wow Mollu (talk) 05:27, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Wow Mollu, you're being correctly redirected. There isn't a separate article for sepia tone, it's just part of the article on photographic print toning, so the link takes you right to the part that has the relevant information, rather than landing you at the top so you wonder why on earth you got there. I can't explain why tapping on the item brings you to the top of the article, though. That doesn't happen to me, so I wonder if it's something strange about your mobile browser. -- asilvering (talk) 12:06, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, I’m not explaining very clearly. Yes, the redirect works great! It brings me to the right section. I guess what realizing is it’s more of an issue (IMO) with how the mobile interface is populated. Normally in the mobile app, the top item in the TOC is the article title. When I use the redirect link Sepia tone, it brings me to the correct section of the article called “Sepia toning”, however when I open up the TOC panel, the first item in the TOC reads Sepia tone (the name of the redirect) not Photographic print toning, the actual name of the article. So using the redirect link in the mobile app, the TOC reads: Sepia tone, Chemical toning, Selenium toning, Sepia toning, Metal replacement… etc. This happens with other redirects too, I now see! All this to say, this is probably not a question for teahouse, it seems to have more to do with the way the mobile app is set up. I just find it confusing that the title of the article is changed in the table of contents when you get to an article from a redirect. Wow Mollu (talk) 15:13, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh hm, now I understand, and I'm not sure where to send you for a better chance at finding someone with a solution. MW:Wikimedia Apps? -- asilvering (talk) 16:32, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I cannot reproduce this on Android using the app. I suggest you post it on mw:Talk:Wikimedia Apps, and include details of your phone OS, app version, etc. I have had helpful responses from there. -- Verbarson  talkedits 18:30, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Page Numbers[edit]

How do I add page numbers when citing books? LeónGonsalvesofGoa (talk) 04:01, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there! In the {{Cite book}} template, you can specify one page with the |p= parameter, or a range of pages with the |pp= parameter. If you need help using these parameters in the Visual editor or otherwise would like clarification, let me know! Remsense 04:03, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can I use the template with an auto-generated citation? LeónGonsalvesofGoa (talk) 04:08, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes! When you put in an ISBN or otherwise automatically generate a citation for a book, what it does is create a {{Cite book}} template under the hood. If you are using VisualEditor, do you see where you can specify page numbers? If not, check out Help:VisualEditor#Editing templates.
If you are not using VisualEditor, you should be able to add the parameter with all the others! Don't hesitate to ask me for more help if you still need it. :) Remsense 04:11, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
LeónGonsalvesofGoa, if a book is cited at all, it's typically cited more than once. Rather than having two or more fully written out REF tags, differing only in page numbers, consider using the combination of (A) named references -- <ref name="arbitrary_name">{{Cite book | [lots of bibliographical detail but no page number(s)]}}</ref> just once, <ref name="arbitrary_name" /> every other time -- and (B) Template:Rp. -- Hoary (talk) 07:29, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's already two good options here, but another alternative is to add the |ref= parameter in your first citation (e.g. <ref>{{cite book |last=Lastname |first=Firstname |title=Apples and Oranges |year=2013 |publisher=Penguin |pages=105–107 |ref=Lastname2013}}</ref>) and then when the citation comes up again, add <ref>[[#Lastname2013|Lastname 2013]], p. 113.</ref> This'll end up looking like this:
Some scientists say apples are oranges.[1] Other scientists say apples are lemons.[2] ~ F4U (talkthey/it) 05:11, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This alternative is a non-standard approach not mentioned in help or info pages, and I wouldn't recommend it, especially not for a new user. Instead, follow what Hoary said above, which reflects the recommended way of reusing references as explained in the Help page at Footnotes: using a source more than once. Mathglot (talk) 10:02, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  1. ^ Lastname, Firstname (2013). Apples and Oranges. Penguin. pp. 105–107.
  2. ^ Lastname 2013, p. 113.

Alt account[edit]

I am the alt account of User:TrademarkedTarantula, and I'm aware that sockpuppeting is a problem. How do I verify that I'm the same person? Thanks, TrademarkedTWOrantula (talk) 06:41, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@TrademarkedTWOrantula: Hello! You should use the template {{User alternative account banner}} on your alt account and disclose that you operate that alt account on your main account's user page (the latter by using your main account). You may also find Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry#Legitimate uses pretty useful as it will tell you about legitimate uses for alternative accounts, as well as explaining inappropriate uses of alt accounts. Happy editing! – 64andtim (talk) 06:48, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How to create a new style2 template for infobox?[edit]

I want to create a new color scheme for the Style2 part of an infobox, like the "M2 M6" on this page. I'm a bit dumbfounded. Thanks in advance! Eticangaaa (talk) 11:36, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Eticangaaa. I am frustrated by the fact that whoever made this system apparently neglected to document this, but the style2 options for Istanbul Metro seem to be defined at Module:Adjacent stations/Istanbul Metro. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 12:10, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you very much! Apparently the style i was wishing to create has already been made :P Eticangaaa (talk) 12:25, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Enough sources?[edit]

Subject is Maurice Novoa, are there enough sources here; (talk) 14:12, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What matters if not the number of sources, but the content within the sources.
The things to consider when making ana article is:
Are the sources reliable? Do they come from a third party? Do the sources altogether have enough information to write an article about a given subject?
Not much volunteers are willing to read all the linked articles. Instead try giving the best three sources. Ca talk to me! 14:16, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The first few appear to be primary sources based on the URL. You can still use them in uncontroversal situations but they will not contribute to notability. ✶Mitch199811 14:41, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Awards that are themselves not notable, i.e., not Wikipedia articles, can be listed, but do not contribute to the recipient's notability. Example "American Martial Arts Alliance Foundation Legends Hall of Honors." David notMD (talk) 16:13, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Best 3 sources with most in-depth coverage — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:33, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Long-running AfD discussion[edit]

Hello! A few weeks ago, my new article Isaac Saul was nominated for deletion, and since then I have been trying to defend its notability. However, after the first few days, the discussion quickly dropped off. Now, it has already been relisted twice with no further discussion, and it will be relisted a third time tomorrow. I worry that this article has been buried under a pile of newer AfDs, and that it will remain in limbo indefinitely. Is there anything I can do to make this process move faster? Thanks, Mover of molehillsmove me 14:20, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisting is an Administrator's option to solicit more comments. Most likely the same Admin is the one who will make the decision. And soon. David notMD (talk) 16:15, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tilderman Casteel[edit]

What or who is this? Elf clark (talk) 14:56, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia has no article on Tilderman Casteel and a web search draws a blank. Why are you asking? Shantavira|feed me 15:12, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Entry on Gilbert Stuart (artist)[edit]

The bibliography should include a major, original source on Gilbert Stuart (1999) which is first cited in footnote 14 and appears elsewhere. Would someone please make the change? I don't know how to do it. Thank you. DEvans2 (talk) 15:00, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@DEvans2:  Done! GoingBatty (talk) 15:34, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In the future, it's better to make these requests at the talk page of the article instead of at the Teahouse. Esolo5002 (talk) 16:25, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Many thanks. DEvans2 (talk) 17:35, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is a problem in writing articles in English[edit]

Can't write any article in English.Ramkripal YadvG (talk) 16:31, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

what are you asking exactly? Babysharkboss2 was here!! (Talk to me) (Waif Me!) 17:16, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikipedias are available in many languages. Choose yours at List of Wikipedias. Shantavira|feed me 20:03, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 – User: Translated the message to English. Sincerely, Novo Tape (She/Her)My Talk Page 17:25, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

delete all the[edit]

per "i added an image to this article and was then informed that that image might not have actually been the legal way to do it", can image deletion be handled here, as opposed to in commons? cogsan (give me attention) (see my deeds) 19:23, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Cogsan. Welcome to the Teahouse. You can undo the edit yourself by going to the article's 'view history' tab and clicking on the undo button in the latest entry. In the edit history, you can mention it as 'self-revert'. Hope this helps <3 Jeraxmoira (talk) 19:41, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is how you remove it from the article, but that doesn't delete the actual image file. @Cogsan: If the file is at Commons, you will need to follow Commons procedure, yes. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 19:58, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(edit conflict)Ah! I think I misunderstood your question earlier. To address it properly now, I've tagged the image for speedy deletion, following your request. Jeraxmoira (talk) 19:57, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
guess that works lol
thanks cogsan (give me attention) (see my deeds) 20:15, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
incidentally, wouldn't it have been a g11, as opposed to a g7? cogsan (give me attention) (see my deeds) 20:19, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No. You requested the deletion. G11 is promotional; this image was not promotional. It could have been filed as a G12, unambiguous copyvio. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:23, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notes in entry on Gilbert Stuart (artist)[edit]

I've had a problem with the following note corrections (given in quotes). Would someone please help? I'd be very grateful.

Note 2, change Ireland to "London." At the end of the note, add this explanatory source for the name problem: "Evans, Dorinda, Gilbert Stuart and the Impact of Manic Depression, Ashgate Publishing Ltd., 2013, p. 127."

Note 35: "Quote from Jane Stuart in" Evans, 2013, p. 14.

Note 46: add missing pages at the end of the note: Evans 2013, pp. 18-19, "69-73, 82-84, 148."

Thanks so much for your attention. DEvans2 (talk) 20:09, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@DEvans2: I don't understand what you're asking, but for suggesting changes to an article, start a discussion on the talk page. RudolfRed (talk) 20:21, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Or, better, be WP:BOLD and fix it. RudolfRed (talk) 20:22, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for replying. I've submiotted my request again and tried to make it clearer. These are corrections to my own text. DEvans2 (talk) 21:36, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not seeking a discussion; I'm making corrections to what I wrote earlier in notes. This is self-correction. If you can't do it, please allow someone else to try. What is not clear about it? DEvans2 (talk) 21:14, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@DEvans2, what is not clear is that we don't understand what you're asking us to do.
The page is not protected, you can make any corrections yourself. Valereee (talk) 22:20, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Editing Source page is almost gibberish. For instance, I want to correct what I already wrote in note 2 but that text now is " ref name = gsm />. It's meaningless without even a note number. How can I improve on what I can't read? I'm asking to make corrections in notes 2, 35, and 46. Or please lead me to where it is not all in code. When I worked on the entry before, the setup was different. I'm a beginner and not sure what I've done wrong. DEvans2 (talk) 01:31, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
DEvans2, if for some reason you cannot make corrections yourself, please describe the hurdle that you face. RudolfRed, Valereee and I can each of us do what you ask us to, but I imagine that they are as reluctant as I am either (A) to work unthinkingly for another editor or (B) to spend time evaluating asked-for changes before carrying them out. -- Hoary (talk) 22:28, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did change notes 2 and 44 (previously note 46; not sure why instantly changed). Then I accidentally made a "cite error" in ending note 35. It should read: 35. Quote from Jane Stuart in Evans 2013, p. 14. This is under Personal Life, after the "exceedingly pretty" quote. The Help page gives instances of the error. How do I now re-do the note and remove the red citation? Sorry to be such a bother. DEvans2 (talk) 02:39, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Re the 46 to 44 change: as I think I've told you before, the references are numbered automatically (in the order they first appear in the text), so if someone (perhaps yourself, perhaps someone else) has deleted (or moved) a couple of different references from before what was 46, all those after the first deleted reference will drop their number by 1, and all those after the second deletion by a further 1. {The poster formerly known as} (talk) 15:03, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, this is obvious and I knew that. I didn't knowingly delete something. The problem now is getting rid of the red citation. DEvans2 (talk) 15:13, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@DEvans2 I commented it out. If it is needed, then you can add it back where it's cited and remove the <!-- and --> Mike Turnbull (talk) 21:45, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks so much, Mike. I really appreciate the help several of you have given. It's difficult for a novice, and I probably won't tgry this again. DEvans2 (talk) 22:36, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@DEvans2, I'd hate to see you decide not to contribute. I'm sorry I couldn't help more, I took a look a couple of times to see if I could figure out the problem, but unfortunately the citation style for the particular set of citations you were trying to work with is one I also find it very fiddly and difficult to work with, and therefore a bit daunting. Most articles I work with, I don't have that problem, so don't be reluctant to give it another try in future. Valereee (talk) 00:07, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks so much for your kind reply. DEvans2 (talk) 15:29, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Protection of Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war[edit]

Can someone please explain how it's allowed by policy to extended-confirmed protect Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war, and where anybody is supposed to discuss changes to this article if they're not extended-confirmed? Kk.urban (talk) 20:33, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There's a false notice on the talk page that says "Please discuss any changes on the talk page; you may submit an edit request to ask for uncontroversial changes supported by consensus." Kk.urban (talk) 20:35, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Per the notice, it "can be applied to combat disruption, if semi-protection has proven to be ineffective." Presumably semi-protection has proven to be ineffective. The Israel–Hamas war has to be one of the most controversial things happening in the world right now, so it's not surprising. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:39, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure, it's very controversial, but then where can anyone discuss the article? Kk.urban (talk) 20:41, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Kk.urban: Use the "submit an edit request" link in the notice to submit an edit request. RudolfRed (talk) 20:41, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@RudolfRed OK, thank you. Can I use that to submit an edit request to the talk page? Kk.urban (talk) 20:42, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, the link will take you to Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Edit RudolfRed (talk) 20:43, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@RudolfRed Can I use Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Edit to submit an edit request to the talk page? I want to edit the talk page, not the article. Kk.urban (talk) 20:44, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Honestly, I don't know what the rules are, since this talk page was protected due to Arbitration Enforcement. I suggest staying away from this and other contentious topics until you have EC rights. But, if you want to proceed, you can try submitting an edit request for editing the talk page and see what the answer is. RudolfRed (talk) 21:20, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Kk.urban, you need to have 500 edits to contribute to that talk page. You are 2/3 of the way there. The restriction was imposed by Ritchie333, because all articles having to do with the Arab–Israeli conflict have stringent behavioral restrictions due to chronic disruption. That talk page was being disrupted by newer editors. It's a fact of life. Cullen328 (talk) 21:25, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Improving Sources on Article[edit]

Hi, hope you're all doing well. I am currently working on my very first Wikipedia article and was seeking some guidance in regards to sources. My article was not accepted because I need to incorporate more references.

These are the references I currently have:

big4bio (2022-03-24). "Spotlight Q&A: The Story of XiltriX - Big4Bio". Retrieved 2023-12-06.

Schaefer, Nat (June 8, 2022). "Lab monitoring as a service for the pharmaceutical industry". Pharmaceutical Technology. Retrieved December 6, 2023.

These are some additional references I found that I was thinking of adding:

The question is, "Will these be enough?" Let me know if you have any suggestions. Thank you in advance, I appreciate your feedback. Andazimeta (talk) 21:54, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Courtesy link: Draft:XiltriX North America --Finngall talk 22:05, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Andazimeta, big4bio looks like an aggregator, so not itself a reliable source, and even then it's an interview, so we don't consider it independent. The Pharm Tech article has the feel of being created from a press release, so not independent. The site looks really iffy, too, their about us says "Combined with our award-winning targeting technology built into our network of websites, we offer a unique end-to-end marketing solution combining insight, creativity, and cutting-edge AI-technology. Our marketing solution allows clients to identify, target and engage with prospects using access and ownership of our 40+ B2B media websites and their large sector specific audiences. With more reach, data targeting and first-party data than any other partner, we produce world-class campaigns for our clients. For more details on our technology-driven marketing solution" me that looks like a promotional agency. The Einstein article kind of looks like a med school discussing their own operations, which depends on the subject company's stuff, not independent. The LabManager is a bare mention? For me, as a non-med editor, this doesn't look like enough, no. Valereee (talk) 22:13, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, thank you taking the time to review the sources, that was very helpful insight. I'll do more research and see if there's any better sources I can find about the company. Do you have any suggestions as to what elements to look for in regards to identifying sources Wikipedia might deem to be more in-depth and reliable? Thank you again. Andazimeta (talk) 22:42, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Andazimeta, the minimum requirement is WP:NOTABILITY; for a business we'd like to see three instances of significant coverage in independent reliable secondary sources. All three need to meet all of those criteria: independent, reliable, secondary, and significant coverage. Valereee (talk) 22:47, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was able to find the Wikipedia page for a company that seems to have a similar business model as the one I am doing research about. The name of the company is "Elemental Machines." It looks like their page has three sources. Would you say they are a good example as I move forward with my research? Andazimeta (talk) 23:17, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. I've nominated that article for deletion. It was an advert, failed WP:CORPDEPTH, several refs did not resolve to news stories. I would not advise emulating it. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:42, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think you need to face the fact that 80% of Draft:XiltriX North America is an undisguised advert. The sections "Industries served", "Common parameters", "Security and compliance" all entirely unreferenced, all the sorts of things you'd expect to find on a corporate flyer. Wikipedia is not a venue for company marketing. If you cannot find good independent references to support the subject, than I urge you to add {{db-g7}} at the top of the draft such that it is marked for deletion. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:52, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for the feedback, this has been really helpful. It makes sense why the sources are not showing. Andazimeta (talk) 17:04, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

where can i find more sources for this article And The Music Plays On (Del Shannon album)? Samchristie05 (talk) 00:46, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Samchristie05 I would start with a simple google search, those might turn up a source or two that is reliable and secondary of the article subject. WP:NALBUM has useful information when it comes to the notability of the recording you are writing about. I have included some links below to help you find sources.
Seawolf35 T--C 01:13, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
when i press RUNAWAY A Del Shannon Story & The Music of Del Shannon it said it's not preview Samchristie05 (talk) 01:57, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Samchristie05, as explained back in October, the person who hopes to create an article first looks for reliable sources, and, if they find some that are informative, then goes on to create an article. I sense that you're going about it backwards. -- Hoary (talk) 05:06, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Appropriate Sources[edit]

Greetings, I have been making article edits anonymously for awhile and decided to create an account. I have been researching and writing for about 11 years now on Pacific Northwest (US) transportation history. I thought I would take some of those new learnings and update the related wikipedia articles. I have been STRUGGLING with appropriate references, since at times my edits have been discarded. I assume published books are appropriate sources, but what about state historical society's online essays? (for which some of my edits were rejected in the past, including the one I did yesterday). What about online sites of newspapers and magazines? Most historical societies have a website with historical information enclosed, are those appropriate sources? (for which my edits at times were also rejected in the past). I will push ahead. Thanks for any information. Most Appreciated! PNWTransportHistory (talk) 01:26, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@PNWTransportHistory generally speaking we don't accept blogs as reliable sources (see this all discussed in exhaustive detail at WP:RS), and I think most historical societies' online essays function effectively as blog posts. But that's only a "generally speaking" - it's really going to depend on the specific source. Online sites of newspapers and magazines are fine, so long as those newspapers and magazines are themselves reliable (eg, the NYT online is fine because the NYT is, but the NY Post is not fine and neither is its website). -- asilvering (talk) 03:10, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd add the nuance that online postings hosted at a historical society's website are likely to be accepted, but when it's just a wordpress blog, even if it claims to be written by a subject matter expert and doesn't state anything extraordinary, it's more likely to be scrutinised. Folly Mox (talk) 03:26, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How to add characters to specific categories when no discrete character page exists?[edit]

I want to update categories of neurodivergent fictional characters, but most of the characters I plan to add do not have discrete pages. NewerSouper (talk) 02:56, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As far as I know this can only be done in a fairly restricted fashion; see WP:LISTRCAT (and more generally the rest of that page). It is possible to create redirects for characters, pointing to an appropriate page, and to categorise the redirects, but only into categories that pertain to the 'universe' or fictional setting in which the fictional characters are found. The example given in the LISTRCAT page is categorising minor Eastender's characters (UK soap opera) into Category:EastEnders characters], but not categorising them into, for example, Category:Fictional characters by occupation.
I don't know what you were planning by way of categorisation, but you need to take account of Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects and the restrictions it places on such categorisations. You are not at liberty to start adding fictional characters which do not have articles, to categories outside their fictional setting. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:10, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for the information, although I am confused on one thing. It seems to me that you are saying that putting characters without individual pages into the neurodivergent categories is not allowed, but most of the entries in those categories are exactly that. NewerSouper (talk) 03:44, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes. It's always fun to come across corners of wikipedia where users pay not a blind bit of notice to the guidelines. Were you to want to discuss this oddity further, I'd recommend Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Redirect as being the most likely place to have an audience interested in the topic. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:57, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Does being a fan count as conflict of interest?[edit]

I read the conflict of interest stuff, and don't think it does. But I'm not completely sure as it isn't very clear on this. Not related in any other way to them. 2603:6011:5:C53A:54C1:6246:A502:4605 (talk) 04:20, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If that were the case, we'd all have conflicts of interest due to editing articles regarding topics we are deeply interested in. No—conflicts of interest amount to personal circumstances of a kind where it might be difficult to expect the average person not to express consistent bias in their tone, or in their judgement and synthesis of sources. For most adults, it is a wholly distinct, much deeper thing than fandom as generally experienced, I reckon.
Think more "my boss Mr. W needs greater exposure for our firm ABC Corp or we're doomed" or "the situation in my hometown DEFville is totally wretched due to XYZ factor". One may have a conflict of interest when editing articles directly related to Mr. W, ABC Corp, DEFville, or XYZ, etc., but ultimately that begins as a personal judgement—with the exception of direct payments for editing, which must be disclosed.
In all likelihood, if you care about accurately representing sources, you're going to be fine. Cheers! Remsense 04:39, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No. I can say from experience. I made an article of a group I am clearly a fan of, the name of their fandom is even in my username. And yet, AFC approved it, and nobody else has marked it for deletion.
Remsense gives a very good explanation. AKFkrewfamKF1 (talk) 05:02, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
god I'd hope not, or the draft I made would be toast! But no, being a fan of something doesn't mean WP:COI. Generally, COI would be things like, a member of a school, a band member, or just anyone writing or fixing a page about themselves. If fans writing would count as Conflict of interest, then we'd kinda loose WP:NPOV. Babysharkboss2 was here!! (Talk to me) (Waif Me!) 14:58, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This question does not have an easy answer and it depends entirely on the nature and the depth of the fandom, and the specific behavior associated with that fandom , and the specific article. For example, I was once a mountaineer and long believed that Reinhold Messner is the greatest mountaineer. In recent years, I have thought that perhaps Nirmal Purja is the greatest climber. But you will see me making few if any edits to either article. Neutral editors should be working on both articles. Cullen328 (talk)\

Post creation[edit]

Hello, I created a page about a topic and incorrectly copied information from another page relating too it, I have since removed the information and resubmitted the page for publish but I can not tell weather it has ben denied again or if it will be in the future. Thanks. Luftwaffespectre (talk) 04:43, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It shows at the top your draft is still waiting for review. It just shows the old decline messages underneath until (and if) the page is approved. AKFkrewfamKF1 (talk) 04:50, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Luftwaffespectre Hi! There are numerous issues and it is most likely getting denied. The article is not encyclopedic. There is already an article related to Mercury Cougar, you could have just added info about this new generation there. Apart from this, the writing style in the draft is not favorable for wikipedia. I suggest you to go through WP:PG to understand our guidlines. Happy editing! Leoneix (talk) 04:53, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To add to this, I was going to say something about the sources, considering one of them lead to a website my browser marked as "unsafe." People do not want viruses you know. AKFkrewfamKF1 (talk) 04:57, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
specifically the first source. AKFkrewfamKF1 (talk) 04:58, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I clicked all the external links on the page, I use Firefox, and I did not get any such warnings. It may be a simple HTTPS cert expiry from the description you have given, but I will not assume one way or the other, just making clear that it is often not a matter of malicious hosts. Remsense 05:00, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I use OperaGX, so maybe it is my browser. AKFkrewfamKF1 (talk) 05:04, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
still, it doesn't help with the source's credibility. AKFkrewfamKF1 (talk) 05:05, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I added the information to the main article with accurate sourcing from the NTHSA, do I need to remove the draft article, if so how do I do that? Luftwaffespectre (talk) 05:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Add {{db-g7}} at the top. --Tagishsimon (talk) 05:20, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you very much, it appears to have been deleted, I'm still quite new to editing Wikipedia . Luftwaffespectre (talk) 05:32, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If it is to be removed, then it may be for different reasons. Babysharkboss2 was here!! (Talk to me) (Waif Me!) 13:54, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request edit access tutorial[edit]

Excuse me, how do I request edit access as a user who hasn't made 500 edits yet? For example: I need to edit the "Foreign relations of Israel" page because the "Diplomatic relations" section contains inaccuracies. Underdwarf58 (talk) 06:53, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Underdwarf58: In most cases, you shouldn't need to request edit access – you can submit an edit request using the edit request wizard and an editor with the required permissions will make the edit on your behalf. Tollens (talk) 06:55, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ok thanks Underdwarf58 (talk) 06:56, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request feedback about draft article improvement[edit]

Hello all, I have been working on and off to create my first article Draft:Bhargav Sri Prakash . It started as a class project for school but it has turned in to quite a research project and I am learning a lot! Thank you to the experienced editors for reviewing my submission. I value your suggestions and to those who have contributed with edits. I have been researching more online and found a lot more news articles. However I am not sure I am on the right track with formatting and content. Basically I am looking at other articles and trying to learn by adapting the style. Can you please take a look and give me your advice? Thanking you, KrisJohanssen (talk) 08:21, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @KrisJohanssen, the draft mainly cites primary sources and only a few secondary sources making the subject less notable. I feel like some parts of it are written like a resume. Leoneix (talk) 09:50, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The subject comes across as a self-promoting bullshitter. His main claims to fame are that he was a national tennis champion (he wasn't), and that he's invemted a "digital vaccine" (it's not a vaccine). KrisJohanssen, I suggest that you find a more deserving subject for your efforts. Maproom (talk) 13:45, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
it doesn't matter what the persons done, if they're notable, then they could have a page about them. if we only made pages about good people, we wouldn't have pages like Hitler, Andrew Tate, Osama Bin Laden, etc. also, I suggest that you find a more deserving subject for your efforts. I wouldn't tell people on what they should and shouldn't edit. Babysharkboss2 was here!! (Talk to me!) (Goo Goo dolls) 19:56, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure, but the salient points for the editor of this article is that they should be *very* critical of the sources they use, and they should seek not to over-promote the subject. The article right now is larded with superlatives, peacock terms, notability by association, overcitation &c. The first four paragraphs of the article say, in essence, the same thing: he's invented some sort of gamified health education platform. It does not require four paragraphs of hyperbole to say this. The style of the article and the denseness of the citations set off all manner of bullshit klaxons for uninvolved experienced editors: it's highly unlikely the article will be promoted unless the editor takes several steps back and thins out both the claims and the citations. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:11, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree Lead far too long, hence repitition with content in body of draft, and I moved tennis to Personal life, as contributes nothing toward establishing notability. Creating editor shold be asked if COI or PAID applies, and work on neutral point of view before resubmitting. David notMD (talk) 20:16, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
started as a class project for school—has the instructor worked with Wikipedia:Education program to ensure that the assignment is actually achievable and will minimize disruption to Wikipedia? Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 23:42, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

base href , to reduce page size[edit]

Hi. Does wikipedia offer a way to do <base href="..."> ? I'm trying to reduce the wikipedia page size on a page with many outside links. Thanks! Kweetal nl (talk) 10:00, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Kweetal nl: this isn't an answer to your question as such, but may be relevant nevertheless: other than citations, and a few select links in the end matter, Wikipedia articles shouldn't really have external links. Okay, it's not quite as drastic as that, but that's pretty much the gist of WP:EL. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Heh. They /are/ citations (i.e., links to BHL pages). (BHL = biodiversity heritage library).
(but perhaps people will not find it interesting) - Kweetal nl (talk) 10:49, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If (?) you mean User:Kweetal nl/sandbox49, then no, they're not citations; they're inline external links. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:11, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok - I'll remove it (largely). - Kweetal nl (talk) 11:31, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The entirity of supported html tags is listed at Help:HTML in wikitext § Elements, <base> is not amongst them. Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:42, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Public Article[edit]


I don't know know how to fix and changes to meet the requirements of Wikipedia. May request Wikipedia to help me edit, change and fix what they stated in my article so it can be list in Wikipedia and go to public?

Thank You Sincerely,

Hiwakari Itsumo Hiwakariitsumo1901 (talk) 11:01, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Hiwakariitsumo1901: I've already answered this at the AfC HD; please don't ask the same question in multiple places, as it wastes volunteer time. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:09, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Verifiable links[edit]

I do not understand what type of links are unverifiable in my draft Draft:Smita N. Kinkale. Anonymousartuser (talk) 11:49, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The sources you have provided are largely either user-generated, (Linkedin, which is not acceptable as a source whatsoever) very close to the subject (the galleries their work has been displayed in), or not directly about the subject (a short news blurb about 12 people including the subject). Otherwise, statements made in the article do not seem to be informed by the reliable sources you have provided. See below. Remsense 11:57, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Anonymousartuser The whole "About works" portion of the biography has no sources at all. Who interpreted her art that way? You? Please read Wikipedia's policy about biographies of living people carefully. All significant statements have to be backed up by reliable published sources. You have re-submitted the draft without addressing the issues identified in its previous review. Therefore it is likely to be rapidly declined again. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:07, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
.... as it has been. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:11, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Anonymousartuser Judging by your User rename request you are attempting to write an autobiography. That is strongly discouraged for the reasons given at that link. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:20, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Anonymousartuser You need to cut the "Critic reviews" texts drastically, see MOS:QUOTE. Note that a WP-article about Smita N. Kinkale is supposed to be a summary of WP:RS about but independent of Smita N. Kinkale. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:45, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
just looked at the draft, and yikes. Firstly, as Michael D. Turnbull pointed out, you had a rename request which makes it look like you are writing an autobiography, which isn't really good. Second, you have a lot of external links on there, like on to the schools website, that should either be added in as sources, or removed entirely. Last, there a flimsy unreliable and unrelated sources in the article. Babysharkboss2 was here!! (Talk to me) (Waif Me!) 14:54, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can I send an old fashioned check in order to get my donation to Wikipedia?[edit]

Donation question Jasonmtnbiker (talk) 14:34, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Jasonmtnbiker, welcome to the Teahouse! This is more of a place for help from volunteers about editing Wikipedia; we don't really have much of anything to do with donations. To read more about donation options and ways to give, check out this link: Thanks! Writ Keeper  14:36, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Help needed[edit]

May i create an article for a person who’s information is only in 5-7 urdu books which is not even on the internet. A detailed discussion has been done in books published during 1910-1920. — Syed A. Hussain Quadri (talk) 17:43, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, if you consider the books to be reliable sources per WP:RS. Sources do not need to be in English, nor available on the internet. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:50, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If the books are, in-depth, reliable, and independent of the subject, you probably can. I'd recommend reading WP:BIO for more info. If the books were published within a short period (such as less than a year), please read WP:SUSTAINED. Sincerely, Novo Tape (She/Her)My Talk Page 17:51, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Go ahead. As per WP:OFFLINE, even though Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, there is no distinction between using online versus offline sources. Just make sure you are using reliable sources. Thilsebatti (talk) 17:54, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Thilsebatti those are surely RS. — Syed A. Hussain Quadri (talk) 04:44, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Adding reliable citations for Radha[edit]

Hello, I've been trying to add a new author and book page which has been quite challenging. Based on the limited information available, what do you guys suggest I change so that the pages are reviewed again and accepted? The feedback I received for the book page (Draft:Radha: Wrath of the Maeju) suggests that I add more published sources that are reliable, secondary, in-depth, and independent. But at this stage, is waiting all that I need to do so that the book has more reviews? There aren't many English-language Nepali books in the market or reviewers in English who will make the citation abundant. Please help. Phsssttt (talk) 18:00, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@KylieTastic Phsssttt (talk) 18:01, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Phsssttt note that sources do not have to be in English if some exist is Nepali? See Wikipedia:Notability (books) for what we look for to show nobility of books. As the book is not even published till tomorrow this may be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Regards KylieTastic (talk) 18:15, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mahmudullah Hasan Biplob[edit]

2018. Free Fire Gamer MAhmudul Hasan Biplob (talk) 22:38, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@MAhmudul Hasan Biplob So far, almost all your contributions have been reverted. That's not a good start! This is a serious project and if you are not here to make useful additions, please don't make any.... Mike Turnbull (talk) 22:44, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can we get a disambiguation page for One Water?[edit]

HI One Water (Management) is a notable management approach, endorsed by the United Nations, World Health Organization, U.S. Water Alliance, and more. I have created a page for this, but would like to disambiguate it from One Water, the film. How do we support this? I do see the guidance at but I am not sure if I am allowed to create that disambiguation page? Thank you.LoveElectronicLiterature (talk) 00:33, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

--Tagishsimon (talk) 00:43, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you so much! What do I need to do now? Should I be creating a page? Is it right to ask here for that disambiguation page? The guidance isn't quite clear. LoveElectronicLiterature (talk) 16:02, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@LoveElectronicLiterature: It has already been created: One Water. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:16, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi, I'm a long term Wikipedia style and clarity editor, but I don't know the ropes of higher level editing. I need a mentor, that I can message from time to time. My latest problem, is somebody from the nuclear power industry is reverting my edits to an article on a scientist, to whitewash her scientific contribution to epidemiological studies documenting harm from radiation releases from Chernobyl etc.

I just don't know how to deal with edit warring. They threatened to have me banned as an editor. I don't know how to deal with that. They are obviously someone employed by the nuclear industry, who has sanitised the article I happened to come across and work on.

I intend to work on the clearcutting article, which I have deep expertise in. I'm anticipating the same kind of flack from the logging industry, so if I could find a mentor on this article, it might come in handy for later.

Usually I just do minor clarity edits, on random articles. Every once in a while though, I want to be able to get involved on important topics. So, please, help me! I don't know how to contact other editors. Maybe leave a message on my talk page? Thanks Billyshiverstick (talk) 01:19, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For starters, don't accuse an administrator of being a "stooge" when they remove material you copied from Amazon RudolfRed (talk) 01:24, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Billyshiverstick: Read WP:NPA. RudolfRed (talk) 01:26, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please also read WP:MINOR. A minor edit is something like fixing a typo. RudolfRed (talk) 01:29, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Billyshiverstick you seem to have mistaken a routine reversion for copyvio, for some sort of nuclear industry conspiracy. It's not a conspiracy. It's a routine reversion because you introduced copyrighted text into the article. The solution is, not to add copyrighted text into articles. The honourable thing to do would be to apologise to the editor involved. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:32, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My Awards page wikipedia entry keeps on getting declined, HELP!![edit]

My name is Inyi, and I'm new to creating entries on Wikipedia.

I'm currently working on an article page for an awards-giving body in the Philippines called the "VP Choice Awards." However, the entry keeps getting declined by reviewers with the comment: "This submission appears to read more like an advertisement."

I've been following the guidance provided by one of the reviewers (Qcne) to address this issue, yet the entry continues to be declined by other reviewers. I've added references in line with the article, rewritten the content in a neutral manner, and included references from independent media sources not affiliated or related to the VP Choice Awards, but it still gets declined.

I would greatly appreciate it if you could review my entry here: and provide guidance on what needs to be fixed on the page.

Thank you so much in advance Inyiyruma (talk) 04:15, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Does (Date missing) mean the date is unknown?[edit]

i have seen language pages that show the extinction date as (date missing), does it mean the date is unknown? 2001:448A:400C:1F9B:5D9E:5574:1A55:7DE9 (talk) 05:00, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Probably. There are many such languages. You may find the language listed here as date unknown. Shantavira|feed me 11:19, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AFD'ing multiple articles in a single discussion[edit]

I might have come across it before, but I'm not entirely certain. However, is there a way to AfD multiple articles in a single discussion? I am looking at Muangchang United F.C., PPS.Phetchabun City F.C., Lookphorkhun United F.C., Look E San F.C.,Nonthaburi United F.C., Sing Ubon F.C., etc. Most of them fail WP:GNG. Jeraxmoira (talk) 05:36, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jeraxmoira: There is – see WP:MULTIAFD for the details. Tollens (talk) 13:40, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm sorry[edit]

I didn't mean to vandalize Wikipedia again. I was actually editing for good usage. Before coming on here, someone left me 7 talk page messages, which I didn't read, inviting me to this teahouse, very helpful I know. I accidentally edited Wikipedia before I read that message and I'm sorry and apologize deeply. I mean it. Jamiemuscatoverified (talk) 06:49, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

template map not working[edit]

{{Maplink|frame=yes|zoom=5|frame-align=right|text=Airports in Gujarat<noinclude><ref name>{{Cite web |title=Gujarat {{!}} Gujarat State Aviation Infrastructure Company Limited |url= |access-date=2019-05-21 | |archive-date=2019-05-21 |archive-url= |url-status=dead }}</ref>
</noinclude>|frame-lat=22.719 |frame-long=71.224
|type=point|id=Q401700|marker=airport |marker-size=medium |title=[[Ahmedabad Airport|Ahmedabad]]
|type2=point|id2=Q511349|marker2=airport |marker-size2=medium |title2=[[Bhavnagar Airport|Bhavnagar]]
|type3=point|id3=Q619716|marker3=airport |marker-size3=medium |title3=[[Bhuj Airport|Bhuj]]
|type4=point|id4=Q1656942|marker4=airport |marker-size4=small |title4=[[Deesa Airport|Deesa]]
|type5=point|id5=1595059|marker5=airport |marker-size5=small |title5=[[Jamnagar Airport|Jamnagar]]
|type6=point|id6=Q2722850|marker6=airport |marker-size6=small |title6=[[Keshod Airport|Keshod]]
|type7=point|id7=Q48730693|marker7=airport |marker-size7=small |title7=[[Mundra Airport|Mundra]]
|type8=point|id8=Q1931349|marker8=airport |marker-size8=small |title8=[[Porbandar Airport|Porbandar]]
|type9=point|id9=Q48730693|marker9=airport |marker-size9=small |title9=[[Mundra Airport|Mundra]]
|type10=point|id10=Q42377088|marker10=airport |marker-size10=small |title10=[[Rajkot International Airport|Rajkot New]]
|type11=point|id11=Q7286282|marker11=airport |marker-size11=small |title11=[[Rajkot Airport|Rajkot]]
|type12=point|id12=Q2775871|marker12=airport |marker-size12=small |title12=[[Surat International Airport|Surat]]
|type13=point|id13=Q3274467|marker13=airport |marker-size13=small |title13=[[Vadodara Airport|Vadodara]]

DSP2092 (👤, 🗨️) 07:21, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done problem fixed. Some wikidata didn't have coordinates. DSP2092 (👤, 🗨️) 07:39, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Preview warnings for unexpected parameters[edit]

When I preview an edit for ​ , ​ I see

'Preview warning: Page using Template:WikiProject Mathematics with unexpected parameter "frequentlyviewed"

Preview warning: Page using Template:WikiProject Mathematics with unexpected parameter "field"'

in the WikiProjects section. ​ ​ ​ Do those warnings indicate an issue that should be fixed?

JumpDiscont (talk) 07:30, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:JumpDiscont, it looks like support for those template parameters was removed in 2020, but evidently they haven't all been cleaned up. You can delete the parameters from the instance of {{WikiProject Mathematics}} on Talk:Monty Hall problem if you'd like; seeing the template warning messages on edit and membership in the maintenance category Category:Pages using WikiProject Mathematics with unknown parameters (18,467) are the only issues this causes. Folly Mox (talk) 09:33, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Helping new Wikipedia volunteers[edit]


We are a group of 7 people, and have a project to create and edit content on Wikipedia.

We know nothing about editing in Wikipedia or very very little (that's me).

Reading help pages is useful but not everyone's cup of tea, so I'm looking for other methods.

Are there any online sessions for beginners or Wikipedia for Dummies? We'll watch relevant youtube videos, but my thinking was like a cohort working live with a mentor or something like that.

Thank you Samisawtak (talk) 09:27, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Samisawtak, and welcome! :)
A lot of the 'getting started' type help content is gathered together at this page, by miraculous coincidence (!) titled "Getting started". There you'll find plenty of links to tutorials, guided learning journeys, and further help. There are probably other ways of getting started also, but that would be my go-to resource.
As you mention that there are several of you involved in this, please note that Wikipedia user accounts are for use by a single individual only, so you should all set up your own user accounts if you haven't already done so.
Happy editing! -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:05, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Samisawtak: Also, Wikipedia:Introduction, and also the links in the "Welcome" message I just left you on your Talk page. If you leave a message here with the userids of the other six members, I will leave them welcome messages, too (unless someone beats me to it!).Mathglot (talk) 10:10, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Supportive suggestions for wikipedia fundraisers[edit]

I was not sure where to put this so I thought I would ask/suggest here. let me know the right place and I will bring up these supportive fundraising ideas there.

Anytime a person looks up a company name, where that company is on a list of companies with charity matching grants, they see a "Donate from this company and get a matching donation from the company" message during the fundraising period. Also There could be menu box/autocomplete textarea with "type your employers name to find out if they will match your donation". Bing Chat Copilot says, "about 22.3% of workers with a bachelor’s degree or higher worked for very large employers in 2020 ". That suggests that about 7 million employees with college degrees work for companies with some likeliness of charity matching. I'm making the weird, but likely assumption that people look up the companies they work for on wikipedia.

What is the right area at wikipedia to bring this suggestion and other suggestions for fundraising up?

Thanks! Treonsverdery (talk) 10:03, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi! @Treonsverdery I suggest you to visit for more details. I have no knowledge on how fundraising works here, you may find some help in the meta fundraising page. Leoneix (talk) 10:52, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Treonsverdery, people can find out of their employers will match donations to the WMF at Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 13:02, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

confusion about the picture "pale blue dot "[edit]

where are the other planet in the picture 'pale blue dot' by voyager 1 (talk) 10:18, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, this is probably best asked at the article talk page, Talk:Pale Blue Dot. 331dot (talk) 10:21, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As explained in the article, you will find them at Family Portrait (Voyager). Shantavira|feed me 11:33, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Does it have to be in it? Could they be out of frame? Try the reference desk (WP:RD/S) Usedtobecool ☎️ 12:09, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All the other planets in our solar system are indeed out of frame. Space is really big – even at the scale where Earth is less than a pixel across, the image isn't nearly big enough to cover the rest of the planets. As linked above, Family Portrait, which was created by combining several images together, does cover a wide enough field to capture the rest of the planets. Tollens (talk) 13:29, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I need review and help on a draft, how to get some ?[edit]

Hi there ! I'm totally new and wikipedia but working since a couple of month on an article about Soundpainting (a sign-language used for live-composition) and I submitted it twice, and it has been twice decline. I've changed a lot of things, added a lot of other sources, but I don't see how I can improve it more... Could anyone give me some help to make it more read like an encyclopedic article and less like an essay ? Thanks a lot !!

Here is the draft : Draft:Soundpainting

Looking forward to hear/read from you --AnnePernas (talk) 11:35, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@AnnePernas Wikidata shows that there are already nine other-language articles on soundpainting, including in French, German, Italian and Spanish. These won't be perfect but may give you some ideas. Currently, you have a table of ensembles which I don't think helps the draft, since they are unsourced, and as you say "This list is absolutely non-exhaustive." which is, indeed, essay-speak. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:53, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Michael D. Turnbull, it's translated from the French version according to fr:Discussion utilisateur:Binabik#Question de Anne (16 novembre 2023 à 18h54) and HTML comments within the draft itself like auto-translated by Module:CS1 translator -->, hence the translation attribution template at Draft talk:Soundpainting. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 12:56, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Revert war[edit]

 – Shungite Remsense 13:08, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is an editor on the "Shungite" page that reverts my edits as soon as I put them up. There are now three reverts. On his last one, he wrote, "please discuss changes on the talk page before editing" - yet he has no comments on the talk page and gives no explanation as to why my edits needed to be reverted.

If you look at the "talk" page, you will see that I explained every change, and cited every source before the last revision. I am reverting it back, as he gave no input or reason for completely deleting my changes. I believe his is the original author and may feel ownership of this topic. I reverted it back - with an explanation as I is my practice. I anticipate that he will revert it again without explanation, and this becomes his fourth revision. MelroseReporter (talk) 13:04, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This has all happened today, I am not sure why there is such a rush. It is generally not considered apropos to be asked to discuss a change, and then reestablish that change before an understanding has been reached. I would recommend actually discussing the issues with this person on the talk page before doing anything else on the page itself or beyond it. As far as I can tell, while you and the other editor disagree, they have not assumed bad faith from you, and you should return the courtesy. Assuming another person feels like they have ownership of an article is often the quickest way to acting possessively yourself.
The point of a talk page discussion is to have a discussion—there's usually no hard rules as to what order actions need to take place in, it shouldn't be taken as a slight that you're asked to discuss things on the talk page and haven't been explicitly preempted in doing so. People have different communication styles, and that's why assuming good faith is important. Remsense 13:17, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's not normally a rush. Usually I make an edit and he reverts within moments. I did revert it as his reason for wiping out hours of work without explaining why. In the same fashion, he could discuss on talk page before wiping out my changes. Is there a time limit I should wait before submitting a revision? Thank you! MelroseReporter (talk) 13:29, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
MelroseReporter, don't worry about time limits, worry about assuming good faith from your fellow editor, please. There is no reason for anyone to assume bad faith or not treat each other's concerns as reasonable so far. A part of the reason Wikipedia works is your work has not been wiped out—it is in the edit history of the article and can be found and reintegrated into the article in whatever form is deemed appropriate.
As you know, a third editor has brought up some concerns with your additions, these shouldn't be disregarded just because they did not come from the original editor—since neither you nor the original editor own the article, it's just as necessary to engage with their concerns regardless of who did what in what order. Put another way—reverting again would seem to value a very narrow view of decorum over the variously stated concerns of two people, and I would consider that to be wholly inappropriate. Everyone just cares about the article's quality. Remsense 13:39, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MelroseReporter: I note you have already been blocked once for abusive editing. And yet here you are on thin ice, engaging in a revert war on Shungite and largely ignoring the suggestions & requests that you discuss edits before making them. You want to wipe out the suggestion that Shungite is antibacterial because of its heavy metal content, because you misread or misapply a paper which talks about two diffeent sorts of Shungite, one of which lacks heavy metals. You want to insist that Shungite is made of fullerines, when the same paper you rely on talks of it having only traces of fullerines.
So here's what I'm going to do. I'm going to revert the article to the position before you started your revert war, before you started editing it. I'm going to INSIST that changes are discussed on the talk page before they are made. And if you persist in edit warring, I'm going to wheel you over to WP:ANI for them to deal with you. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:53, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a recently accepted article. I've merged the duplicate refs and it is a bit scant on them. If someone would take a look, that'd be great. My bigger concern is the unpublished manuscript used. This isn't valid for use, correct? - UtherSRG (talk) 15:22, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ref has now been removed as not legitimate. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:29, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category formatting?[edit]

Hi all, I recently created the article Heart Play: Unfinished Dialogue, and attempted to add categories, but the category formatting looks wrong. I've skimmed through WP:Categorization, but can't figure it out. Please help! Thanks! Of the universe (talk) 15:33, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Of the universe, including the colon before the 'Category:' prefix means it is just a link to the category. I have fixed it by removing that colon, [[:Category:John Lennon albums]] -> [[Category:John Lennon albums]]. You can do the same with templates, interlanguage links, etc. Sungodtemple (talkcontribs) 15:41, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks! Of the universe (talk) 15:44, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User:WillKomen.Thanks for th very friandly welcome! excited to start using Wikpedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by MouseArtichoke! (talkcontribs) 17:19, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]