Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1212

Archive 1205

←

Archive 1210

Archive 1211

Archive 1212

Archive 1213

Archive 1214

Archive 1215

wikipedia submission

Hello, Wikipedia friends. Let me introduce myself. I'm Nana Sarna from Central Java, and I am currently writing Wikipedia. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Draft:Markus_Soegiarto . My vision and mission revolve around conveying balanced information about Indonesia to a global audience. Even though Indonesia has the fourth largest population in the world, I have identified differences in recognition between Indonesian figures and other world figures. By providing balanced information and comprehensive understanding, we can contribute to making the world a better place and reducing misunderstandings.

Journalists carefully selected several Indonesian figures, so they received comprehensive coverage in various media in Indonesia. Despite receiving awards in Indonesia, only a few public figures receive international recognition. But I found Markus Soegiarto in a Google Scholar search, and he meets Wikipedia's criteria for being recognized as one of the notable people.

I respectfully request assistance submitting it to Wikipedia, and I welcome any input to address potential deficiencies in my content. Your guidance in this matter is greatly appreciated. Best Regards

Nanasarna.pers (talk) 02:49, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I recommend following the advice given in the message declining your draft. The sources you have provided do not establish notability for the subject: they are either close to the subject (e.g. their profiles on various websites, pages from organizations they are a part of), are from unreliable sources (e.g. YouTube videos), or are not actually about the subject, either only mentioning them in passing or are about something else entirely (like this article, which does not mention the subject).

Generally, biographies require multiple reliable sources following the above criteria to establish notability. See the links provided in the declining message for the relevant site policies and guidelines.

(Also, this isn't the reason for declining, but there are numerous style problems, such as the bolding of first-level headers. Use sections as described on this page. The draft also reads as promotional material, and should be written in a more encyclopedic tone.) Remsense留 02:57, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

@Nanasarna.pers Welcome to the Teahouse! Creating a new article from scratch is extremely challenging, and new editors are strongly recommended to spend a few months learning how Wikipedia works, by making improvements to some of our existing six million articles before trying it. When you do decide to have a go at a new article, you are highly encouraged to read WP:Your first article. If you haven't already also check out WP:TUTORIAL; it's a lot of fun! Happy editing! . In Draft:Markus Soegiarto you received feedback on why it was declined at this point. Countering Wikipedia's WP:Systemic bias is important. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 02:59, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi! I wanted to see previous in the news posts!

Here is a link of what I am referring to, to see! http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:In_the_news

So for example what was there last week? And the week before that? Thank you and have a nice day haha! 24.7.63.175 (talk) 05:13, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1212. To the best of my knowledge ITN doesn't operate on a weekly basis; you'll have to go to Special:History/Template:In the news to see when items were added or removed. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:04, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Some clarifications on draft submission

I am creating this page - Draft:K._K._Kochukoshy, since its my first time i am running into a few confusions. It'd be nice to hear from others.

1. The first reviewer mentioned that its not worthy of Wikipedia, i did read up http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not, and i dont think thats applicable, since the person in question is checked upon for sources/works quite frequently. I believe having an open body where others can add would be very helpful.

2. I am related to the person and have contributed most of it, i do not mind expressing that as a disclaimer. Is there something i should do about it? There is already a badge for autobiography and i think thats relevant.

3. I have cited most of it, some are from physical books - which i am happy to provide scanned copies or photos. if needed, when and where should i showcase these?

4. There is a mention of birthday and place, in the infobox - how can i cite them?

5. Is there anything else you would like to see be corrected, please do let me know. As in if there are any glaring issues which might lead it to be declined again.

Thanks so much for your time and efforts, happy to learn! Koshyviv (talk) 07:00, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Koshyviv.

1. I do not see where any reviewer said that the topic of your draft is not "worthy" of Wikipedia. All I see is comments on the current state of the draft when those comments were made.

2. The best place to disclose your conflict of interest is on your own userpage, where you currently say nothing about it. If you are not actually the person in question, then WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY does not apply unless this person is instructing you what to do on Wikipedia. But the specific details about your relationship with this person are very important, and you need to disclose them fully and frankly. Be honest.

3. There is no need to and no benefit to sharing scans of any book pages. Just provide a reference with complete bibliographic details. Scanning a page of a contemporary book and uploading it is a blatant copyright violation which is not permitted on Wikipedia.

4. To cite birth date and birthplace, provide a reference to a reliable source that verifies that information, and add it to the article as an inline citation.

5. The very best thing, by far, that you can do next is to indicate which of your references are to reliable published sources completely independent of Kochukoshy that devote significant coverage to Kochukoshy. Such references are the essential precondition to writing an acceptable Wikipedia article. Cullen328 (talk) 07:29, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the response!

1. Im sorry, i meant, it was written in one of the banners that it does not "qualify" for an article (but not in the comments)

2. Thank you, i'll update this.

3. Got it, i have provided the complete details along with the page numbers. Just thought it would difficult for others to review.

4. Thanks, i'll update this too.

5. I see, should i create up a table on the talk page of the site? I have mostly used verbatim content from the sources. And, only his publications and his personal website(which was used for education and birth dates/place) are by authored by him. But i do understand, this may cause confusion for other reviewers too - so im happy to improve it. Koshyviv (talk) 07:58, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

D-ID and Perplexity.ai

Hello, yesterday I wrote two articles about companies dealing with artificial intelligence (D-ID and Perplexity.ai). Apart from being a teacher who uses these programs, I have no connection, business or otherwise, with them. As I presented in the sources, these are two articles that I understand from using Wikipedia for years, should exist here. I cannot reasonably be expected to "prove a negative" and demonstrate my lack of affiliation with these companies. How do I transfer these two drafts to the article space? I would appreciate your help.Galamore (talk) 08:09, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Galamore: welcome, and thanks for your contributions! I would strongly recommend that you don't publish these directly, but put them through the Articles for Creation (AfC) review process, where experienced editors will assess the drafts and either accept them or provide feedback on further development required. I will add the AfC submission template to your drafts; when you're ready to request a review, just click on the blue 'submit' button. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:16, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help. I will work on the articles a little more and then pass to review.Galamore (talk) 08:20, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Which cleanup template should be put in the Stroad article.

A lot of references in the Stroad article are ultimately cited from the same source, Not Just Bikes. I believe a template in the set of Wikipedia:Template_index/Cleanup#Individual_message_boxes:_Issues_with_citations_and_sources should be put there but I do not know which one. Jothefiredragon (talk) 09:27, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Jothefiredragon, and welcome to the Teahouse. {{one source}} seems to be the template you want here. ContributeToTheWiki (talk • contribs) 10:23, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi dude's Happy Monday

my name is ARAVIND i am from india especially tamilnadu I would like to be a friend to all just I information I say about me. If you like be a friend with me say hi please. Aravindkumararjunan1986 (talk) 13:29, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Aravindkumararjunan1986 Teahouse is a place to ask for help with Wikipedia editing problems, not for chat or making friends. I see that you started your account almost a year ago, and currently have four active drafts. Do you have any questions about those? David notMD (talk) 13:42, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Ok understood Aravindkumararjunan1986 (talk) 14:06, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

How to edit vandalism on pop-up?

Hi all, the pop-up for Coloumb's constant's in the Geiger-Mardsen Experiment article shows the text "You know you don't know this Jennifer" instead of showing information pertaining to Coloumb's constant. How do I change it and if the article pop-up can not be changed easily, then where/who can I go to get it fixed?

Imbluey2 (talk) 11:32, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out. It was vandalism on the article Coulomb's law, reverted after two minutes and thirteen seconds. It may have taken some time for the reversion to propagate to places like pop-ups. ColinFine (talk) 11:44, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

@Imbluey2: I have purged Coulomb's law. This fixed it. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:09, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Kindly help me to find how to get approve my Draft

Hi there I was write 3 articals in English all are decline due to less coverage and notability even I provide more reference would you please help me to what is the issue

Draft:Harishankar_Narayanan Aravindkumararjunan1986 (talk) 13:58, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Aravindkumararjunan1986, and welcome to the Teahouse. I have converted your external link above to a wikilink.

You have been given abundant advice on that draft. What do you not understand about it?

More generally, I always advise new editors to spend a few months making improvements to existing articles, and learning how Wikipedia works (especially about notability, verifiability, neutral point of view and reliable sources) before they ever try the challenging task of creating a new article. I suggest you forget about your draft for a while, while you learn the craft of editing Wikipedia.

Also, judging from your use of English in your question above, I wonder if you might be more successful in, say Tamil Wikipedia?--ColinFine (talk) 14:34, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

should I bring this to articles for deletion?

I thought that this subject wasn't notable, and the article felt a bit promotional, so I proposed it for deletion. Another editor contested that, with the summary saying "significant coverage in cited sources." The sources are 3 links to the site itself, and a link to a listicle that 404s. I think that's a pretty weak case for notability. Would it be appropriate to bring this to Articles for Deletion at this point? Or am I obligated to try to find better sources myself first? 4.16.149.14 (talk) 15:28, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi. Yes indeed, in light of those sources alone there is insufficient evidence of notability. But if you wish to take this to AfD, you need to first check whether better sources can be found, per WP:BEFORE.

As for the "a bit promotional" part, bear in mind that AfD is not cleanup. Articles should not be deleted for issues which can be resolved with editing. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:47, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Talking to other editors

Is there a way on Wikipedia to send private messages to other editors or is the only way to communicate to them publicly through their Talk page?

Also, is there some kind of a forum on Wikipedia where various topics and interests can be discussed with others? Ellegony (talk) 14:44, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Ellegony, for the first question, you can email a user. As Wikipedia is not a forum there is no such general discussion board; however, you can ask questions at the reference desk. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 14:50, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

For you're Forum questain; Each article has a talk page. so, for example, if I wanted to ask if "XY from Aliens X could be added..." to the Xenomorph page, I'd ask "Can the XY from Aliens X be added?" in the Xenomorph talk page!

And, some users can be contacted through email. Hope this helps! Babysharkboss2 was here!! (Talking Heads) (Weezer) 14:50, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

@Ellegony: The various talk pages on Wikipedia are to discuss how to use Wikipedia and improve Wikipedia articles, not to be general discussion forums. For example, if you were interested in the Wonka (film) article, you could use Talk:Wonka (film) to discuss issues with the article or your suggestions for improving the article, but not to discuss how much you enjoyed or hated the film. Likewise, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film is an example of a place to discuss things such as the format of Wikipedia film-related articles, but not to discuss which films or actors you like. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 16:50, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Help! Accidentally created article instead of Draft

I accidentally created the article Electronic Theater Controls. First of all, I spelt it wrong. Secondly, it's not nearly finished. I only have the references from the website. Is it possible to set it as a draft?

P.S. is it ok to use references from the thing im writing about if it is data specs? (I am also writing an article about the Source Four fixture that ETC makes and I dont know if it is a COF.) Hugtrain (talk) 14:53, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

It already exists as a draft here Draft:Electronic Theatre Controls where it has been declined 8 times and finally rejected. Theroadislong (talk) 15:01, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Hugtrain, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Please read about notability and verifiability. An article must be almost entirely based on sourcces unconnected with the subject. You can use non-independent sources in a limited way (see WP:ABOUTSELF) but generally speaking, if you can't find an independent source for some information, then it doesn't belong in an article.

Furthermore, the fact that that the draft has been declined multiple times and rejected strongly suggests that several people have looked for, and failed to find, suitable sources to establish notability. In this case, the only activity you can do on it that has even a possibility of being worthwhile is to look even harder for such sources: unless you find some, anything you do on it will be a waste of your time. ColinFine (talk) 15:12, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

nooooooo HHSharkBoyBackup4 (talk) 17:49, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

How do I find easy to edit Wikipedia articles for beginners?

I am a new editor on Wikipedia, and most articles I am trying to edit are highly complicated for me. When Wikipedia is such a vast directory of articles, how can I find one article that needs editing, corrections, or contributions from my side? Or, to put it simply, where do I get started? Yashrajkarthike (talk) 05:29, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi there! I like WikiProjects, which devote themselves to improving articles by topic, and collaborate to do so. On most WikiProject pages, there's a chart that shows roughly where articles are at in terms of quality, and on their talk pages people often talk about improving articles within. Do you have any particular interests or areas you'd like to edit within? There's likely a WikiProject for it. Editors often use this third-party tool to look at articles with certain problems within WikiProjects.

You can also potentially browse Recent changes and see if there are any articles being worked on that also pique your interest. If you want more ideas, let me know. Cheers! Remsense留 06:11, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

If you have Special:Homepage activated, it also suggests articles to edit or improvements to implement. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 06:49, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I like the idea of using WikiProjects; it's going to be way more effective than using the traditional methods. I am thankful for your help; this is exactly what I was looking for. Yashrajkarthike (talk) 06:54, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Welcome Yashrajkarthike! I've been mostly making minor edits to articles I happen to read. If you're a regular user then there will be lots of opportunities, and it's been a good way for me to pay more attention to what I'm reading. It's got to the point where when I'm reading other websites I'll think "I want to fix that!" before realizing I'm not on Wikipedia. Gamboler (talk) 02:38, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Those websites likely have some contact information for you to submit corrections to (e.g email). Blueskiesdry (talk) 18:05, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

There is also the WP:Task center which has some things to do and whether they are suitable for beginners 115.188.140.167 (talk) 08:12, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I also used the Random Article link in the panel under the logo for quite some time when I was a new user. I still find its use entertaining. BusterD (talk) 18:20, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Online forums a reliable/secondary source and what date format?

For example, lets say I need to post an update to the Midland Main Line upgrade article page. Would UK Railway forums be a good source in seeing when the MML would be complete or the Network Rail website? How about something like the Railway Magazine Railway Magazine or the Rail Engineer or this

Also with regards to date format, which is acceptable (for 2024/01/08, todays date in UTC) and can you use Jan instead of January? Given that using the bottom two may cause confusion.

• 2024/01/08
• 8 January 2024
• January 8, 2024
• 08/01/2024 (dd/mm/yyyy)
• 01/08/2024 (mm/dd/yyyy)

Breathinkeeps32 (talk) 18:15, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

As most/all information on these forums is user-generated, no, this would not be reliable.

As for the dates, the article you linked says to use dmy dates (so the fourth one in your list). Blueskiesdry (talk) 18:22, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Edit: when I say dates, I mean whether it is used normally, or in a citation/reference Breathinkeeps32 (talk) 18:26, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I’m pretty sure it’s a blanket guideline. Blueskiesdry (talk) 18:27, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi, since it is tagged as DMY (and YYYY-MM-DD is not used in the article currently), it should be the second in the list, 8 January 2024, for both prose and references (but 2024-01-08, not 2024/01/08, would be acceptable in references if that is the style of the page) since it's unusual in prose to do an all numeric date and WP:CITESTYLE says Although nearly any consistent style may be used, avoid all-numeric date formats other than YYYY-MM-DD, because of the ambiguity concerning which number is the month and which the day. For example, 2002-06-11 may be used, but not 11/06/2002. But it should be consistent as much as possible with other references while staying within our style guide. See MOS:DATEFORMAT for many more examples. So abbreviated months are fine in some cases as long as it's consistent within the article and I think the general preference is full month names. Skynxnex (talk) 18:50, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

HELP!

I am new here and dont know a clue about editing but I volunteered for a big project. ANY TIPS AND TRICKS WILL BE HELPFUL!!

(I dont have access to YouTube though sadly) Junipernose (talk) 19:16, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Help:Editing has a large library of resources, you can ask any questions you have here.

happy editing, Geardona (talk to me?) 19:22, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello,

Wikipedia:FAQ/Editing can also help you.

 Thanks Geardona (talk to me?) 19:26, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Welcome. Is there any reason you can access Wikipedia but not YouTube? Do you have parental controls on or something? Blueskiesdry (talk) 19:38, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Can't make pages

I can't make.pages ok? How.to help HHSharkBoyBackup4 (talk) 17:52, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. New accounts cannot directly create articles, but you may use the article wizard to create and submit a draft for review. Creating a new article is challenging, it is highly recommended that you first use the new user tutorial, and edit existing articles first, to learn more about Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 18:04, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Are you the same person as User:Hugtrain? I ask because you both are involved with Electronic Theater (or Theatre) Controls and Hugtrain has been indef blocked. David notMD (talk) 19:49, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

This may be my error. You commented above on a thread started by Hugtrain about ETC. However, you do not appear to have edited either ETC with Theatre or ETC with Theater. Editor 331dot correctly answered that new accounts cannot make articles, but can make drafts to then be submitted. As to Hugtrain and Segatari, both have been blocked, but it is possible that both were trying to create separate drafts as Theater/Theatre was just a coincidence, in which case Hugtrain and Segatari may both be able to succeed in appealing a block. David notMD (talk) 21:09, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Draft reviews

Hello, teahouse. Today, I have a few drafts I might scrap but wanted a review before abandoning them. And before any Wikipedians badger me on how I'm supposed to find citations before putting words, I know, they're just a placeholder.

1. Letter of Apology - The trouble I'm having with this one is not of sources but of specification. There aren't many sources discussing the history of apology letters, and certainly not enough to prove notability. I was wondering if this would work better merged into letter.
2. Jschlatt - Currently redirects to OTK and almost feel it should stay that way. Created before looking for sources which was definitely a mistake in retrospect.
3. List of coincidences - A stupid, stupid idea looking back, but I still want editors' thoughts. The idea was to set up barriers to make the list manageable- namely only put noteworthy coincidences, but even that could be abused and arbitrary due to lack of clear definition for 'coincidence'.
4. List of shipwrecks by depth - Another one that would be very hard to manage, but this would at least be doable. I would revive this if interest is shown.
5. List of video game modes - My first draft, and one I'm still proud of. I think with my newfound Wikistreet-smarts I could prove notability but wanted to consult Teahouse first. Best regards, UnexpectedSmoreInquisition aka USI (talk) 04:34, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

   UnexpectedSmoreInquisition, here's my take on each:
   

   1. Draft:Letter of apology – I'm not so sure! It borders on WP:NOTDICT to me, but I'm sure there may be sources that deal with the topic specifically, so that a full article that is not an improper synthesis could be written.
   2. Draft:Jschlatt – I agree, should probably stay a redirect.
   3. Draft:List of coincidences – So, I think you could take a step back here. People aren't required to use articles any particular way, or write them for any particular purpose, but if you ask yourself "research on what topic could be started by reading this list article?", that could help you focus your thoughts. The idea does seem very, very broad, and I think if there's a book titled "The Big Book of Coincidences", or whatever, that you should take a look at it to try to get a handle on what the scope for the article could be.
   4. Draft:List of shipwrecks by depth – I like this one, it seems very doable.
   5. Draft:List of video game modes – This one could use a lot more focus: it seems like multiple list articles could be made instead, as yours seems to presently be List of first-person shooter modes, and does not consider other genres. A reasonably complete list with this subject would be very long, possibly too long.

   
   (And since you've anticipated my 🦡ing, I suppose I'll still 🦡 a bit: it's often important to work from sources from the beginning, because if you write first and source later, it can often become a lot of work trying to track down cites for certain concept, or even result in a sourced article that nevertheless is not balanced in its presentation of the topic.)
   🦡 Cheers! 🦡 Remsense留 05:01, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

   @David notMD@Remsense Thank you two for your thoughts! (As for Ramsense: how do you do all of that crazy coding stuff like your name and page!? I would malfunction if I even attempted that!) UnexpectedSmoreInquisition aka USI (talk) 12:19, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

   Lots of trial and error! If you have specific questions about a specific thing, feel free to ask on my talk page! Remsense留 21:12, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

No, No opinion, Really no, Meh and No. David notMD (talk) 08:23, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

article scenario

Let's say i'm making an article on a video game I have really grown to love, is the information more important or the references? Jude marrero (talk) 21:01, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Jude marrero, hello! all information in an article needs to be verifiable with reliable sources, and it's while it's not disallowed to add information without a reference, it's much easier to make sure the information you're adding is verifiable if you're adding the sources at the same time. Also, information without a citation may be challenged and removed, up to the discretion of fellow editors. Remsense留 21:04, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Well, an article should be informative, with trustworthy sources. So, try and find a reliable source, with good information, then use said information in the article, and cite it using the sources. Babysharkboss2 was here!! X♡O 21:04, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

@Jude marrero: The information in the article must come from references not your personal experiences. Start by finding the references before you start writing the article. See WP:BACKWARDS RudolfRed (talk) 21:04, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. You are asking a question that seems to be like asking "what's more important when building a sandwich, the bread or the meat?". You need both. You need independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the topic to summarize in an article, showing how the topic is notable. For video games, that includes any sources that discuss the creation of the game, anything that makes it significant/important/influential as a game, and unsolicited reviews of the game. 331dot (talk) 21:04, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

@Jude marrero Our criteria for whether or not a video game is worthy of having a Wikipedia article about it can be found at Wikipedia:Notability (video games). Just because you like it doesn't make it notable. Finding reliable sources that demonstrate notability (i.e. that the wider world has taken note of something) is the main thing to consider.

But you might also like to think about 'cutting your teeth' by improving existing Wikipedia articles about video games. Again - don't write from personal experience; write from published sources. See also: WikiProject Video games. Hope this helps, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:58, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Nick! I'll give it a look Jude marrero (talk) 22:29, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

If earnest Hemingway were alive

He would make one uber-duber Wikipedian!!! Comintell (talk) 11:04, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Don't you mean humorous Hemingway? dubious Hemingway? verbose Hemingway? See For sale: baby shoes, never worn for anecdote about Ernest Hemingway (note spelling). David notMD (talk) 12:43, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

good one. Maddiemarshall (talk) 04:11, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Silly spelling is my superpower. But seriously he would never make edits that are crap.

No puffery. And..... perhaps while not adhering to strict grammar, he still wouldn't make spelling errors of other authors' names!!!! Comintell (talk) 23:10, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Position vacant. Lion Tamer. Always Hiring. BlueWren0123 (talk) 23:30, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

What do you do when a url has a global block

I'm trying to cite an article using scrip but for some reason I am not allowed to. What do I do when the information published in this journal is critical for an article Citation. I can't even post the doi here Heatrave (talk) 00:23, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

The url and journal are likely blacklisted, which does not reflect kindly on its reliability. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 00:34, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps, Heatrave, the journal is junk and the "information" that it presents could well be junk. If this is so, then the block is beneficial. Anyway, once a source is blacklisted, the onus is on anyone wishing to cite it to explain how doing so would benefit Wikipedia. See WP:Spam_blacklist. -- Hoary (talk) 00:41, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

@Heatrave: You said "scrip" but I guess you meant scirp: Scientific Research Publishing. The spam block list log [1] shows you have tried to add https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation?paperid=107865. See MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/September 2022#scirp.org for the latest discussion about the site. Exceptions for specific articles can be requested at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist but it may be declined. scirp has a very poor reputation. It appears their business model is to charge for publication and accept almost anything as long as they get paid. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:03, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Ahhh – I assumed it was a typo of "script" referring the VisualEditor's "generate a reference" tool. Thanks, PrimeHunter. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 18:14, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter thank you for the breakdown. It is quite unfortunate. The link paper contains information i know to be true but unfortunately published on the wrong platform Heatrave (talk) 00:37, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Turn off your vpn. Gamboler (talk) 02:39, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

@Gamboler I do not use VPN Heatrave (talk) 00:33, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Should I mention the Gold Derby Awards?

Hello Teahouse! If a subject has been nominated/awarded with a Gold Derby award, do you think it is okay to mention in the subject's article? I don't know if it's notable enough to mention, though I'm leaning towards no. Spinixster (chat!) 02:25, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

To me, there should be a mention in an independent source(not the awarding body or the awardee) if it's notable enough. Ca ^{talk to me!} 06:19, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that seems to be the problem here. There's none (if not, little) independent sources announcing the winners other than the official website. However, I still see Wikipedia articles mentioning the Gold Derby awards (search "gold derby" on the search bar for some examples). Spinixster (chat!) 02:02, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

OpenGL Citation Needed (Maybe I found a good one?)

Hi, I'm currently trying to find a citation for the OpenGL article for the 'citation needed' tag on the version history table. I found this fine paper on the topic, but it doesn't explicitly mention the date that OpenGL released. It has a copyright date of the same year, but that's just about it.

So, is this source good enough? Coulomb1 (talk) 22:29, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Coulomb1. (I fixed your external link, which had some rubbish on the end). No, I don't think that will do. That sort of reference is generally OK for things like release dates - but since it doesn't mention a release date at all, there is no way that it can be used to support the claimed date of 1995!

If you can't find another source, either remove the date, or I suppose you can just about get away with "before March 1997" (that's technically original research, but I don't think anybody would quibble). --ColinFine (talk) 22:41, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I turned something up on Google Books and added a cite. MrOllie (talk) 03:16, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Jumma Miyazaki

The footballer Jumma Miyazaki has a link on the article I'm not sure where it leads. I know it's very unlikely to be a virus, but I'll post the article here so someone with anti virus software can check it out. Jumma Miyazaki Thanks! :) RossEvans18 (talk) 22:12, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Ross. I guess you mean one of the external links in that article: which one? And why do you think it's dodgy? ColinFine (talk) 22:35, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I have checked all the links in the references, no virus threat found. The link in the body of the article is not dangerous, I think someone mistakenly use the ref tag. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 04:09, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Transparent background for image

Currently improving this article. How do I get rid of the white background for the game's cover art? Thanks, TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 04:41, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

@TrademarkedTWOrantula: Welcome to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1212. With .jpegs you can't do transparent backgrounds. It'd have to be a file type like .png or .svg. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:49, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Oh okay. So I'm assuming I have to convert the file type to one of those then reupload the image? TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 04:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

The old-school way would be to:

1. Download the image to your device
2. Open an image editing program or app like paint.net
3. Delete the white background (it will appear checkered when this is done)
4. Save as .png
5. Upload that as a new version of the file

These days there are sites that can offer the use of AI to do it for you, but results may vary. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:05, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Inserting "under dispute"

How do you insert the "this page is under dispute" template at the start of the article? 80.80.52.239 (talk) 04:52, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1212. Does {{disputed}} suit your needs? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:11, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I think yes. I think it does, but I don't know for sure. If you want, you can take a look:

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/ZX_Spectrum_graphic_modes 80.80.52.239 (talk) 05:27, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

a green dancing Octopus with PhD in English Lit

Please write a short story of 5-7 or more sentences about a green dancing Octopus with PhD in English Lit. Set the story in Sam Bankman-Fried's FTX offices on November 8, 2022. 2601:19B:D00:A990:C026:A63A:36C3:D7FF (talk) 05:35, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Please do your own homework.
Welcome to the Wikipedia Help desk. Your question appears to be a homework question. I apologize if this is a misevaluation, but it is our policy here not to do others' homework, but merely to aid them in doing it themselves. Letting someone else do your homework does not help you learn how to solve such problems.
Please attempt to solve the problem yourself first. You can search Wikipedia or search the Web.
If you need help with a specific part of your homework, the Reference desk can help you grasp the concept. Do not ask knowledge questions here, just those about using Wikipedia. RudolfRed (talk) 05:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Chalcatzingo references cleanup

These last few days, I've been slowly but steadily working on trying to clean up the Chalcatzingo article's references and bring them in line with Wikipedia standards. I have added page numbers, corrected some citations, and introduced sfnp and cite templates, among some other things. However, I'm not sure about how to do regarding the article's general methodology for references. Most use sfnp, but some use

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

You see canoes driven at high speed ... leaping to the rhythmic throbbing of the drum-fire of the rapids. (qtd. in )

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

↓

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

account question

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

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

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

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

@Jude marrero: Add code like below to your CSS. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:21, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

.vector-user-menu-legacy #pt-userpage a, .mw-ui-icon-userAvatar {
  background-image: url(http://up.wiki.x.io/wikipedia/commons/4/47/OOjs_UI_icon_userAvatarOutline-progressive.svg) !important;
  background-repeat: no-repeat;
}

The CSS page is visible to everybody so others can see which image you choose if they look at the code. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:35, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Vandalisim/Spam over in a deletion page

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

Hello, TransButterflyQueen, and welceom to the Teahouse. Thank you for drawing it to our notice. This has already been raised above, at #Delete a article, and a number of people are looking at it. ColinFine (talk) 22:59, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Personal website

Hello, is it OK to use a personal website if you are looking for the opinions of a person. For example I am creating an article for Hirsh Vardhan Singh and could I use his campaign website Singh for President | About Hirsh (hirshsingh.com) in order to get information about his views. Casper king (talk) 21:44, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

? Casper king (talk) 21:44, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Casper, and welcome to the Teahouse. Basically, Wikipedia is not interested in his views, except as they have been discussed in independent reliable sources. Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.

You may use his website for limited uncontroversial factual information, see ABOUTSELF. ColinFine (talk) 23:01, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

OK thankyou this makes sense. Casper king (talk) 23:04, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

What does the clean up mean

When you move a page, there's this instruction to clean up and makes mention of default sort etc. What exactly does this mean and how does someone clean up after a move? Heatrave (talk) 22:15, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Heatrave. Please see WP:Cleaning up after a move. ColinFine (talk) 23:02, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

@Heatrave: The message is MediaWiki:Movepage-moved. Blue text is links. "clean up" links to the above. It's a general message for all moves. Today you moved Draft:Priority Insurance Company Limited to Priority Insurance Company Limited. Such draft moves may not involve general move cleanup but can involve draft-specific cleanup which isn't mentioned at Wikipedia:Cleaning up after a move, like removal of {{Draft categories}}. A bot should automatically remove it if it isn't done manually. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:15, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I would like to complain about WP:COMPUNITS

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

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

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

Oh, it is an entire soapbox. I'm all for international standards, but this is even above my powers, at least at this moment.

By the way, all the aruments are just wrong (IMO), probably because the argument for IEC and against the "majoriy" and "status quo" is not an easy one to make correctly. Z80Spectrum (talk) 22:56, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

It's fun to to read the arguments there, at least that. Z80Spectrum (talk) 22:58, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand: in the "Archives" box on the left side, all the discussions on binary prefixes end somewhere in 2009.

Where are newer proposals, newer attempts to introduce binary prefixes? Z80Spectrum (talk) 23:09, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I meant: Archives box on the *right* side. Z80Spectrum (talk) 23:10, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Z80Spectrum: Disputing that the computations are not "routine" is just your opinion. No, no, no, this is quite wrong. Once someone has disputed whether the computations are routine, consensus does not exist as described at WP:CALC. It then becomes incumbent on you, the one proposing to incorporate those calcs, to establish consensus. You do not get to demand an affirmative rebuttal of someone showing you where those calcs are wrong (or indeed, wrong at all: they can be completely correct and still unacceptable to include in the article unsourced). Consensus, as described at the linked policy, is a critical concept to understand in order to be a successful editor on Wikipedia. VQuakr (talk) 23:09, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I'll try to read again on "consensus", but I'll need some time to do that. I'll need at least 24 hours, I might be unavailable during some periods in the meantime.

But, in short, I think you have conflated two different things into one.

There is a difference between:

1. Whether the computation is accurate and correct, on that I need consensus, that's what WP:CALC says.

2. Whether the computation is routine, or whatever else: on that, I don't need consensus. Because, that is not defined by WP:CALC, so anyone can claim anything he likes about whether a computation is "routine" or not. Well, not entirely, like: for routine, there should at least be some kind of consistent application of the meaning of "routine" across the entire Wikipedia. Z80Spectrum (talk) 23:23, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

By the way, I think that you have helped me a lot to understand WP:CALC, so thank you for that.

I don't know whether it is relevant, but let me just quote this sentence of yours from our discussion:

"The example given for a relative standard is mathematical articles, where significantly more complex deductions and derivations maybe considered 'basic'." Z80Spectrum (talk) 21:50, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

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

Combating False information about my organization

Hello. I am beset by a very unusual set of circumstances here. Buckle up for this one! I am the son of the late Chief Hawk Pope. A great man in my eyes and in the eyes of many others for his accomplishments in life. In short, He succeeded in reviving a nearly lost group of Shawnee people in our traditional homeland of Ohio over the course of his life. Through the knowledge that his grandfather gave him as a child as well as the partnerships he would come to have throughout this nearly impossible task, he managed to reform the Shawnee Nation United Remnant Band. Suffice it to say that in the process of him accomplishing all that he did, he acquired quite a few friends as well as enemies. During and after gaining state recognition for our tribe, he was met with fierce opposition from a most unlikely source. Far to the west there are three "federally recognized" tribes of Shawnee people who saw his accomplishment as a threat to their status and authority over certain monetary interests. None of which were of any concern to my father. None the less they have taken it upon themselves to attack him and now myself as well as our tribe for decades. On the wiki page for my people, I have been in a constant fight with someone to maintain factual information. It's slander and I'm not sure how best to combat this. Please let me know what I can do. Thanks. 71.213.174.28 (talk) 01:27, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Based on your contribs, I think this is about I think this is this about United_Remnant_Band_of_the_Shawnee_Nation. Start a discussion on the article's talk page. If you can't get consensus from other editors, WP:DR may help. Read WP:REFB for guidance on how to insert references for any changes you want to make. RudolfRed (talk) 01:35, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Also, don't engage in an edit war. RudolfRed (talk) 01:38, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

You have been given excellent direction by @Discospinster:. Heed it would be my advice to you. Any information you wish to add MUST BE cited. Please see WP:RS.Regards,   Aloha27  talk  01:39, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Uploading images

This is my first time I'm uploading three images:

• File:Triangular bipyramid (symmetric net).svg
• File:Graph of triangular bipyramid.svg
• File:Chain of triangular bipyramid graph.svg

I'm trying to upload them to the Commons, but it does not have a license. This is redrawn from the sources I cited in the summary. Would someone like to teach me how to do so? Also, should I choose "my own work" with the reason of redrawing from the sources? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 01:31, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Dedhert.Jr. These look to be made from simple geometric shapes, so you can append {{PD-simple}} as the license. Do you have an option to 'Export to Wikimedia Commons' on the top of the file pages? gobonobo ^{+ c} 01:36, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

@Gobonobo Thank you. I have click that option, but it states in the following:

This file cannot be imported to Wikimedia Commons because it is not marked with a compatible licence. Wikimedia Commons does not allow such files. This might be resolvable, but most probably means the file is not compatible. Please consult the Wikimedia Commons community policy and talk pages about licensing.

Dedhert.Jr (talk) 01:38, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

@Dedhert.Jr: You might need to append the license first. It is Template:PD-simple, which you can produce with {{PD-simple}}. gobonobo ^{+ c} 01:40, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

@Gobonobo I have added the template into those three. What should I do next? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 01:42, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

@Dedhert.Jr: I think the 'export to Commons' link should work now. If not, let me know. gobonobo ^{+ c} 01:44, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

@Gobonobo Thank you. But how do I make those features is similarly to the image of File:Square pyramid net.svg? It shows the author for its own work, summary that contains description of the image and the sources. I have once did not click the option "as my own work" for those three. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 01:46, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

@Dedhert.Jr: Hmm. If I understand, you want the files to have a summary like File:Square pyramid net.svg. It will list you as the uploader, but you can clarify where the originals came from in the summary description. I would just add the summary after the file has been transferred over to Commons. If that's what you mean. gobonobo ^{+ c} 01:54, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

@Gobonobo Thank you. I have no idea how this works, but I could probably need assistance. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 01:55, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

@Dedhert.Jr: I could try to export one myself if you like and you can see what I do. gobonobo ^{+ c} 01:58, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

@Gobonobo Okay. I'll leave it to you. Also, can I remove no-license-tag in those three? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 02:00, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

@Dedhert.Jr: I've exported the File:Chain of triangular bipyramid graph.svg. The tag disappears when it is moved. But the summary has to be filled in. I based it off of the File:Square pyramid net.svg, but you might want to change it. It could also use categories, but I won't be much help there. gobonobo ^{+ c} 02:07, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

@Dedhert.Jr: You're welcome to remove the no-license tag when there's a valid license in place. But it won't be necessary as the local file will eventually be deleted once the files are exported over to Commons. You can see the Commons file here. I'll leave the other two files for you. gobonobo ^{+ c} 02:17, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

@Gobonobo Okay. I will try the rest. But I could ask for any help anytime. I appreciate your tips and assistance as well. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 02:21, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

@Gobonobo Sorry. One more thing. I did not realize that the square pyramid net actually may be viewed in the commons, which may be featured in many Wikipedia languages. Is it possible to do with those three as well? Can you help me with this one? I have looked at the comparison in the chain of triangular bipyramid. Regards. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 02:34, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

@Dedhert.Jr: Once the files are exported to Commons they will be accessible for use from any language edition. So, File:Chain of triangular bipyramid graph.svg is already there (even though we still have a copy here). After the other two files are exported, they will available across all the language editions as well. I believe the local copies will be deleted eventually, but can be marked for deletion with the tag {{db-commons}} as well. gobonobo ^{+ c} 02:48, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Okay. Thank you so much for the tips, assistance and explanations once again. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 02:51, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

No problem. Just ask if you have any other questions. Good luck and happy editing! gobonobo ^{+ c} 02:56, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Personal opinions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for the info about reliable sources. No, I accept your finding that Harrison's book is reliable. What has always bothered me is there is nothing in the text of the article itself to indicate that. If you look at Galobtter's post here, and what I said in my reply to her, immediately preceding your post of today, that should be clear. Please know that I very much appreciate your ongoing help in this discussion, both here at Teahouse and at the Rachmaninoff talkpage. Milkunderwood (talk) 05:56, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Transphobia in a file name

I am looking at a wikimedia link and it seems like the file name is a transphobic threat telling the creator to commit self harm. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Trans_pride_flag_Serbia_basic.png

Could anyone confirm if thats just a caption or the file name or not & please change it? When I go edit it, it tells me my ip will be public. Not my favourite idea considering the subject of discussion. Thank you ♥ 96.53.182.201 (talk) 05:58, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

It appears that it was vandalism added as text to the page (not part of the file name), and has been removed by someone else. Thank you for pointing it out! Tollens (talk) 06:27, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

The reason for the message about your IP being public is that that's the way Wikipedia attributes edits to articles by editors who have not registered and logged on. Registering and logging on actually gives you greater privacy on Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 06:34, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Can’t get into my account

Hi there, TheTeam219 here, I put in a request for my account name to be changed, but now I can’t get in. Please help! 2A01:599:443:3E16:F1C4:490:DB8E:BE47 (talk) 07:08, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Nevermind, im in, I forgot that it’s not antivandaliser, but its antivandalism2024, sorry about the confusion, you can delete my request! AntiVandalism2024 07:13, 12 January 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AntiVandaliser2024 (talk • contribs)

Your name is not AntiVandalism2024 (which hasn't even been registered here), it's AntiVandaliser2024. Or anyway it was when you were logged in as AntiVandaliser2024 that you wrote the above. -- Hoary (talk) 07:42, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I said you can remove my inquiry. AntiVandalism2024 07:43, 12 January 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AntiVandaliser2024 (talk • contribs)

As you are now AntiVandaliser2024, you have another reason to stop signing your messages [[User:TheTeam219 | AntiVandalism2024]], or indeed anything other than AntiVandaliser2024. -- Hoary (talk) 08:02, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I changed my signature AntiVandaliser2024 (talk) 08:42, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, AntiVandaliser2024. -- Hoary (talk) 08:52, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

No worries! AntiVandaliser2024 (talk) 08:54, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Google Docs in References

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

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

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

If necessary, Google Doc with court document here.

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

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

Roastedbeanz1 Here's the link which contains the PDF file [3]

Here's the link to the PDF file itself [4]

There's also other websites like this [5]

Which contains a DOC file [6]

Just copy the urls, and use them as references. Danstarr69 (talk) 11:20, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RudolfRed that's just reminded me, that I'm pretty sure that's the reason why IMDB also decided to add that feature (if I remember correctly), unless they're completely unrelated, as IMDB Pro members can now hide their birth names from their profile.

A few years ago I stumbled across a film and TV actor (on IMDB's community forums, before Col Needham blocked me for pointing out the uselessness of his staff, and blocked all my other emails as soon as he noticed me) who was trying to get a load of his older credits removed (no doubt because he was embarrassed about them being films made by students).

I notice that a lot with student films in general, the people involved don't seem that bothered about them, no matter how good the films are, so people like me go around adding the countless missing credits.

He claimed the people in those films weren't him...

So I went and found those films, along with all of his filmography profiles on websites like Spotlight, Mandy, StarNow, Backstage etc, updated most of them, and posted his profiles on the forum to prove it to everyone else, and on his profile.

I also added his 5+ name variations.

And I archived everything on The Wayback Machine and Archive Today as I went (as I do with practically everything I add nowadays), and when I finished.

Then my computer decided to wipe itself when I clicked on a Vimeo video.

A few days ago I stumbled across his profile again.

The 10+ short films he claimed he wasn't in (including the 5+ I added) are still on his profile (as unlike Wikipedia, facts are harder to remove from IMDB), however his birth name has been hidden from some of those productions, so it now says "as another name."

There's also 1 or 2 films I didn't get around to adding before my computer wiped itself, so I might add them soon just to annoy him, as they are facts after all. Danstarr69 (talk) 11:47, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

how can i amend a text

i want to delete : andersen university under the list of mill degrees Billythebest (talk) 13:22, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Billythebest, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia.

After some searching I have found what I think must be the article you are talking about, List of unaccredited institutions of higher education. (It would have been helpful if you had give the precise name of the article).

That lists Andersen University (California) as unaccredited, though it does not specifically say it is a diploma mill. It cites two apparently reliable sources for that classification, but I admit that they are some years old, and things could have changed.

If you believe that the institution should not be on that list, please make an edit request on the talk page Talk:List of unaccredited institutions of higher education. But please be aware that Wikipedia works on a basis of verifiability: that entry is cited to two reliable sources. In order to justify removing it, you will need to cite a reliable source wholly independent of Andersen, sufficient to overturn or supersede the existing sources. Your personal knowledge and experience, or unpublished documents, will not be enough. ColinFine (talk) 13:55, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I may add that I can't find anything at all about Andersen University in a search, which makes it seem dodgy. --ColinFine (talk) 14:01, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Is my user page promotion?

Hey all,

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

Regards,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks, I fixed that up! OnlyNano (talk) 16:38, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Where to mention changes to CC-BY figures

If a figure has a CC-BY-4.0 license, one of the terms of the license is to indicate if changes were made.

If I upload a figure to a Wikipedia article and change it a bit, where should I mention the changes I did? In the article itself, the caption, the Wikimedia page of the figure or where? User579987 (talk) 14:15, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

You can mention the changes on the Articles talk page, is my advice, but I’ll leave it to the Teahouse staff! AntiVandaliser2024 (talk) 16:17, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

@User579987 It depends what you mean by "a bit"! Any material change you make to an existing file on Wikimedia Commons should result in a new file there in which you claim authorship of the derivative but describe in the file history what the source file's name was and what changes you made. Even simple crops of a picture to extract (say) a person's face should mention the original. The full-size picture should not in most cases be over-written as it may be needed elsewhere. Commons has a useful crop tool which does the attribution for you (compare the pages on Commons for File:Hazel Reeves 2019 (cropped).jpg with File:Hazel Reeves and maquette.jpg) Note that Commons has its own Help Desk at c:Commons:Village_pump/Copyright where you should ask about any image you are unsure about. The folks there can advise on technical details: for example you can't generally take a CC-BY 4.0 image and make a public domain derivative of it. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:03, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Can I…

Make my own WikiProject? Or can only WikiStaff make projects? AntiVandaliser2024 (talk) 16:18, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

AntiVandaliser2024, hello! according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide#Creating a WikiProject:

WikiProjects exist in the project namespace and can technically be started by any auto-confirmed user. However, to avoid the proliferation of unused and underutilized WikiProjects, it is strongly recommended that those interested in starting a WikiProject read the guidance below and propose their project at the proposal page.

I recommend you follow the rest of the advice given on this page. Best of luck! Remsense留 16:22, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Remsense. If you need any help, for example with reverting vandalism, let me know on my talk page. AntiVandaliser2024 (talk) 16:24, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

@AntiVandaliser2024: Note that there is no "WikiStaff". We're all volunteer editors. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 16:42, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

@AntiVandaliser2024: Also, Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit is a WikiProject that you might find interesting. GoingBatty (talk) 16:43, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Foundation Wikipedia:Wikimedia Foundation exists and has paid staff but their function is not to be Wikipedia editors, nor Administrators. All that is volunteers. David notMD (talk) 17:44, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Warning messages when reverting edits promoting the same religion I follow

It's fairly common for editors to try to promote their religious beliefs on Wikipedia articles; of course, this is an NPOV violation and should be reverted. When I post warning messages on user talk pages, if their edits were promoting the same religion I follow (I'm a Christian), is it appropriate for me to say something along the lines of "While I agree that Jesus is the Lord, Wikipedia articles should not endorse particular religious beliefs because of our neutral point of view policy"? It might make the other user more receptive to the warning if they know I'm not just reverting because I disagree with them, but I'm not sure if warning messages should also be neutral? Luke10.27 (talk) 06:31, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

@Luke10.27: It's perfectly acceptable to post just about anything on talk pages as long as you remain on-topic and civil. Certainly you could use this wording in a warning if you want to; there's no requirement for talk page postings to be neutral. Tollens (talk) 06:39, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! I'll do that in the future when it seems appropriate. Luke10.27 (talk) 06:41, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I'd be curious to know how this goes for you. My experience with more tailored messages has been pretty mixed. In a memorable handful of cases it's resulted in a protracted conversation that ends with being accused of being part of some sort of conspiracy. -- asilvering (talk) 07:09, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Luke10.27, I get what you are saying, as well as the good-faith intent behind it, but I have mixed feelings about whether including your own sympathies is a good idea or not. Explaining our core principles such as WP:NPOV to a user on their talk page should stand on its own and have the same weight regardless who is mentioning it. By indicating you're in the same club as the user, are we subtly training them to pay less attention when a subsequent message about Wikipedia policy is placed by someone who is not? However, I can't think of a policy- or guideline-based reason not to do what you suggest, so you're pretty much on your own, here. But like Asilvering, I'm curious how this will go. Mathglot (talk) 19:40, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Complaint on WWF:BINARY_PREFIXES and complaints about complaints about archive of complaints

First I want to complain about missing "WP:" shortcut to binary prefixes issue in WP:COMPUNITS.

Then, I want to complain about the people who couldn't, for 10 years, figure out that one of the greatest complaints in Manual of Stayle needs its own WP shortcut.

Then, I want to complain about organization of Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers, where I can't easily find recent discussion on WWF:BINARY_PREFIXES. I can't easily see what arguments have been posted so far.

I can't see what's the current conclusion of discussion on WWF:BINARY_PREFIXES, because the archive box on the right only has WWF:BINARY_PREFIXES up to the year 2010.

Then, I want to complain about those people who couldn't figure out that they should make the recent discussions about WWF:BINARY_PREFIXES easily accesible. Z80Spectrum (talk) 19:30, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Z80Spectrum. This is a forum for questions about Wikipedia editing, not complaints. Do you have any questions? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:33, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Ah, didn't know that.

I'll try to re-phrase my complaints as questions, for example:

How can I find answers to issues that I'm complaining about. Some of the complaints I posted can be easily turned into such questions.

I'll do another post, to be more clear what the actual questions are. Z80Spectrum (talk) 19:46, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Arghh, I was trying to be funny, I didn't realize that there is a different reading of the "complaints". Sorry. Z80Spectrum (talk) 20:21, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I hope that noone minds the WWF:BINARY_PREFIXES . That is funny, right? I mean, is it OK to use such a "shortcut" in text ? Z80Spectrum (talk) 20:24, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be the best if someone just deletes this "list of complaints". Z80Spectrum (talk) 20:28, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Just to be clear, WWF:BINARY_PREFIXES is archived here: [7] . Z80Spectrum (talk) 20:35, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

References

Hi, I have been trying to create a page for Charlie Powell (DJ) due to lack of references. Is it because I haven't referenced properly, or is it that she isn't notable enough? Have you any tips for me please? Otherwise, I'm enjoying learning how to edit on wikipedia! Spifflepoos (talk) 20:24, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello Spifflepoos! On Wikipedia, notability isn't really used with its typical meaning – usually when someone mentions notability they are referring to the notability policy, which deals with the requirement that articles demonstrate that reliable sources already discuss the subject. It seems you may be thinking about notability in the typical sense of the word, being simply "worthy of note", but here a lack of references and failing to prove notability are actually the same thing. Often, one of the biggest challenges writing a new article is making the mistake of writing it backwards (writing the content first, then finding references), when it is far easier to find the references first, then summarize what they say (and ONLY what they say). Sometimes, this isn't possible; there aren't sources for everything someone could possibly write about. In this case, unfortunately, the topic just isn't suitable for Wikipedia – the goal here is just to provide a summary of other sources, not to publish new information. I would recommend that if you do try again, you go through the Articles for Creation process by creating the article as a draft first and then submitting it for review by a more experienced editor; you can use the article wizard to create this draft page for you. Tollens (talk) 20:47, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Renaming a page

I would like to rename a page that has a title with a disambiguation because the disambiguation is too narrow in scope.

Specifically, I would like to change the "Polymorphism (materials science)" page to "Polymorphism (crystallography)". The page contains information about polymorphism in crystals studied by materials scientists as well as chemists, mineralogists, pharmacologists, physicists, engineers, etc., and the term "crystallography" is inclusive of all these fields.

A few days ago, I mentioned this proposed change in the talk section for the page and have not received any comments yet. After awhile, if I do not hear any objections, how should I proceed? I am a fairly new to editing Wikipedia and don't want to break anything.

Also, while I do not consider this a controversial change, what is the proper way to proceed if there is controversy?

Thanks, 6.626X10^-34 (talk) 20:55, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

It looks like only 14 people have visited the talk page in the past month. It's likely no one has seen the proposal yet.

If you think the move will be controversial, follow the instructions at WP:PCM. That way, people in the related WikiProjects will get notifications (hopefully) that an article within their scope is being discussed regarding a move to a different title. Reconrabbit 21:15, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Questions on WWF:BINARY_PREFIXES and questions about complaints about archive of complaints

How do I suggest that a "WP:" shortcut should be added to the binary prefixes issue in WP:COMPUNITS ?

The archived discussion in WP:MOSDATE about WWF:BINARY_PREFIXES seems to end somewhere in 2010 (according to the "Archives" box on the right). How do I find the most recent discussion about WWF:BINARY_PREFIXES in WP:MOSDATE ? I would like to find more about the recent arguments in the WWF:BINARY_PREFIXES discussion.

Where do I find the conclusions-so-far about WWF:BINARY_PREFIXES in WP:MOSDATE ? Z80Spectrum (talk) 20:02, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I forgot the question about complaints about archive:

How do I suggest that the archive of WWF:BINARY_PREFIXES is better organized so that it is easier to find answers to the two questions above? Z80Spectrum (talk) 20:16, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Also, if my list of "complaints" has insulted someone, I apologize. I was trying to be funny. Didn't realize on time that some people could read it differently. Z80Spectrum (talk) 20:19, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

@Z80Spectrum: Some of these questions/complaints can be resolved by fixing them yourself – suggesting simply that something be 'better organized', for example, is unlikely to be productive. I am not sure what 'WWF:BINARY_PREFIXES' is (it isn't a page that exists under that exact title or with a WP prefix instead), so I can't really help with your second question without more information. As for the third, there usually aren't explicit 'conclusions so far' of most ongoing discussions (obviously someone would have to write such a thing), typically you just have to read the discussion and figure that out for yourself. Tollens (talk) 20:27, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Just to be clear, WWF:BINARY_PREFIXES is archived here: [8] Z80Spectrum (talk) 20:32, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

So it seems that is the most recent archive then, no? Am I missing something? Tollens (talk) 20:36, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes.

I would expect that the "vote" (or whatever) about the consensus on WWF:BINARY_PREFIXES would be held on Wikipedia approximately every year.

If "yearly voting" hasn't been done, why it hasnt been done? If it hasn't been done, then it seems to me as unfair and biased.

Who or what and how is stoping the yearly decision on WWF:BINARY_PREFIXES ? Z80Spectrum (talk) 21:03, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Why would it be yearly? Unless there is a reason for something to change, nothing changes. If you'd like to change something feel free to open a new discussion. Tollens (talk) 21:21, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

It should be yearly because the World is changing. Something that was standard yesterday isn't so tomorrow.

So, to keep up with the World, Wikipedia needs to reconsider what is the consensus on some questions decided a long ago. Z80Spectrum (talk) 21:39, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

OK, by your advice, I'll soon open a new discussion at

WT:MOSDATE . Z80Spectrum (talk) 22:10, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Also, I'm afraid that if I try to fix WP:COMPUNITS myself, that someone could accuse me of being WP:RECKLESS.

If you can advise me that it is OK for me to (try) fixing WP:COMPUNITS by adding a new shortcut WP:BINPREFIX, I'll do it. So I need you to confirm that it is OK that I can try it. Z80Spectrum (talk) 21:11, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Or, I can ask another question so that someone confirms it is OK. Z80Spectrum (talk) 21:15, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't see why that would be a problem, go for it. Tollens (talk) 21:20, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I did it. It doesn't work (yet). Possibly there is some bot.

You can see it at MOS:COMPUNITS . Z80Spectrum (talk) 21:44, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

What doesn't work? It's not clear what problem you're trying to solve. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:49, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I would like to add a new MOS:BINPREFIX shortcut. I have added it to MOS:COMPUNITS, but it doesn't work yet.

See MOS:COMPUNITS, there is an inactive MOS:BINPREFIX shortcut added there by me. Z80Spectrum (talk) 22:03, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

You now need to create the redirect page MOS:BINPREFIX itself. Nthep (talk) 22:07, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

If you want a redirect, you have to actually create the redirect; see Help:Redirect for more information. I'm not sure why you feel a redirect here is necessary, though; what larger problem are you trying to solve? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:07, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I need to be able to refer to MOS:BINPREFIX to suggest a chenge in MOS:BINPREFIX section of MOS:COMPUNITS. Z80Spectrum (talk) 22:12, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I'll try to create a redirect. Z80Spectrum (talk) 22:12, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

There's no need for a shortcut to suggest a change. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:13, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

The suggested change will require an argument.

Without the shortcut, it is going to be much harder to argue, because people will get confused about what I am talking about.

So, the shortcut is required for clarity. Z80Spectrum (talk) 22:21, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Third opinion request

Anyone care to take a quick look at Talk:Aqil ibn Abi Talib#Discussion and take the appropriate action on [9] (note that [10] is the same as [11][12])?

It's a really straightforward third opinion / more-input-is-needed situation but it might benefit from someone who knows well how to deal with new editors. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 22:58, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I found what appears to be a major error in the medical literature that affects the safety of a particular drug.

I do not presently have a published source, thus raising verification issues. Can it be raised on the talk page? Biolitblue (talk) 23:16, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

@Biolitblue: On the talk page, yes. However, if this is purely your own research, it may not be included in a Wikipedia article. You can feel free to raise the issue on the talk page and perhaps someone will be able to find a source, though. Tollens (talk) 23:20, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Biolitblue (talk) 23:25, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Was this an improvement?

I'm fairly new to editing, and so I'm unsure if my edits at Dwaun Warmack were an improvement. I chose it because it was a somewhat interesting topic I didn't feel too strongly about, and I tried my best to fix parts of the article, but I'm pretty sure that there's a better way than what I did. Does anyone have any suggestions? (Also I don't think this is the right place to put this question, but I don't know where would be better.) ItTollsForThee (talk) 00:42, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, ItTollsForThee, you've improved it. Before you arrived, it was written in a peculiarly windy style -- a particularly delectable morsel is Claflin University launched the Pathways from Prison Program, a key program housed under our Center for Social Justice, similarly embodies a number of Claflin’s guiding principles, most importantly Commitment to Valuing People (my emphasis) -- and it still reeks of somniferous PR-speak; I've attended to the opening paragraph and you could do more of this elsewhere in the article. -- Hoary (talk) 02:43, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Problems will arise with stuff such as Warmack has participated in a variety of professional development opportunities including [blah blah], whose meaning (if any) is obscure: Did he give lectures, merely join seminars, or what? (One way to improve this would be to delete "a variety of professional development opportunities including", but alternatives may well be better. Actually I'd be tempted to remove the whole thing.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:53, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, large parts of the article seem to be copy-pasted from various different sources, hence the unusual wording. I wasn't even sure if some of the information needed to stay at all, but rather than remove the content, I wanted to preserve as much as possible. Thanks for the help with this though, as it was the first set of 'substantial' edits I had made to an article. ItTollsForThee (talk) 13:31, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Good work, ItTollsForThee. Keep at it. I notice that while a lot of this appears to be sourced, a lot of the cited sources are hardly disinterested. And the article says things whose meanings are obscure, e.g. In 2000 Warmack was inducted into Omicron Delta Kappa as a faculty/staff member at Delta State University. For a start, faculty members are members of the (academic) staff, so we can simplify this. I've no idea what the ΟΔΚ stuff is about; perhaps just "In 2000 Warmack joined the staff of Delta State University"? -- Hoary (talk) 23:35, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

How to move a page the right way

I know this sounds weird but i’ve been working on a page for an album, and i had to get it made into a draft because i forgot to do any citations. i Think i’m finished, but when i tried to move it then instead of saying the article normally, for example it was Example Article then when im moving it back it’s saying Wikipedia:Example Article. Is this normal? Soultech99 (talk) 23:12, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Soultech99, a draft about Spinal Tap's famous LP Smell the Glove should be at Draft:Smell the Glove; it should never be moved to Wikipedia:Smell the Glove, although it may be moved (over a redirect) to Smell the Glove. Does this answer your question? -- Hoary (talk) 23:48, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Creating a page

I am wondering how to verify the person I am trying to add to Wikipedia Spifflepoos (talk) 23:48, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

@Spifflepoos: Check out WP:NBIO for some guidance, and also WP:YFA RudolfRed (talk) 00:02, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Global login

In terms of global login, are accounts only connected through Wikimedia projects?. Bzik2324 (talk) 00:36, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

@Bzik2324: Yes. Tollens (talk) 00:37, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

@Tollens: Thanks for clearing that up, also who can see my email address that I connect my account with? Bzik2324 (talk) 00:39, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Anyone you email using the EmailUser feature will be given your email address (so they can reply), but other than that nobody is granted the ability to see your email address. Tollens (talk) 00:46, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Bzik2324, if you receive an email through the Wikipedia system, the sender is not given your email address. If you do not respond by email, then your email address will not be disclosed to them. When I receive Wikipedia emails from unknown people and the matter does not require confidentiality, I do not respond by email. Instead, I leave a response on their Wikipedia user talk page. Cullen328 (talk) 02:04, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Navigational template default view

Is there a way to make the default view of a single navigational footer template to "hide" on an article by article basis? Not just for me but all readers. For example, this very brief article Gandra, Póvoa de Varzim is rather dominated by the Póvoa de Varzim template and in my view the only section of the template that has relevance to the article is Main topics at the top. Rupples (talk) 03:46, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

@Rupples: I don't think so, unfortunately. Tollens (talk) 04:04, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

If the template is set up to allow it, you can set it to be hidden/collapsed by default by adding "state=collapsed" to the template, like this: {{Póvoa de Varzim|state=collapsed}}.

It wasn't set up on the template, so I had to add the line. This was the change I made if you need to do this in the future. Reconrabbit 04:17, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Oh, of course! I have no idea how I didn't think of just passing the parameter through. That's incredibly obvious in retrospect, thanks for pointing that out. Tollens (talk) 04:19, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

After reading more closely, you're right here - there's no way to show just the "main topics" group by default without making every group in the template collapsible, which is probably more inconvenient than it's worth. The change I made does improve readability, at least. Reconrabbit 04:23, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

No, I think what you've done is what the original goal of the question was (I could be wrong, though). I just somehow forgot that you can pass a template's parameter as a parameter to a template it uses. Tollens (talk) 04:27, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you both. That's much better. I didn't realise an adjustment needed to be made to the template itself. Rupples (talk) 04:30, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

First Edit Error msg

Hello! - I clicked publish on my first edit, on the wikivoyage page for Missouri . I rewrote 3 sentences to be phrased more clearly, and actually cite 2 other pages. I received this error, and couldn't find anything from google: This action has been automatically identified as harmful, and therefore disallowed. If you believe your action was constructive, please inform an administrator of what you were trying to do. A brief description of the abuse rule which your action matched is: Rocky Abuse ArmandTreshi (talk) 07:58, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

ArmandTreshi, Wikipedia (where you are now) and Wikivoyage are separate. You'll have to ask about the matter at Wikivoyage. -- Hoary (talk) 08:09, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Got it, thx! ArmandTreshi (talk) 08:14, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

New Article!

hey, i just submitted my first article for review. i would love some feedback from any experienced editors, or anyone, really. let me know what you think and what needs to change for it to be approved. thanks!! Gnat8 (talk) 20:30, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Lines of Amity Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 20:31, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Gnat8! It has apparently been approved, because it has since been moved from Draft to mainspace. I've responded at Talk:Lines of Amity. Mathglot (talk) 09:16, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Help!

There are some articles which was deleted because it was created by the blocked socks, they’re notable enough. What are the steps to create those articles? — Quadrimobile(T · C 06:02, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello! What are the articles in question? Remsense诉 06:26, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense There are some deleted articles, which was once created and then deleted because it was created by a sock! — Quadrimobile(T · C 06:34, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I think what Remsense meant was what are the titles of the articles. Without them the admins can't exactly do anything because they don't know what articles you think are notable enough.

Speaking of which, I myself (though not necessarily the person who raised the question) am interested in looking a bit at Draft:Bus transport in England, also deleted under WP:G5. S5A-0043^Talk 07:14, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

@QuadriOnMobile and S5A-0043: Generally in this case you should contact the administrator who deleted the page. Tollens (talk) 07:27, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense Actually, I’m not pointing at any particular article, I’m just asking that what to do when any article is deleted due to created by socks. — Quadrimobile(T · C 10:17, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

@Tollens Contact and ask to do undelete it? I didn’t understood. — Quadrimobile(T · C 10:17, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

@QuadriOnMobile: Yes – they may choose to send the page to your userspace or draftspace for you to work on it, for example. Tollens (talk) 10:24, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

@Tollens Okay Thanks. — Quadrimobile(T · C 10:25, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Three million articles

Does anyone know when the English Wikipedia reached 3 million articles, and is there a archival reference here for the past milestones? Bzik2324 (talk) 14:03, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

@Bzik2324 "the English Wikipedia reached three million articles in August 2009" I don't know if we have a page specifically for article growth somewher, but I wouldn't be surprised. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:14, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

@Bzik2324: meta:Wikipedia milestones says: "Beate Eriksen was the three millionth article, created on 04:04, 17 August 2009". See also {{Million milestones}}. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:23, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Visual editor on talk pages

Can you use V.E. on talk pages? I prefer visual editor over the wiki-markup. Iljhgtn (talk) 03:10, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

@Iljhgtn: Not as a default as far as I'm aware. You can change the end of the URL while you're editing to edit from editsource which will force it open for that single edit though. Tollens (talk) 03:25, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

i do not know how to do what you are saying? Iljhgtn (talk) 03:26, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

If you click the edit button, it should make the URL in your search bar look something like http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ATeahouse&section=55&veaction=editsource (this particular URL appears if you attempt to edit this section of this page). If you look at the very end of the URL it says veaction=editsource – if you change this to say instead veaction=edit (like http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ATeahouse&section=55&veaction=edit) it will use the visual editor instead. This is likely too much work to do for replying to messages, for instance, but if you are doing a lot of things in one edit you could do this if you really wanted to. Tollens (talk) 04:00, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

@Iljhgtn It's probably also worth pointing out that, instead of responding to a talk thread by clicking 'edit source', you can also respond by clicking 'reply' the end of a previous comment. That gives you a box in which to reply to another person. You can choose whether to edit your response there in Source Editor mode or in Visual Editor mode. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 15:19, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

i use the reply that you mentioned already. thank you for the suggestion though. Iljhgtn (talk) 15:52, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

i only use source editor if forced for some reason to use it. Iljhgtn (talk) 15:53, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

new article about a live writer without a lot of references

hi there. i am writing an article about an iraqi writer i read most of his works and i want to write an article about his life. but as he is not famous i cannot find a lot of resources about him. also the resources are in arabic. when i use these resources the wikipedia editor reject my article. is there any one who can help me complete my article with the reference that i have to make the article acceptable? thank you for your help. by the way this is my first article in wikipedia. EvgeniyGolubev (talk) 17:51, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Sources do not need to be in English. You may use sources in Arabic, but they still need to provide significant coverage of the topic and show how the writer meets the definition of a notable creative professional. 331dot (talk) 18:06, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi 331dot, thank you for your message. i am trying to add some resources in Arabic but everytime i add more resources, the editors rejected my article. i will try to add more resources and i will be thankful if you check it. thank you for your help. EvgeniyGolubev (talk) 04:29, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry @EvgeniyGolubev, if there are not many resources about a writer, they probably do not meet our notability guidelines. That said, if you can find professional reviews of his work, that will count towards his notability. These can be in any language. -- asilvering (talk) 18:08, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Asilvering, thank you for your message. i will try to add more resources and i will be thankful if you could kindly check the article. i read that you are pro in Englsih. EvgeniyGolubev (talk) 04:33, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Don't worry too much about errors in your English at this stage (AfC reviewers aren't supposed to worry about that unless what you've written is actually completely incomprehensible). The important thing to do first is to show that the author meets the guidelines at WP:N so that he can have an article in the first place. -- asilvering (talk) 18:05, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

@EvgeniyGolubev: Hi there! Are you referring to Draft:Mohammed Abd Hassan? I see you uploaded the photo and certificate as your "own work". What is your relationship with Mohammed Abd Hassan? GoingBatty (talk) 19:22, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi GoingBatty, thank you for your message. well, this is my first article in wikipedia and i am learning. About Mohammed Abd Hassan, he is one of the writers that i have read most of his work, and i am trying to translate his short stories to english and spanish. i haven't met him but i heard about him and the group Basrah at the end of the 20th century. i chose him as the first writer to write about from the group especially after reading his last book ( no end to what happened). there are alot of writers in the south of iraq that the world know nothing about them. through their writings we could know a lot about the society where they come from. EvgeniyGolubev (talk) 04:22, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I've put a deletion notice on the image - this doesn't mean it will be deleted, but that you need to supply a proper source (it's not "own work" if you did not take the photograph yourself). -- asilvering (talk) 18:09, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Userboxes

How do I create user boxes on my page Frostyibex (talk) 16:46, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Hullo! You can add a userbox to your userpage by typing in source mode the name of the userbox surrounded by double braces. For example, {{User wikipedia}} yields

This user is a Wikipedian.

.

You can browse userboxes at WP:UBX/G, or you can design your own using Template:userbox. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 17:20, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much. Frostyibex (talk) 18:25, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Behavioral optometry

Dear Sir or Madam,

Happy New Year! I had some interactions with Wikipedia moderators as regards the Behavioral Optometry page on Wikipedia some years ago. My initial point of contact was a moderator called Lou Sander who I have messaged on his talk page and have had no reply after a couple of days. I also left a message on the Behavioral Optometry 'talk'page and have had no reply. Someone called 'Bon courage' has written something so I have also left them a message. The last point of contact I had some years ago was an ER doctor in Canada and we had some polite and fruitful conversations as regards peer reviewed scientific literature. If he is still involved in Wikipedia it would be good to put in contact with him. Otherwise someone who has written peer reviewed scientific literature within medical sciences (eg medicine, optometry) like myself would be good.

If I have not come to the right place on Wikipedia let me know.

Warmest regards Peaceful07 (talk) 08:37, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Peaceful07, hello! Do you have a question about Wikipedia? I wasn't sure reading your message. If you're asking to be put into contact with specific editors, there is nothing for third parties to do—activity on Wikipedia is voluntary, so if you've left people messages they may or may not respond promptly. If you have any other questions, feel free to let me know. Cheers. Remsense诉 08:40, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Additionally, just so you're aware, the page Behavioral optometry was merged into Vision therapy and so the talk page is likely to be very dormant. I would recommend posting at Talk:Vision therapy rather than Talk:Behavioral optometry if you plan on opening a new discussion. Tollens (talk) 08:46, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Tollens, I wanted to talk to someone specifically about scientific peer reviewed literature rather than open a new discussion. I had fruitful discussions with someone called Doc James previously who was an ER doctor in Canada. The moderator Bon Courage told me that Doc James is not particularly active on Wikipedia though I still asked if there was a way of contacting him. I am not after changing the Wikipedia page rather I want to have a discussion with someone with Doc James' knowledge of peer reviewed scientific literature. The majority of my time at the moment is taken up writing and researching a systematic review in conjunction with neuro-ophthalmology at a major teaching hospital here in the UK so I am only reaching out to Wikipedia at the behest of my American colleagues. It is not my intention to get involved in a major discussion with Wikipedia moderators as the systematic review is more important. It may be best to shelve this discussion permanently and just get writing further peer reviewed scientific literature, systematic reviews in particular.

Warmest regards Peaceful07 (talk) 09:08, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Peaceful07, though good, Tollens' response would perhaps benefit from a clarification. An article's talk page is for discussion of how to improve the article. It's not for discussion of the subject independently of the article. If you have an idea for improving the article Vision therapy, feel free to post it on Talk:Vision therapy; if on the other hand you hope to discuss vision therapy (or behavioral optometry or whatever) with others who are (or are not) well qualified to discuss it, Wikipedia isn't the right place. You may of course try emailing a Wikipedia editor who seems to share your expertise and interests; you might get a collegial and welcome response; you might get no response at all. -- Hoary (talk) 09:16, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Appreciate the clarification – I certainly didn't intend to suggest that talk pages should be used as a forum. Tollens (talk) 09:19, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Hoary, Happy New Year. Actually the last time I found that the people I talked to with the exception of Doc James were not qualified to talk to me. I like your style. How would I contact an Wikipedia editor? I only have a couple of days on this as I am meeting library services online on Tuesday to get my search threads for my paper sorted and then I will be reading through thousands of scientific papers....well someone has to do it....why not me.

Warmest regards Peaceful07 (talk) 09:22, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

@User:Peaceful07 To email a specific editor, go to their userpage or talk page. In desktop mode (ie not on mobile view) look in the far left hand menu column. You should see a link to “Email this user”. Not everyone has that link as some people don’t want to be emailed. But @Doc James will be reachable that way. Regards Nick Moyes (talk) 10:07, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Remsense,

I was not looking to start a new discussion. Last time I interacted with a moderator called Doc James who worked as an ER doctor in Canada and we had a fruitful discussion about the value of peer reviewed scientific literature and systematic and Cochrane reviews. A moderator called Bon Courage told me that Doc James is not that active on Wikipedia nowadays though I have still asked to reach out to him. I am in the midst of writing systematic review with neuro-ophthalmology at a major teaching hospital here in the UK and that is my primary focus. I am only reaching out to Wikipedia at the behest of my American colleagues as I have interacted with Wikipedia before. If I am not able to contact Doc James someone else with his knowledge of peer reviewed medical literature would suffice. Otherwise it might be better to shelve any discussions and just keep writing papers.

Warmest regards Peaceful07 (talk) 09:19, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Peaceful07, if you've set an e-mail address in your account preferences (see Wikipedia:Emailing users), you should be able to contact Doc James via Special:EmailUser/Doc James. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:05, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I am still occasionally around... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:51, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Is Fandom considered a reliable source?

I was wondering if Fandom is a reliable source, that would be acceptable as a source on a draft, provided there are other proven-reliable sources linked. I am writing an article on a cryptocurrency called Banano, and multiple sources are linked to Fandom, which has a lot of history on the cryptocurrency, which can't seem to be found elsewhere. Am I okay to reference Fandom, or is that considered an unreliable source? OnlyNano (talk) 00:45, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Certainly not. WP:FANDOM consists of user-generated content, and is therefore considered unreliable. I recommend checking WP:RSP in general to see whether there has been a consensus established regarding the reliability of certain outlets.

I would also recommend not treating sources acceptable only for drafts: ideally, articles should be written from reliable sources to begin with, not the other way around. If a piece of information cannot be verified with a reliable source, then it unfortunately does not have a place on Wikipedia. Remsense诉 00:50, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

OnlyNano, the short answer is that OnlyFans is the opposite of a reliable source, ar least for the purposes of this encyclopedia. Cullen328 (talk) 02:07, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328: I'm failing to see how OnlyFans being unreliable is relevant here. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{blaze__wolf} 03:07, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

(I believe he may have misread, mistyped, or both. Happy to see it happens to the best among us! :) Remsense诉 03:10, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Ummm, Blaze Wolf, can you please explain how my assessment of the reliability of OnlyFans is not relevant in a thread about the reliability of OnlyFans? I am genuinely mystified. Cullen328 (talk) 04:31, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Cullen328, OnlyFans is a different entity than Fandom, né Wikia. Remsense诉 04:34, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

You are both right, of course, Blaze Wolf and Remsense. I apologize for mixing up those two websites. Cullen328 (talk) 09:07, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I have to assume it's a portmanteau of the site in question and the OP's username. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:55, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

You are correct, Tenryuu. Thanks for identifying the source of my memory glitch. Cullen328 (talk) 09:10, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

None of us had ever heard of OnlyFans till we recently learned that it was one of George Santos's necessary expenditures. That's one probable cause of confusion. Another is Remsense's very recent change of hanzi. -- Hoary (talk) 09:21, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I suspect it's possible that some of us had heard of OnlyFans before then. Not me, of course. ;-). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.198.104.88 (talk) 23:05, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Just asking for a friend... OnlyNano (talk) 23:07, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Ahhhhh, I see what they did there... OnlyNano (talk) 18:41, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

@OnlyNano: While Fandom can't be used, other sources may be potentially reliable and directly referenced if that happens to be the case. Reliability is, alas, not inherited. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:56, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Great point, thanks! OnlyNano (talk) 18:41, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Are the 33 1/3 books about classic albums a reliable source?

Are the books from the 33 1/3 series reliable sources for album articles? Been trying to find some info on Blue Moves for instance, and saw that there is a book in this series which covers that album.

On the one hand, the authors are tend to be completely separate from the artist or their label, but they are published books that seem to have a respectable reputation. I’d mainly be using these books for info on the recording of the album, and also to have cite-able descriptions of the songs’ musical and lyrical content. Elephantranges (talk) 01:10, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Elephantranges, a better place to ask this would be WP:RSN. -- Hoary (talk) 01:14, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Good to know, thanks! Elephantranges (talk) 01:25, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Using memoirs as references

I am pretty sure that there is a wikipedia policy on using memoirs as a reference for something. Can someone please offer a link to that policy? I can't find it. Thanks, Carptrash (talk) 17:35, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

@Carptrash most probably WP:SPS. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:43, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I am on my way, thanks, Carptrash (talk) 17:51, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Carptrash. Although memoirs can be useful for an author's descriptions of themself, and most reputably published memoirs are reasonably accurate, memoirs should be used with caution. The policy language says specifically that works written about one's self can be used only when there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity. So, it is important to read reviews of the memoir published by reliable sources over time to determine if doubts about the accuracy of the memoir have been expressed. Some well- known memoirs have been exposed as false. Examples include Misha: A Mémoire of the Holocaust Years and A Million Little Pieces. In both cases, these books were widely acclaimed as true stories upon publication but later revealed to be hoaxes. Cullen328 (talk) 02:21, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Self-evident content

Do I need a source for content that is self evident to publish the content, or do I still need a published source to satisfy the verification requirement? Biolitblue (talk) 23:20, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

@Biolitblue: The verifiability policy requires that the information has been published in a reliable source, but not that inline citations be provided for everything – if it's self-evident it has likely been written down at some point several times so there's not really any need to find such a source. However, any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material. This means that if either you believe there is a good chance someone will disagree, or if someone does actually disagree at some point, you must include a reference before re-adding the content. Tollens (talk) 23:26, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Biolitblue. The common examples are that editors do not need to cite that the sky is blue or that Paris is the capital of France. Keep in mind that what may be self evident to some people is far from it to other people. The sky, for example, can be red or orange or grey or black, and there are at least eight cities in the United States called Paris. If any editor acting in good faith objects to the lack of a reference, you should provide the reference. I took a look at your talk page. Any new content about antisemitism must be properly referenced, because that is a highly contentious topic. Similarly, any new content about a medication must be properly referenced, and we have strict standards about medical references described at WP:MEDRS. Also, insisting that other editors immediately solve all the problems you perceive on an encyclopedia with 6,769,889 articles is unreasonable, and indicates that you do not yet understand how this collaborative project works. Many thousands of active volunteer editors work 24 hours a day every day worldwide to improve this encyclopedia, but sweeping changes do not happen immediately on a project of this vast scale. Cullen328 (talk) 00:12, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

It isn't unreasonable. I'm not asking that wave a magic wand and delete the uncited content, but you need to apply the rules fairly and consistently. If the site has a serious problem with large amounts of uncited comments, don't kill the messenger. Instead, perhaps you could get together, determine the extent of the problem, call for volunteers who might want to help, and prepare a roadmap.

I suspect Wikipedia doesn't want you to actually try to fix the issue because it would seriously compromise the amount of content on the site. Biolitblue (talk) 00:51, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't "want" anything, it has no central editorial board of any kind. You have exactly as much influence over decisions as anyone else. You are also free to remove unsourced content when you see it, as is everyone else. However, you are expected (like everyone else) to attempt to provide a source for an unsourced claim before removing it. Usually, unsourced material is perfectly correct and is verifiable (note that the policy is about whether content is verifiable, not verified), and in these cases there is no policy issue unless someone disputes that the material is in fact verifiable. Tollens (talk) 00:59, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback to all.

The specific case refers to the following page:

http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Recursion&oldid=1195178504

The content I added was:

"Recursive motifs are featured in several music videos, including Come Into My World by Kylie Minogue, Seven Nation Army by The White Stripes, Eple by Röyksopp, Feels Like We Only Go Backwards by Tame Impala, and Outhouse by Nathan Fake."

My view is, although not as self evident as Paris is the capital of France, that the content's recursive features is self-evident to anyone viewing the videos.

It is a gray area. I think the editor applied the rule reflexively and doctrinally.

What is the feeling of the room? Does this content need a citation or is it intrinsically clear enough to obviate the need for one? Biolitblue (talk) 01:14, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I would not characterize this claim as "self-evident" or a "gray area", nor the revert as "reflexive and doctrinal". This is a claim that is based on a particular musicological analysis, which may be cultural or otherwise subjective in nature. The language you are using for this concept might not be the language that is generally used—It's odd to me that the addition is on this page, and not on ostinato, for example. Personal characterizations in this way often amount to original research, which is why citations are often required.

The key point from above is what is self-evident to you may not be self-evident to everyone. I may ask myself whether the musical key a given piece of music is in could normally be considered self-evident—it is for me, as a factoid that is nearly instantly identifiable and natural to me—but I would say no, because not everyone has the specific music background I do. Take the perspective of someone from a very distinct cultural background: if such a culturally-based claim is not self-evident to them, and it is uncited, then they are kind of "stuck". "Paris is the capital of France" and "the sky is blue" are examples because their concepts—while still not universal, as political and color concepts are also cultural and have demonstrably been different for people over time and space—they are as close to universal, and therefore possibly self-evident, as we tend to get.

Also, there's another distinct issue of whether (even reliably-sourced) content is due in a given article: additional list items such as this may be reverted faster because lists like these should be useful and representative more often than they should be complete in any given sense. Even if they are verifiable examples, are they the best examples? Remsense诉 01:26, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Biolitblue, when you write I suspect Wikipedia doesn't want you to actually try to fix the issue because it would seriously compromise the amount of content on the site, I react with astonishment. "Wikipedia" is inanimate and does not "want" anything because it is incapable of wanting. Volunteers do only what they individually want to do without anybody assigning any tasks. Do you really think that there is some hierarchy here, and that editors and administrators are admonished by some Wikipedia power structure to remove less unreferenced content? I have been editing regularly for almost 15 years and have been a very active administrator for over six years. I have been heavily involved in deletion processes and dealing with editors who add unreferenced and poorly referenced content. And not one single time in all those years has anyone pressured me or even asked me nicely to delete less content. Not once. Cullen328 (talk) 01:56, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Fascinating. Please continue. Biolitblue (talk) 05:29, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

It is what it is, but is it?

1) I have had content reverted multiple times because I could not find a published source to satisfy the verification requirement. Obviously, quite a lot of excellent content must be omitted from the site because nobody has published on the topic.

At the same time, a significant amount of low quality content is found on the site because the author found a published source from an individual whose published content is of poor quality. The poor quality of a published source can be for myriad reasons. Additionally, a published source doesn't necessarily, and often doesn't, verify the veracity of the claim made.

Given that Wikipedia has a largess, can't it consider employing experts in a variety of fields on a part-time basis to act as arbiters when there is claim made but no published content available?

2) If the verification rule is so important, even mission critical, why is so much of Wikipedia's content uncited? Why don't editors delete it like they insist my entries are deleted? Such vast uncited content on Wikipedia is either never flagged, flagged with a box above the article, or contains "needs citation" next to the claim but is not deleted. I've read articles of substantial length on Wikipedia that did contain any citations.

To avoid being intellectually dishonest, and to bring content on Wikipedia in compliance, why don't editors coordinate to delete all uncited content from the site instead of cherry picking whom they wish to pick on to enforce the rule?

Biolitblue (talk) 23:53, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello! Here's how the community thinks about these issues, and how they're reflected in site policy, to the best of my understanding:

a significant amount of low quality [...] published source[s]

On Wikipedia, we rightfully assess the reliability of sources on a spectrum: whether or not we consider them to be "published" is only one criterion. I recommend reading the page linked above, I think it would answer a lot of questions you may still have. For example, an article about French grammar that contains an example passage set in a café may be considered reliable for claims in an article about verb conjugation, but not for claims in an article about French cuisine, just because the passage mentions the name of certain French foods.

a published source doesn't necessarily, and often doesn't, verify the veracity of the claim made.

This is correct; claims must actually be supported by the cited sources. If information in various sources is combined as to create a new statement that is not supported by any of the sources individually, that is considered improper synthesis, a form of original research—which is not allowed on Wikipedia.

Given that Wikipedia has a largess, can't it consider employing experts in a variety of fields

I do not feel that Wikipedia has social "largess" as you describe, but this is beside the main point. Fundamentally, Wikipedia is maintained by volunteers of varying levels of expertise—but I suspect this is not a satisfying answer. Ultimately, I cannot answer this question properly, as I do not decide what the Wikimedia Foundation does, nor do I really have the mountain of research that would be necessary to determine the viability of this. I suspect issues would include conflicts of interest and potential systemic biases that would be reinforced by the direction of funds towards certain fields and not others.

If the verification rule is so important, even mission critical, why is so much of Wikipedia's content uncited? Why don't editors delete it like they insist my entries are deleted? [...] why don't editors coordinate to delete all uncited content from the site instead of cherry picking

Here is the dynamic that many new editors are slightly unfamiliar with: volunteers usually edit in topics of particular interest to them, and they usually keep a watchlist of pages they want to see all the edits to. Many uncited pages have simply not caught the sustained attention of an editor that has volunteered to put in the work yet. Uncited content is often maintenance tagged instead of deleted, because there is significant room for debate and disagreement over which claims may require inline citation. Additionally, a common mode of improving an article is sourcing and providing citations for uncited claims: as such, categorically removing uncited material would make the site much harder to improve, and ultimately of a lower quality in many areas. It's a big work in progress.

As for the "cherry picking" point, I would ask that you not paint all editors with a broad brush. There is no "intellectual dishonesty" in the way you describe, because individual editors are not responsible for the contents of the entire site, only their own contributions. Editors contribute where their interest lies, and some have less tolerance for the introduction of unverified content than others, all else being equal. (It takes all kinds, in my opinion.) It also depends on the context of the article. Certain articles, such as featured articles, will almost always have edits adding uncited claims reverted immediately no matter what, as they have gone through a fairly rigorous review process, and have inline citations for all potentially contentious claims made.

I think my advice is to work on a personal level with specific editors, as everyone has different communication styles and ideas about how best to improve articles. In general, it always helps to cite your sources though. Cheers. Remsense诉 00:22, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

You're on a roll. Proceed. Biolitblue (talk) 05:32, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Biolitblue, your question in (1): I imagine that just deciding on who the very many "experts" would be, and getting in touch with them, and so on, would consume a vast amount of time and effort. And then the "experts" would have to be paid. Your question in (2): Yes, a vast amount of crap exists. "Why don't editors coordinate?" Well, would you like to attempt to coordinate them/us? You mention "articles of substantial length on Wikipedia that did [not] contain any citations". There are a couple of things that you can do about such an article. You can add citations. Alternatively, you can satisfy yourself that there are no citations that could be added, and then take the dud article to WP:AFD. To which you may respond "Why should I have to do it?" Well, if not you, then who? (Are you expecting me to do it?) -- Hoary (talk) 00:28, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Biolitblue, when uncited content is challenged, the editor who wants to keep the content is obligated to provide a reference. There are alternatives to deleting plausible but unreferenced content. Another editor can find and add a reference to a reliable source. Or, a "citation needed" tag can be added, and some volunteers patrol such tags and add references. In the end, massive quantities of unreferenced content are deleted every single day.

This is and has always been a volunteer project. Wikipedia has no employees, no largess and no money. The separate Wikimedia Foundation raises and spends money for many things, but most definitely not on employees to write content. Your accusations of cherry-picking lack evidence, and Wikipedia editors greatly value evidence.

Poor quality sources should be replaced with actually reliable sources, and this too is an ongoing process throughout the enclopedia. The Reliable sources noticeboard is available for evaluating sources, and we also have a pretty extensive assessment of sources called Perennial sources. Cullen328 (talk) 00:40, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks to all for your time, consideration, and advice! Biolitblue (talk) 01:31, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Collectively, the volunteer editors of English Wikipedia try to winnow the worst. There are roughly 20,000 articles nominated for deletion (AfD) every year. David notMD (talk) 01:50, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello Biolitblue. I just spent a couple hours working on an article that had been tagged back in 2010 as needing additional citations. After finishing that task I came to the Teahouse and saw your post. I work at two paying jobs and volunteer as a Wikipedia editor when it fits into my schedule. Since editing requires a lot of effort I only work on articles that interest me. Today I happened to read an article that needed citations, and was motivated to hunt up the required references and improve the article. I don't have an organized system of finding articles to improve, I just read about subjects that are important to me, and if I find problems I go from there.

The ability to pick and choose what I want to work on is the only reason why I spend so much time editing Wikipedia. If it became too much of a "real" job, instead of a hobby, I'd stop my volunteer editing. I don't need more stress in my life. Karenthewriter (talk) 03:57, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I see. Biolitblue (talk) 05:33, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Total Wikipedia article count?

Does anyone know the total amount of Wikipedia articles currently in existence on wikipedia.org when all Wikipedia language editions are combined? Bzik2324 (talk) 00:08, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, there are 6,925,046 articles. If you want to find out for yourself, you can go to this page and it will say at the top NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 00:23, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

@Bzik2324: Across all language editions there are 64,099,623 article pages – some of these are of course the same article in different languages, though. I am not aware of any way to figure out the number of articles on distinct subjects across all language editions. Tollens (talk) 01:23, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Tollens, there's definitely a particular Wikidata query that would spit this number out at me, I may try to craft it later. Remsense诉 05:36, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense: While admittedly I haven't the most experience with Wikidata queries I'm not sure how one would make this query any faster – as far as I can tell this should be right, just slow. Tollens (talk) 10:46, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

User ignoring the talk page and reverting my edit without any proof

Hi there, I was confused about what should in this specific article http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:1975_Panjshir_Valley_uprising

the user changed my edit stating in the edit summary its not a political victory. Then i started a discussion in the talk page of that article and stating every citation for result of the article which i changed to. Also i tagged him in the discussion, he has not been responding to it since then.

now what should i do revert his edits back to mine or something else, i need some assistance Rahim231 (talk) 11:34, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

@Rahim231: Hello! Ping doesn't always send a notification, you should also post a message on the user's talk page inviting them to discussion. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 11:39, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Editing

how to copy and paste from edit tools Moaj Hossain (talk) 13:29, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

@Moaj Hossain welcome to Teahouse! If select edit mode, you can copy and paste the wikitext that includes images, templates, citations and more. It does not matter whether you do this in source mode or visual editing mode. Happy copying/pasting! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 15:11, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

How to name disambig?

I’d like to create a page on Ahmet Ağaoğlu, a Turkish businessman. Should I name it Ahmet Ağaoğlu (businessperson) or (businessman)? Thanks! ~eticangaaa (talk) 12:29, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

@Eticangaaa: I'd go with businessperson – this would be consistent with Businessperson. You could additionally create a redirect from the title under businessman to businessperson, though. Tollens (talk) 12:37, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! ~eticangaaa (talk) 12:38, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Oh, and also. Theres about a million pages that link to Ahmet Ağaoğlu (the politician), already but i’d like to change it to Ahmet Ağaoğlu (politician) but thats going to create a ton of pages that link to a disambig page, so how should I go about that? ~eticangaaa (talk) 12:53, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I strongly recommmend that you follow the Wikipedia:Articles for creation process, create a draft entitled Draft:Ahmet Ağaoğlu, and submit it for review. If it is accepted, the reviewer will attend to the disambiguation page issues for you. Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:16, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, i’m confused… Should I create a page for the disambig or the businessman? Apologies.. ~eticangaaa (talk) 14:41, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

@Eticangaaa Do not worry about that. Getting the article published first is much harder, whereas the final article name can be figured out later. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 15:13, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Are sums of money adjusted for inflation in historical articles?

Are sums of money (such as the £525,000 mentioned in the Bristol Slave Trade page) are adjusted for infla not. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Bristol_slave_trade 89.158.109.184 (talk) 10:54, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Sometimes they are, but this would generally be made clear. In the case of the particular value you mention it does not appear that it has been adjusted, from a reading of the cited source (page 48 specifically). Tollens (talk) 11:00, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Unikely, see for example "plantation owners based in Bristol claimed over £500,000, equivalent to £2bn in 2020." Ideally, the article should say if the number has been adjusted. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:03, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

For times over 200 years ago, adjusting for inflation is questionable. What standard would you use for the calculation? Possibilities include the price of an ounce of gold, the price of a bushel of wheat, the price of an acre of land, the daily wage earned by a labourer. These can give very different results. If you're writing about the slave trade, the last of these can give a "division by zero" error. Maproom (talk) 16:17, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Uploaded photo keeps getting removed despite permission and proper citation

05:39, 19 December 2023‎ CommonsDelinker talk contribs‎ 11,712 bytes −193‎ Removing Photo-of-SAM-by-Kai-Staats.jpg; it has been deleted from Commons by Krd because: No permission since 11 December 2023. undothank Tag: Manual revert

Hello. I uploaded the photo with proper citation but again it was taken down. Please see above. I'm not sure what else to do. Spacesurgeon (talk) 18:15, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Spacesurgeon, and welcome to the Teahouse. You need to take this up on Commons, which is a separate project. Please see the message on your Commons user talk page. ColinFine (talk) 18:46, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

ps. My guess is that you thought that the artist giving you permission was all you needed. I'm afraid that's not the case. You probably need to read C:Help:Copyright. ColinFine (talk) 18:49, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

What to do next in a DRN dispute?

I have opened a DRN dispute, but I'm completely new to the process.

The moderator is asking do I want "DRN Rule A". I replied that I think that I do not want DRN Rule A (but I'm not sure), because I would like to avoid locking the disputed article.

However, to be honest, I'm completely confused by both the user interface and the process at DRN.

What should I do next? Do I need to click somewhere? Do I need to reply somewhere?

The dispute is here: [13] Z80Spectrum (talk) 15:33, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

@Z80Spectrum: I'm equally in the dark, but have you read Wikipedia:DRN Rule A to figure out what they're talking about? Pinging Robert McClenon. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 16:30, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Still nothing. The dispute at DRN has remained the same, and I don't know what to do.

Will it expire (48 hours) if I just do nothing?

Can I just do nothing and let the 48 hours limit to expire? What happens then? Z80Spectrum (talk) 20:48, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Z80Spectrum, User:Cremastra - I will usually wait for more than 48 hours, and will wait for more than 48 hours in this case. DRN is voluntary, and if the two parties do not agree to moderated discussion, the case is closed as declined. I see that Z80Spectrum has now replied at DRN, and has repeated what they have said here. If there isn't a dispute about article content, then DRN is probably not the best forum. If you have questions that are not about article content, then I suggest that you ask them here, at the Teahouse. That's what the Teahouse is for. I saw that there are questions about certain policies and guidelines that are not really about article content, and DRN is a place to discuss article content. Nothing will happen at DRN until both editors agree to moderated discussion, and, in this case, until we establish that there is an article content dispute. If the issue isn't about article content, I will close the DRN case. I will try to answer any more questions, and will leave the DRN case alone until I know whether there is a content dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:21, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Robert McClenon - I also updated my statement here. There is content dispute that has arisen due to differing interpretations of policies - I believe WP:FORUM, WP:NOTHOWTO and WP:OR specifically have been breached, Z80Spectrum thinks differently - hence content dispute. Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:22, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I hope that you won't mind me intervening: I think you have to edit the "Zeroth statements by editors" section in the content dispute, in order to continue. I'm not sure, as I'm also new to the DRN process. Z80Spectrum (talk) 19:33, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

First wiki

Aspiring Wiki Author Seeks Guidance:

Hello, fellow Wiki enthusiasts! I'm thrilled to share that I've recently penned my very first Wiki article. It is about a Korean Martial Artist. My creation is currently residing in my sandbox, patiently awaiting the scrutiny of a seasoned Wiki veteran. As advised, I believe seeking feedback from an experienced Wiki author is crucial before unleashing my brainchild onto the world.

Would any seasoned Wiki aficionados be willing to lend me their expertise? I'm eager to receive constructive criticism and guidance on how to refine my article into a comprehensive and informative piece. A veteran's perspective could prove invaluable in ensuring my work meets the high standards of the Wiki community.

If you're interested in volunteering your time and expertise, please don't hesitate to reach out.

Thank you for your consideration! OZUSAN (talk) 17:38, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

@OZUSAN: Hello! I've taken a look at the User:OZUSAN/sandbox and I see multiple problems with it, including the non-neutral style and the lack of reliable sources. Please read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 17:42, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, OZUSAN, and welcome to the Teahouse, and to Wikipedia. I'm afraid that your sandbox has already been deleted, for being promotional - this is something that often happens when an enthusiastic new editor who has not spent the time learning how Wikipedia works plunges straight into the challenging task of creating a new article.

Would you enter a major competition in a martial art that you only started learning about two days ago?

Please don't give up - you can learn this skill - with practice.

My advice to new editors is always to spend a few months learning how Wikipedia works by making improvements to some of our six million existing articles, gradually learning about Wikipedia's requirements for verifiability, neutral point of view, and notability. In time, you can look at your first article, and decide you're ready to begin the task of finding the independent reliable published sources which are a non-negotiable requirement for basing an article on: if you write so much as a single word before you have found these, you are probably wasting your time. ColinFine (talk) 18:19, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

May I put it again in the Sandbox and you tell me how to improve it? OZUSAN (talk) 18:25, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

And thanks!! ColinFine

I'm professor at a University and maybe I wanted to go too fast ;) OZUSAN (talk) 18:26, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

@OZUSAN Yes, you may start again in your sandbox. However, you must first find reliable, published sources that are independent of the subject which talk about him in detail. You may use those, and only those to base what you want to say on Wikipedia. You should put everything in your own words (so as not to breach the copyright of the writers of those sources). You should also add an inline citation after each factual sentence or paragraph. This is an encyclopaedia, so the tone of writing must be neutral and factual.

If I repeat one of the deleted sentences that you wrote, perhaps you would consider how non-neutral and non-encylopaedic it sounded: "His multifaceted impact on the world of Taekwon-do, spanning competitive achievements, virtual representation, and global education, solidifies Hwang Su Il's legacy as a true luminary in the martial arts community." I am sure you would be telling your students to write their essays in their own words, based on good citations and in a neutral, unembellished manner. That should happen here too, except that we do not want any additional interpretation or discussion by the editor, as might be expected in academia - just a collation of factual information already published and available that anyone can VERIFY. I hope this helps you a bit. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 19:01, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

@OZUSAN Oh, and I'm afraid the image you uploaded to Wikimedia Commons appears to be copyrighted (and taken from here), so you don't appear to have any legal right to release it under any other licence. I will therefore notify Commons of a probable copyright infringement.

There are, of course, ways for an organisation to release images they have taken, but this has to come from the copyright owner and be sent with an appropriate release form and from a recognisable email address associated to that copyright holder to prove it comes from that source. Let us know if you need to the link to make such a release. Nick Moyes (talk) 19:34, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

"List of Youtubers" Wikipedia Page Mistake

"Tyrone Lindo" isn't in the proper alphabetical order in the List of YouTubers Page ("Tyrone Lindo" appears before "Trisha Paytas" and after "Trial and Error"). 66.253.168.43 (talk) 17:41, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for noticing this, and wanting to help.

Since the article is semi-protected, an unregistered user can't edit it directly; but you are welcome to make an edit request on its talk page. However, I note that there is a message

This article contains a list that has not been properly sorted. A list of people should be alphabetised by surname, not first name. See MOS:LISTSORT for more information. Please improve this article if you can.

so I'm not sure it's worth worrying about individual entries being out of order. ColinFine (talk) 18:55, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

The alphabetization, however it's meant or supposed to be, is a mess. If it mattered at all, I might try to tackle it. But really, I can hardly imagine any more useless "article" here in Wikipedia. Uporządnicki (talk) 19:06, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

@AzseicsoK: I agree, although it may be tied for uselessness with List of most-followed Twitter accounts. Especially now that Twitter has lost its relevance. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:50, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

At least that list is limited to fifty entries. List of YouTubers would actually be more useful if it was so limited. Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:45, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

 Fixed. I have resorted the list by surname, so this issue should be resolved. If others wanted to give it a quick look to make sure I've gotten it right that would also be appreciated. Tollens (talk) 12:38, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

@Anachronist:, where is your information that Twitter has "lost its relevance"? Do you have some actual facts or data, beyond the insistence of those who would govern how we're allowed to think that we SHOULDN'T be paying attention to it anymore, because they started to allow a little diversity of thought and difference of opinion? Uporządnicki (talk) 20:40, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Saved data

When I click in the "Search Wikipedia" field a box pops up with "Saved data" and then the word "Fellowes". What did I click for this to happen and most importantly how do I get rid of this? SlightSmile 20:56, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Slightsmile, welcome to the Teahouse. It sounds like an autofill feature in your browser, remembering what has previously been entered in the same browser. If you want tips on controlling it then you can post to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing with the name of your browser, and device or operating system. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:07, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Including images from American Physical Society Journals

Hello, I would like to include a figure from a paper published in Physical Review E, a publication of the American Physical Society. I have already received permission from the author to publish this. On this FAQ page, it answers questions about reuse and Wikipedia. Additionally, this Stack Exchange post indicates that author permission should be sufficient for upload. My issue is that it is not clear how I should answer the questions about copyright in the Wikimedia Upload Wizard. I would greatly appreciate any guidance as to which options I should select and what responses I should provide. Thank you. Magenta.lily (talk) 17:42, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Magenta.lily, and welcome to the Teahouse.

This is a complicated area, and I think that you are misunderstanding what the APS page has said.

Generally, Wikimedia sites (including Wikipedia) have as a fundamental policy that everything on them be freely reuseable and modifiable, by anybody, for any purpose (including commercial) as long as they are attributed. (English Wikipedia does make certain exceptions and allows non-free media to be used subject to a restrictive set of conditions that won't apply here. Some other Wikiepdias don't allow even this).

The usual way of managing this, unless the material is in the public domain (by reason of age or the copyright holder having explicitly placed it there) is for the material to be licensed explicitly by the copyright holder under a licence such as CC-BY-SA. "Permission" from the copyright holder to use it on Wikipedia is not adequate - they must formally release it, either by a published statement (eg on their website), or by uploading it themselves and releasing it as they do so, or by sending an email to Wikimedia as explained in donating copyright materials. Whichever way they do it, they will be granting an irrevocable permission to anybody to copy or reuse the material for any purpose, as long as they attribute it.

The APS FAQ page explains that the author of a paper must transfer the copyright to the APS: they will retain certain rights in it, as set out in their agreement; but they will not retain the copyright, and therefore will not have the legal power to license it in the way that Wikimedia required.

The concession made on that page is that the author may make another work which is derived from their paper published by the APS. If the derived work meets the specified conditions, then they will hold the copyright in it (not in the original paper), and so they will have the power to licence it as required by Wikimedia, if they wish.

So to do what you are trying to do, you will either have to ask the authors of the paper to create a work derived from that paper and containing at least 10% new material and not more than 50% of the original paper. They will then have the legal power to license this derived work in one of the ways I described above.

Alternatively, you could ask the APS to release the paper (or even just the diagram) in one of the ways I described above. I have no idea how receptive they might be to that request. ColinFine (talk) 18:42, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi, thank you so much for your response. I am able to write code to generate the desired figure myself. What would the situation be if I reproduced a visually similar figure representing the same data myself? Magenta.lily (talk) 19:36, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi again. I think that would be OK, but this goes beyond my knowledge. I suggest asking at C:COM:Village Pump/Copyright. ColinFine (talk) 19:45, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

@Magenta.lily The diagrams themselves are copyrighted, however you can recreate your own diagram, since the facts in them cannot be copyrighted. Include that the data/information is from the article, and that the diagrams are freely licensed by you (Public Domain, or whatever other permissible license you like) on Commons:Main page. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 23:09, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Where do I report promotional edits?

See User:Itsme sarakhan, or this diff. I've checked username policy, and I don't think they would qualify as a promotional username, but the user page edit is concerning. Where should this be reported? Should I leave a message on their talk page? Thanks! Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 02:50, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

@Schrödinger's jellyfish, yes, you are correct that the username is fine. I have tagged the page for deletion per WP:G11. When you find pages like this, you usually first evaluate under WP:U5, WP:G11 and WP:G12 but it takes some experience to start getting it right most of the time. You are expected to get them right almost every time. If you are not sure any of the speedy deletion criteria apply, then, I would recommend leaving a talk page message telling them their userspace activity may not adhere to WP:UPYES. There isn't a specific venue to "report" bad pages. You have to evaluate them for WP:CSD or WP:XFD, or work with other authors or by yourself to make the page acceptable. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:16, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

COI - Association Board member update to related page

I'm interested in updating the page about Tak (game), but I'm concerned about a potential COI. I am a recent board member (unpaid) of the USTA (in process of filing for 501c3), an association whose mission is largely to promote the game. My aim is to clean up and resolve the issues on the page, but would appreciate veteran and non-biased wikipedians to help me do so. Noahsfields (talk) 03:05, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

@Noahsfields: Welcome to the Teahouse! I suggest declaring your potential COI on your user page and then submitting edit requests at Talk:Tak (game). GoingBatty (talk) 03:29, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Fox News

Can fox news be used as a source if it has nothing to do with biological living person? I'm referring to my recent contribution on Missouri Route 5? Cwater1 (talk) 22:49, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

@Cwater1: RSP indicates that there's no consensus on their reliability when the content is not about politics or science – in this particular case I would find it hard to see why it would be an inappropriate source. Tollens (talk) 22:54, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Okay. I wanted to make to make sure I didn't do a wrong thing. I wish you happy editing. Cwater1 (talk) 03:49, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Did I do something wrong??

I created 2 set index articles:

• List of storms named Gloring
• List of storms named Vanessa

When I try to search for "list of storms named gloring" the only thing that shows up is "List of storms named Goring"

And Vanessa, "search for pages containing list of storms named vanessa"

However, when I press enter, it brings me to the correct pages.

I have to search specifically for "List of storms named Gloring" and "List of storms named Vanessa" for the pages to show up in the little search box.

Is there a way I can get the two pages to show? ClumsyOwlet (talk) 20:33, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

@ClumsyOwlet: Give it a day for the new page to be indexed in the search. And give it 90 days for the page to show up in Google searches. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:36, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Ok, now they show up. Thank you! ClumsyOwlet (talk) 05:02, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

chatting in talk sections

can i say "thank you" to wikipedians who made extremely niche articles many decades ago. i just want to say thank you in the talk section and i dont think its breaking rules but i just dont know wikipedia etiquette, i dont want to come across as facetious i am sincerely grateful. thank you...

Mmmcabbage (talk) 02:17, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Mmmcabbage. The only purpose of a conversation on an article talk page is to discuss corrections and improvements to the article, based on what reliable sources say about the topic. If you want to thank an editor for their work, use their user talk page. Cullen328 (talk) 02:35, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Such editors may no longer be active. Consider checking if still making contributions before leaving a 'thank you' on those editors' Talk pages. David notMD (talk) 08:02, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Request/Information on Article improvement

Any improvements possible to grow on Haile Selassie I to at least make it quality and nominated for a good article status CtasACT (talk) 03:43, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, CtasACT. A Good article nomination was quick failed a week ago on January 8, due to problems with referencing, although the reviewer was optimistic about the GA potential if those problems were solved. Have those problems been completely solved? Cullen328 (talk) 03:58, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

The main issue was with If a Bibliography/Sources were needed at the same time, so i simply removed duplicate citations so that only a specific citations was to be found at the Sources and bibliography. The only problem remaining would if if author citations problems are there, i have looked and there seems to be no author citations problems, so i think it is fixed. CtasACT (talk) 04:14, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

CtasACT, then I recommend that you contact the editor who quick failed the GA nomination, and ask that editor if they would be willing to take another look. Cullen328 (talk) 08:09, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Draft article

Hi teahouse. I edit a draft here that keeps being declined. I have attended to the comments, which at times, don't seem accurate, such as reading like an advertisement. More specific feedback would be helpful. Fred114 01:11, 15 January 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fred114 (talk • contribs)

The article draft, Fred114, currently tells us what the organization focuses on, what its goals and objectives are, what it seeks to do, etc. That's pretty much a collection of synonyms for the organization's stated purpose, which is of little encyclopedic value. (If people want to read this, they can presumably find it on the organization's own website.) What does the organization actually do, according to sources that are independent of it? That aside, the prose is ponderous. Consider: Subsequently, a strategic decision was made to hold the following congress in Zurich, with crucial support from Adolf Friedmann. This decision was instrumental in laying the groundwork for the formation of an international organization dedicated to the advancement of group psychotherapy. How about plain With support from Adolf Friedmann, the next congress was held in Zurich, which helped form an international organization for group psychotherapy? -- Hoary (talk) 01:32, 15 January 2024 (UTC) Amended Hoary (talk) 08:31, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

It's Draft:International Association for Group Psychotherapy and Group Processes. David notMD (talk) 08:04, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Image overload policy

Somewhere there is a guidance that says that use of images should be restrained, that this is the function of Commons, not Wikipedia. I hoped to find it at WP:Images#Policy and guidelines but no such luck. Wikipedia:Image dos and don'ts just says "don't do it", which is not really good enough for my purposes. A major clear-out of Swastika is needed and will need be supported by a clear policy justification, as it will not be popular. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:58, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, JMF. As is obvious, this is an important, high visibility article about a controversial topic that happens to be a graphic element with a long history. It seems inevitable to me that such an article will have many images. The decision about just how many images are appropriate will require consensus. I recommend that you gain that consensus through discussion at Talk: Swastika before carring out a "major clear-out" of images on your own. Cullen328 (talk) 02:54, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328: yes, I am well aware of that. There is an existing consensus that the article is already at the limit of what is acceptable, but defending that without a policy basis is rightfully open to a WP:OWN challenge. "Consensus among whom?, where?, when?, what made those editors so special?"

No easy answers then. Thank you anyway. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 09:26, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

How does a article become available to public or is displayed after completion ?

Hi there,

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

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

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

Also i wanted to ask that whether a page gets automatically reviwed or there are some certain tags you have to add in a article to get it reviewed and after those review does the page get automatically indexed on search engine ?

This is another aritcle i made i think by now its 3 months old but doesent appear:- Sack of Bhatner fort (1398) Rahim231 (talk) 11:05, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

thanks Rahim231 (talk) 10:45, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance. Rahim231 (talk) 11:42, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Suggest editing

Can I suggest an editing to someone who knows what he is doing if I see a mistake or like to add some information? Laqué2077 (talk) 12:04, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, Laqué2077, you can suggest this in a new thread at the foot of the talk page of the particular article. Just be sure to cite a reliable source for what you are asserting. -- Hoary (talk) 12:25, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

how to create a page of meadow high school

So you want to know "how to create a page of meadow high school"? Please see Wikipedia:Your First Article and WP:NSCHOOL.Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:17, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Get on Today's Featured Article

I don't know how to suggest an article for Today's Featured Article. It appears Angela Lansbury has never been there. Could someone suggest it or tell me how? Thank you. MisawaSakura (talk) 15:55, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. Please see this page where you can propose a new article to feature. 331dot (talk) 16:02, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi MisawaSakura. Biographies are usually featured on the birth or death anniversary unless another date is very significant for the subject. Both dates are in October for Angela Lansbury so it's too soon for Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests but you could add it to Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/pending. 16 October 2025 is the 100th anniversary of her birth so that would be a strong candidate date. It's still 21 months away but we have more featured articles than days so many articles never become Today's Featured Article. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:02, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Interesting. The 100th birthday idea is nice but I wish it wasn't so far away. MisawaSakura (talk) 01:35, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

@MisawaSakura: She was listed in "Recent deaths" on the main page in October 2022 and the article was promoted to featured status in February 2023. Today's Featured Article in 2024 may seem too soon for many when other featured articles have waited years and she has a big anniversary in 2025. Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/pending already has several 2025 requests for round anniversaries. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:52, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

@331dot: @PrimeHunter: Thanks I have listed it for 100th birthday and made a calendar note to formally nominate in 2025. @Midnightblueowl: Notifying you of this as you're the one who got it to FA. MisawaSakura (talk) 15:33, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Tag removal

I have been working on improving an article. When I started it was a lead and 2 sentences. I have added several more sections, a picture and an info box. I had some bumps along the way. I followed up on other editor’s suggestions left for me on my personal and the Mater Matutapage talk pages. I pinged the editor who placed the “multiple issues” tag on it a week ago and there has been no response. Can someone here take a look? If more needs done I will keep working on it. My editing skills are getting better. My goal is to have a good article without the cautionary tag. Can someone here help? The page is Mater Matuta WikiTikiTavi63 (talk) 14:54, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I have also left messages on the wikiprojects pages for Archaeology and classical Greek and Roman WikiTikiTavi63 (talk) 14:59, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

WikiTikiTavi63, hello! A few things that jumped out at me:

• There are several one-sentence paragraphs, which are usually to be avoided in prose. Paragraphs are basically the most valuable unit of organization for an encyclopedia article: when all of your prose feels like it belongs to a paragraph, that's a good sign your work is well-organized. Also, likely as a result there are paragraphs without inline citations, which is generally not ideal: since paragraphs are the easiest level of organization, the expectation is that people should be able to verify any new claims in a given paragraph from citations attached to said paragraph.
• This is a minor point, but highly applicable elsewhere: your |deity_of= parameter in the {{Infobox deity}} is overloaded. Infoboxes are meant to be at-a-glance summaries for the content of articles: the example on the template page has three examples provided, you have six. I think three may be too many still, but you should certainly pare those listed in the infobox to the most important. People overpack infoboxes and stretch parameters to represent information they don't have to, and it's one of the most consistent editing problems on the site, imo—see Help:Footnotes.
• A devoted "Etymology" header is not at all required on this or most articles. A footnote attached to the lead term would do:

Mater Matuta

• Understanding there's less to work from, it feels like this article is relying on me to already know a considerable amount about Eos and Aurora to be able to get much from it. Perhaps a bit of background For example, the chronology of the "Temples" section is highly irregular, jumping back to the 6th century BCE from other points repeatedly. It also feels like information is being repeated, but the prose is disorganized to the point where I wasn't sure on first read. It was difficult for me to count how many temples there were, exactly.
• Nitpicking now, but the wikilinks could be much more straightforward: why does "Latin" in the lead link to Religion in ancient Rome? Why is only the "Sant’" in Sant' Omobono wikilinked? Try to avoid leaving "easter eggs" as to where links go.

References

I think this is a pretty good start! It's a really worthwhile addition to the site. Really, most of what should be here is here: it just needs to be rearranged for the sake of the reader. I've already linked it, but I recommend reading Wikipedia:Writing better articles, an essay that contains a lot of tips that may serve you—if not with this article, then certainly in the future. Cheers, and best of luck! — Remsense诉 15:54, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

How do I get help writing an article for something extremely obscure and unknown

MINHNMITY was a cult I encountered in South Africa 8 years ago and is definitely real as far as i am concerned. Wilhelm444 (talk) 14:51, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, @Wilhelm444, a tertiary source. We can not be the first place to bring to light the obscure and the unknown. We only summarise what's known about topics that are already known and well-studied. Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:57, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I do actually have the webpage downloading right now, it seems to have a cult following(not in literal terms)and is studied by a sociologist; it's called "The human worshiping cult of dog eaters". Wilhelm444 (talk) 15:01, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

If you find two sources about the subject, you can get started. See WP:YFA for guidance on how to start a Wikipedia draft article. On the other hand, if you are seeking help to locate other sources, or to find out more about the topic, you could try the reference desk. See WP:RD/H. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:06, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

It's called in the text document I think there's more. Wilhelm444 (talk) 15:06, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

It's blacklisted on Wikipedia and the webpage has been found. Thank you for your patience. Wilhelm444 (talk) 15:08, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

The sources that Usedtobecool referred to must be reliably published. Sites that are blacklisted are probably not that.

Note that your personal experience cannot be used in writing an article: everything in an article must come from reliable published sources. ColinFine (talk) 16:18, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

A final study is behind a paywall but the working paper isn't. Should I cite both?

I've found multiple times that the final version of a paper is not accessible without payment, however the working paper/discussion paper released in the preceding years is freely available. I want other researchers to have at least the benefit of at least the working paper, so I figure I should cite both, and add a note saying that the working paper is available for those who can't access the final. Is that correct or is there a different way Wikipedia prefers to deal with that scenario, if at all? JM1215 (talk) 16:11, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

@JM1215 You cite the source you actualy used, we are not concerned about paywalls. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:18, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you JM1215 (talk) 16:22, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Signature

How do I customize my signature line? Coalcity58 (talk) 16:39, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

@Coalcity58: Welcome to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1212. Wikipedia:Custom signatures should have all the information you need. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:53, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Is this source allowed?

I'm currently in the process of brining this article to FA status. I've discovered a source that I could use to describe the game's acquisition, but I'm not sure if this source can be used in an article. I've heard of a guideline that you can't use blogs unless they're written by a subject-matter expert; unfortunately, this is a random guy's blog owned by someone with unknown credentials. The sources can be found here and here. Thanks, TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 18:18, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, TWOrantula. I'm afraid that's right. WP:BLOG says Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. ColinFine (talk) 18:21, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Does it still apply if it's an interview? TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 18:25, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes. The issue is that it is not published by somebody with a reputation for editorial control and fact-checking - that's what we mean by "reliable".

Separately, an interview is normally not an independent source, so can only be used in limited way, even if it is reliably published. ColinFine (talk) 19:39, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Is it bad etiquette to copy table formatting?

I'm in the process of drafting an article for the racehorse Paramount Prince. I liked the way the article on Moira presented racing statistics, so I copied the formatting of the table and legend over to the incomplete draft in my sandbox. Is it considered bad etiquette to copy formatting like this, and should I replace the table and legend with something that is more 'my own'? YuriYamahamada (talk) 16:04, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

YuriYamahamada, certainly not! While contributions are licensed and you must still attribute the source article when copying prose within Wikipedia, both legally and culturally it is wholly encouraged to learn from your fellow editors and use each others' work to the maximum extent it can improve the site. I would be highly flattered, frankly. Cheers! — Remsense诉 16:08, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! YuriYamahamada (talk) 16:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I'd like to add as well that using the same table formatting makes it easier for future readers to compare information between the two articles. Reconrabbit 19:47, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Source error

Hello, teahouse. On this page, there is a coding error. There is no data in the table, and it seems it was removed from what it was originally transcribing- but the "trim" template keeps fudging with the citation code when I try to remove it. UnexpectedSmoreInquisition aka USI (talk) 19:31, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't see a problem. Which table are you talking about? ColinFine (talk) 19:49, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

This one. Either tables aren't working, or the table doesn't have any data inputted. UnexpectedSmoreInquisition aka USI (talk) 20:14, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Nevermind! I'm just a bit slow... missed the collapse box. Sorry! UnexpectedSmoreInquisition aka USI (talk) 20:15, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Admin

I want to become a an administrator Emmalouscott1 (talk) 18:39, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

@Emmalouscott1: Hello! Why would you want to be given a mop? Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 18:41, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Because I want to help and support — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmalouscott1 (talk • contribs) 18:44, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I would like to help Emmalouscott1 (talk) 18:46, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

You have made 7 edits so far (none useful), ask again when you have made 7 thousand useful edits. Theroadislong (talk) 18:51, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

[Edit Conflict] There is a process to apply to become an administrator, but I'm not even going to link to the details, because it requires approval by other experienced editors, and successful applicants typically have accumulated at least several years of experience here, many thousands of good quality edits, and can demonstrate a comprehensive knowledge of Wikipedia's principles and procedures. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.198.104.88 (talk) 19:02, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Why Emmalouscott1 (talk) 18:52, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Emmalouscott1, because editors who partipate in Requests for Adminship will oppose any candidate who does not have a long history of productive contributions to this encyclopedia, plus a demonstrated knowledge of its policies and guidelines. Cullen328 (talk) 20:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

album title (artist name album)

Thanks, the reason i put album title (artist name album) cause, i don't know that someone had a title name, so i don't want to cause confusion. Samchristie05 (talk) 17:08, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Samchristie05, and welcome to the Teahouse. This looks as if it is a reply to somebody, but I don't know to who, or to what.

I guess this is about Draft:And The Music Plays On (Del Shannon album)? Since there is not currently an article called And The Music Plays On, that disambiguation is not required: we only use it when there is more than one article with the same title. But don't worry about it in your draft: when a reviewer accepts your draft, they will move it to an appropriate name in the encyclopaedia.

Of more concern is that, in my opinion, the draft will not be accepted currently, because it is not adequately sourced. Of your four sources, two are books published on self-publishing sites, which are not reliable sources - anybody can publish anything on Lulu. One is a mere listing. The only one which counts at all towards notability is the review on AllMusic - that's all right as far as it goes, but at a single paragraph, it is not nearly enough.You need several sources, each of which meets all the criteria in WP:42. You can continue to improve the draft while it is awaiting review. ColinFine (talk) 18:09, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

every album i created Samchristie05 (talk) 18:12, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

if i put the lull of His Recording Career, do you think that's a big no no, or inappropriate for Wikipedia? Samchristie05 (talk) 21:01, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Où est passé mon brouillon?

Bonjour,

J'avais envoyé mon brouillon en relecture et il a disparu... Je n'ai reçu aucune notification et je ne trouve plus mon brouillon. Quelqu'un peut m'aider SVP? J'ai passé beaucoup de temps là-dessus.

Merci beaucoup à l'avance. Jdmairie (talk) 21:09, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Machine translation:

Where did my draft go?

Good morning,

I sent my draft for review and it disappeared... I received no notification and I can no longer find my draft. Can somebody help me please? I spent a lot of time on this.

Thank you very much in advance. Tollens (talk) 21:12, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello Jdmairie,

It seems you translated the article Julie Dufour to French – we cannot accept contributions here in any other language than English as this is the English Wikipedia. You may be interested in contributing instead to the French Wikipedia.

Traduction automatique:

Bonjour Jdmairie,

Il semble que vous ayez traduit l'article Julie Dufour en français – nous ne pouvons accepter ici de contributions dans une autre langue que l'anglais car il s'agit de Wikipédia anglais. Vous pourriez être intéressé à contribuer à la Wikipedia français. Tollens (talk) 21:17, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

@Jdmairie: Welcome to the Teahouse at the English Wikipedia! Are you referring to the draft you made on the French Wikipedia? See fr:Utilisateur:Jdmairie/Brouillon. GoingBatty (talk) 21:18, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Template in user namespace

How do I create a template within my user namespace? NM 23:00, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, NM. You just create it as a user subpage. When you transclude it (using the {{ ... }} syntax), you give the full name, eg {{User:NM/MyTemplate|...}}. The only thing that's special about the Template namespace is that that is the default for transclusion if no other namespace is given. ColinFine (talk) 23:08, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! NM 23:26, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Feedback, before submission

Anything recommended? Draft: The Jackson 5 Second National Tour 1Skywriter (talk) 22:41, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Sample: On May 5, the entire family would officially move and settle their new estate. On the same day, Reebie Jackson would give birth to a baby girl named Stacee Brown, the daughter of Rebbie Jackson and Nathaniel Brown in Tarzana, Los Angeles. On break, they would also record and tape for their cartoon series that would release later in September. A little too would-en, perhaps? How about On May 5, the family moved to their new estate. [removing a seemingly tangential matter] On break, they also recorded for their cartoon series that would release in September. -- Hoary (talk) 03:09, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I realized how much contents weren't necessary. 1Skywriter (talk) 03:23, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

@1Skywriter: Since Rebbie Jackson gave birth to Stacee Brown, I don't think we need to reiterate that Stacee is the daughter of Rebbie immediately after. GoingBatty (talk) 03:51, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Creation of new category

I've just created a new category Category:Revenue blocks of Tenkasi district. It's a sub category of Category:Revenue blocks of Tamil Nadu and it's listed there under 'R' for Revenue rather than 'T' for Tenkasi. I wonder what step I've missed when creating the new category and whether it can be changed. Rupples (talk) 06:11, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Rupples, I've done the required tweak, I think! All you needed to do was set the WP:SORTKEY for the Tamil Nadu category on the Tenkasi category page. Cheers! — Remsense诉 06:17, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Brilliant. I see what you've done. It was the first ever new category I've attempted. Thanks very much. Rupples (talk) 06:27, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Becoming a journalist maybe

I have said numerous times now that I encountered a cult in South Africa and have evidence but it seems Wikipedia cannot bring things to light anymore like I remembered. And as a another question, is it possible to use your own personal evidence as a source? 41.182.199.254 (talk) 06:49, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't allow original research to be used in any article. Unless your evidence has first been published in a different reliable source, you cannot use your own evidence, no. Tollens (talk) 06:51, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

So must it be peer reviewed? That is how I understand it, correct y/n. I will publish them 2024.03.24(Y/M/D). Wilhelm444 (talk) 07:02, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Not necessarily peer reviewed, no, and in some cases even that doesn't establish reliability. It just depends on context. You can read more at Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Publishing your own information yourself isn't usually helpful; see WP:SPS. In addition, to establish notability, multiple reliable sources (different publishers) are typically required. I see your draft has been rejected – this means it will not be reconsidered. I would recommend not spending more time on this as it will likely be wasted. Tollens (talk) 07:15, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I will become a journalist instead. Thank you. Wilhelm444 (talk) 07:46, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I feel strongly about this and I have got contact to a member, seems likely a good story. My age is catching up to me. Wilhelm444 (talk) 07:48, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Wilhelm444 (same person as IP) now indefinitly blocked. David notMD (talk) 10:44, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

New articles about companies

Hello, I have written several articles so far. Some have been moved to drafts, while others remain as they are. There is one article that was moved to draft, and I don't have the option to click a button to request its publication. The article is Draft:Perplexity.ai I would appreciate some assistance.

The general attitude towards new articles about companies is one of suspicion and fear of 'advertising.' However, when it comes to companies with breakthrough products (like Perplexity.ai or D-ID) or those that have existed for many years (such as JFrog or Holmes Place), this suspicion seems, in my opinion, to be unnecessary.Galamore (talk) 07:04, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

@Galamore: Welcome to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1212. It appears another editor has added the Submit the draft for review! button for you. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 07:09, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

If you're looking to submit a draft without a button in the future, you can do so by adding {{subst:submit}} to the top of the page. The reason for the suspicion of new articles about companies is the large number of new articles which are created simply for PR purposes – it is common for these articles to claim they have created 'breakthrough products', and many such companies have existed for many years, and yet they often still don't meet the inclusion criteria. The best and easiest way to prove that such suspicion is unwarranted in any particular case is just to demonstrate significant coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources. Tollens (talk) 07:20, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Galamore. Wikipedia is not impressed by "breakthrough products" or even by "exist[ing] for many years". If enough indepedent, reliable sources are impressed by these to have taken the trouble to writed in some depth about them, then Wikipedia can take note.

The criteria on notability are basically there to ensure that there is enough reliable, indepedent, material on a subject to base an article on; remembering that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 11:31, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Linking translation to original

So I just created a translated page (which is Draft:Hotel Termas el Sosneado), but I can't figure out how to officially link it to it's Spanish original: http://es.wiki.x.io/wiki/Hotel_Termas_el_Sosneado

Ideally, the English version has the same image as the original as well. I'm new and just don't know how to work out the language links or how to give credit to the original page if necessary.

Could someone either point me in the right direction or fix the issue? Also, I'd like to officially publish it if possible. Thanks! Gnat8 (talk) 06:28, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Gnat8, first the draft is promoted to full article status, and then it, the Spanish-language article, and anything else are linked at WikiData. (The links don't go from Wikipedia to WikiData; they go from WikiData to Wikipedia.) So the first priority is to get it promoted. (What does "stop-over" mean in the context of this subject?) -- Hoary (talk) 08:21, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

How do I submit it for review to be full article status? What do you mean by "stop-over"? Gnat8 (talk) 19:38, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Gnat8. I've added a temporary interwiki (only visible in Draft space) that links it to the Spanish article, and also a Draft header at the top with a button you can use to submit it for review. But please do not submit it in its current state as the sourcing is inadequate, and you'll be wasting the reviewer's time. Mathglot (talk) 11:59, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Draft and talk page indexed on google

Hello,

I've come across something a bit confusing- I've been working on this article draft (Draft:Infamous PR) and realised it's now appearing in google search results, even though it's in draft space- this happens just from googling the organisation name. When I first created the article I published it into mainspace, before I was told it would need re-drafting so it was moved into draft space, so I'm wondering if this period of being in mainspace is how it's ended up being indexed? The other odd thing is on google it's the talk page of the draft that appears in the search result. A draft talk page appearing on google seems odd/messy to me, am I missing something? Should I just delete that draft and re-create it to rectify that?

Thanks for any advice! Editing84 (talk) 10:16, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

@Editing84: You're likely correct that it was indexed while it was in the main Talk namespace, but I'm not sure why Google would have updated their result to point to a page that shouldn't be indexed at all. There isn't really a lot that can be done about it though, unfortunately. Even if the page were to be deleted it would take some time for the page to be checked again and removed from search results – we can't control Google's results ourselves. In theory it should go away eventually, but it may take a while. Tollens (talk) 10:30, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, yeah it's very strange! So if the draft stays where it is while it is still worked on, google will at some point stop having the talk page appear in search results? Editing84 (talk) 10:43, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

In theory, eventually yes. How long exactly it would be is anyone's guess though – could be anywhere from days to months. Tollens (talk) 10:47, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Ok- thanks again. I know you can submit requests to google to refresh outdated content from their search- ie in this case stop including the talk page. I assume it would probably require the draft to be either moved to a new location (userspace maybe?) or deleted altogether, then the google request could be made. Maybe that process would still be no quicker overall, who knows. Editing84 (talk) 11:41, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Neat! I didn't know about that, actually, thanks for sharing. I was able to get it through, I think – looks like all it needed is for any text on the old version not to be in the new version, and the number of days since the last comment having changed was good enough. It might be faster? Still, Google Search is a bit of a black box to pretty much all of us, I think. Tollens (talk) 11:49, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Oh great, thanks! I'll keep an eye on it and see what happens. Editing84 (talk) 12:21, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

For me it doesn't show up btw. Only it's talk page, which is correct. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 10:33, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I think that's what they meant. Draft talk pages should indeed not be indexed – see WP:INDEXING. Tollens (talk) 10:34, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I want to change name of a article in wikipedia

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

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

@Pavankalyan Yadav Panga Critically, please make sure there are reliable sources supporting the name. In the case of a number of moves you've made today, none of the sources refer to the subjects by the names you have used. —C.Fred (talk) 13:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Pavankalyan Yadav Panga You should also be aware of WP:COMMONNAME. 331dot (talk) 13:45, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't believe it is standard procedure to add the name of the person's community to their name, unless reliable sources do this. 331dot (talk) 13:47, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

@Pavankalyan Yadav Panga When you find proof, see Wikipedia:Moving a page. Cwater1 (talk) 13:58, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

What counts as relevant information to add to an article?

Hello! I'm looking to update my favorite bands' Wikipedia article but I'm not sure what counts as relevant information to add?

I don't want to add information that's unnecessary (i.e. how they named one of their albums, specific festivals they've preformed at, photos of the individual members) and don't know if it would be fine if I formatted the article differently (in terms of sections of history, similarly to the Lovejoy page). I guess what I'm asking is how much is too much? Thank you. PeachPitFan17 (talk) 19:47, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

@PeachPitFan17: If there is information that is covered by a source that is (a) reliable, and (b) independent of the band (that means, independently reported, not an interview or something written by the band or an associate), then it is fair game to add to the article. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:34, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

PeachPitFan17 See WP:FANCRUFT for opinion on when details verge on trivia. David notMD (talk) 15:02, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Stylish username

Hi guys! I want some help for my username.

How to make a stylish username? Like @Aviram7 (Sorry for tagging). Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 20:26, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Here. UnexpectedSmoreInquisition aka USI (talk) 20:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

@UnexpectedSmoreInquisition, Thanks you. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 20:29, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Just make sure to follow the Username policy. Industrial Insect (talk) 15:29, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

A tool for article statistics

Hi, Is there a tool or option that can be activated to find out the number of words in an article? Pereoptic ^Talk✉️   15:46, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

@Pereoptic: Hello! Wikipedia:Did_you_know/DYKcheck does this. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 15:47, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Pereoptic or click "Page size" under "tools" to get figures for readable prose size etc. - Arjayay (talk) 15:50, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Update Image to include 2023 Dutch Election

@TapyrrII

Kind request to an update of linked image. Want to use for my masters thesis.

File:Dutchparlseats2.png KevinROmierlo (talk) 16:35, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

@KevinROmierlo: If TapyrII doesn't respond (they only made one edit on Wikipedia in 2023), you could try contacting the original creator of the image, Arnoutf. GoingBatty (talk) 16:52, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Countries ranked by gdp

in the list provided in wikipedia, the gdp's of all countries are updated as per imf figures 2023 except India. Any authorised user can explain why? Akshitjain2112 (talk) 17:02, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Please specify exactly which article you are referring to. List of countries by GDP (nominal) is up to date, but we have many Lists of countries by GDP. Shantavira|^{feed me} 17:23, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Akshitjain2112, and welcome to the Teahouse. There is no such thing as an "authorised user". There is no editorial board. Wikipedia is updated by volunteers, who work on what they wish.

As Shantavira said, it's difficult to investigate your issue without knowing exactly which page you are talking about; but the answer is probably either because nobody updated that figure, or because when somebody updated it, they couldn't find current data for India. It is quite likely that the people who updated the article will be watching its talk page, so you could ask on that talk page. ColinFine (talk) 18:12, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

writing articles

Please where do i click on to write an article Ifyleraks (talk) 13:13, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I need a step by step guide on how to write an article pls. i am a bit confused right now. Ifyleraks (talk) 13:14, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

@Ifyleraks: Hello! Please read Wikipedia:Your first article. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 13:15, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Ifyleraks, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia.

I'm going to be frank here: please do not try and create a new article as the first thing you do here. (Would you build a house as your first engineering projects? Or enter a tournament in a sport you just started yesterday?) If you do so, you are likely to experience frustration and disappointment, and quite possibly waste your time and other people's time.

I urge you to spend a few months learning how Wikipedia works, by making improvements to some of our six million existing articles - learning, in particular, about the core policies of verifiability, reliable sources, notability and neutral point of view. If you don't have a grasp on those, any attempt to create an article will probably be painful.

I understand the wish to "make your mark" by adding an article - I remember it myself, from nearly twenty years ago. But now I know that creating a new article isn't the only way, or even necessarily the best way, to add value to this resource. (I have made nearly 24 000 edits, but only ever created a handful of articles).

I suggest you go to the task center, and choose some articles that interest you to work on. Happy editing! ColinFine (talk) 13:56, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I concur. Your ability to create a draft that will succeed will improve if you first put in time improving existing articles as practice. David notMD (talk) 14:53, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

@Ifyleraks: If after reading the above, you really insist on writing an article, don't do it before you read Wikipedia:Golden Rule and WP:BACKWARD. Strictly following those guidelines will cause a huge improvement in the chances of your draft article being accepted for publication. In a nutshell, learn what reliable sources are, and then gather reliable sources, and only then start writing the article based on what those sources say, not based on what you personally know. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:15, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

College basketball infobox error

For Template:NCAA team season.. I am currently experiencing difficulty with redirecting the infobox title (Old Dominion Monarchs men's basketball) to its article space instead of its previous name (Old Dominion Monarchs basketball) under mode=basketball. The automatic linking to 'Old Dominion Monarchs basketball' causes the prev_year and next_year links to redirect to the old article namespaces instead of the new ones that are currently in use.

For clarification, the Old Dominion Lady Monarchs basketball team was renamed the Old Dominion Monarchs women's basketball team beginning with the 2013–14 season. I have the linked media guides displaying the name change between the 2012–13 and 2013–14 seasons on my talk page. Vataxevader (talk) 17:45, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Vataxevader. Looling at the source of {{Infobox college sports team season}}, I see that it has a special case hardcoded for "Old Dominion Monarch's". I suspect that this needs to be updated, but I haven't followed it through. I suggest asking at Template Talk:Infobox college sports team season. ColinFine (talk) 18:18, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

citation dates

greetings editors! im working on adding the research ive done for the Dave hill article, but my citations are coming up with errors. can someone explain what I entered wrong into the date/citation format? http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Dave_Hill_(comedian) HenryMaxG (talk) 19:28, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

@HenryMaxG: I think if you use dashes for the dates, it needs to be in yyyy-mm-dd format. You seem to be using month day year. RudolfRed (talk) 19:35, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

RudolfRed has it. The guidelines on date formatting are at MOS:DATE. I find that the most consistent/least ambiguous way of writing out dates is using Day Month Year form (16 January 2024), which will never give you errors. Reconrabbit 19:37, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

perfect! thank you both! I was able to resolve this!! amazing. HenryMaxG (talk) 19:41, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

@HenryMaxG: For an article about an American, Month Day Year is usually a better format (January 16, 2024), although in this case the {{Use mdy dates}} template will display the reference dates in Month Day Year format as long as your reference dates are in a valid format. GoingBatty (talk) 20:30, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Dead links

If a source has a dead link, meaning it says, page can’t be found or it was removed, can the source be removed if discussed on talk page? Frostyibex (talk) 15:11, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Frostyibex, and welcome to the Teahouse (I have inserted a header to put your question in a new section).

The answer is, it depends: please see WP:LINKROT. --ColinFine (talk) 15:16, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

@Frostyibex You may also be interested in IABot. Cheers ‍ Relativity 03:19, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Seeking some feedback

Hi Teahouse folks, I'm working on a draft of an article about Erin Williams, an American author, illustrator, and cartoonist. I'm confused about why the article was not accepted. Each source is independent of the subject--with the exception of her website, which is listed as an external website at the end of the article, and can be removed if that's what's causing the issue. The sources are published in reliable, secondary sources, for example, reviews in Publisher's Weekly, and Kirkus Reviews, and The Kenyon Review. And the references show significant coverage including sources that are reviews of the author's work. After reviewing the feedback I got, and reviewing the articles linked in the feedback--I'm not sure how this article isn't meeting the criteria so that I might improve it. Thanks so much. Unicornnerd (talk) 12:37, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Unicornnerd, you need to cite several reliable independent sources with extensive discussion of the subject. Your first source was probably written by the subject and certainly published by her employer, and so not independent. The next four are all about her books, not about her. (I haven't checked the others). Maproom (talk) 16:30, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

That makes sense about the first source; I can remove that citation. So sources--reviews-- about a creative professional's works don't contribute to their notability? Can you clarify the difference between an article that is about a creative professional such as a cartoonist versus their works? Thanks for explaining. Unicornnerd (talk) 17:01, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Looking over the sources, they support the notability of the books this author has written, but the article doesn't take full advantage of the sources and is more like a biography with short blurbs about her work. For example, the paragraph starting with "Commute is a needed addition to..." doesn't help the article in its current form, but it could be changed (for example) to state that "reviews of Commute have praised it as "an addition to a genre [that has] long been dominated by men."" Ellen Forney is something you could compare to, since it describes her works and their themes plainly, followed by the credentials (the reviews) that make them worthwhile for inclusion. Reconrabbit 17:05, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Reconrabbit, thanks for this advice. I'll look to the article on Ellen Forney for ideas to improve the article. Unicornnerd (talk) 19:21, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

One additional point of clarification: Is it ok to use direct quotations? E.g., "an addition to a genre [that has] long been dominated by men." What I'd read previously was that I shouldn't use quotations. Unicornnerd (talk) 19:32, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

The official manual of style has the information on what you should keep in mind when using quotations here: MOS:QUOTE. Quotations are useful if you want to get across a point that the work has been interpreted in a certain way, but don't make the whole article a quote. Reconrabbit 21:51, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks so much! Unicornnerd (talk) 23:43, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Unicornnerd, I recommend reading this section of policy, regarding impartial tone, as well as this guideline regarding "words to watch"—whose use might accidentally create a partial tone if an editor is not careful. When writing in Wikipedia's own voice, it is important to use vocabulary in an impartial way. — Remsense诉 03:42, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm thinking about giving Wikipedia a second chance and I have a few questions.

Moved from User talk:Blaze The Movie Fan

I have thought for a long time that this website is far left propaganda. That's the main reason I thought that. However I have been told that Wikipedia just has articles with bunch of sources and you should judge for yourself how these sources are accurate or not.

So my questions are several.
1. If I follow a WP article, does that mean I can learn new things about things? I mean I thought that was the case back in 2007 which is the main reason I joined.
2. How the hell do I know what sources to trust in the articles? The Internet legit is full of misinformation, there is more misinformation than accurate information even official sources have that. How can I look past that and see the actual truth? I find that close to impossible.
3. Why do articles for upcoming movies say "this movie is..." instead of "...this movie will be."?
4. I don't understand the logic behind articles on this website. For example why does Montgomery Burns from The Simpsons have his own article and not Carter Pewtersmith from Family Guy? I mean I know both are very popular and you can find real life information regarding both characters if you know where to look. I know Montgomery Burns is far more popular but Carter Pewtersmith is still an extremely popular character there is no disputing that. I personally find this hypocritical but I could be wrong.
5. What should I look into before nominating things like articles, categories etc. for deletion?
6. What is the point of the article regarding movies that most frequently use fuck? Back in the 1970's it might have been valuable information, but nowadays it's not as throwing over 100 fucks in the same movie is extremely common nowadays in R rated movies.
7. What is the best website to use for real world information which doesn't require me to look at a lot of sources? I want to be educated on the world around me, and I still don't entirely trust Wikipedia.

That's all I hope I get some answers. I am considering returning, I haven't officially decided yet but I am considering it. Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 16:22, 15 January 2024 (UTC)}}

I had written this for your page but it got moved here. I will be frank, I was disinclined to help you after reading your first sentence- but your questions are reasonable, so here goes.

1. If by "following" you mean watchlisting an article, that will allow you to monitor changes to it, be it the addition of new information and sources, removal of such, or just typographical corrections.
2. No one can tell you what sources you should trust- that's something only you can determine for yourself. Wikipedia has criteria as to what makes a source reliable(see WP:RS) as well as a list of sources whose reliability is commonly discussed or challenged. If you think The New York Times is a liberal rag not fit to be toilet paper, that's up to you. If you think Fox News is gospel, again, that's up to you. Truth is in the eye of the beholder. While Wikipedia strives to summarize sources accurately, it doesn't claim to be the truth, only that what is presented is verifiable. See WP:TRUTH. A source is generally considered to be reliable by Wikipedia if it has a reputation of fact checking, editorial control, and other basic journalistic practices- in other words, they don't print stuff without checking for accuracy and they don't make stuff up out of whole cloth.
3. I can't speak to that, but you could ask the Film WikiProject.
4. A topic merits an article if it receives significant coverage in independent reliable sources showing how the topic meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability. It would seem that Mr. Burns does. Spock does. I don't know if Carter Pewtersmith does or doesn't- it could be that no one has written an article about that character yet, it could be that there are few if any independent sources that discuss the importance/significance/influence of this character.
5. In considering if something should be nominated for deletion, you should see if the topic meets the relevant definition of notability and is properly sourced, or even has the prospect of being sourced. This is a very brief description- see WP:AFD for more information.
6. I would suggest discussing your views on that article at its associated article talk page, Talk:List of films that most frequently use the word fuck. There seems to be sources that discuss this topic, which usually merits a topic an article.
7. Wikipedia should not be trusted blindly- as you are already aware, you should examine the sources provided and judge them for yourself in determining what to believe. Wikipedia should not be used for scholarly or academic work- the sources themselves should be used. Wikipedia is sometimes described as a content aggregator- it's not a source itself. I can't recommend a website for "real world information" to you- if there even is such a thing, what one is to me likely isn't for you. 331dot (talk) 20:07, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

All I can say is to read through WP:NEUTRAL, that has a pretty good summary to cease your concerns. UnexpectedSmoreInquisition aka USI (talk) 20:19, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Reliability of Wikipedia is worth reading. Cullen328 (talk) 20:36, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

"I will be frank, I was disinclined to help you after reading your first sentence-"

I apologize for that, I probably shouldn't have brought that up at all. Is it best if I remove that sentence from my original post? I am willing to. Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 21:41, 15 January 2024 (UTC) EDIT: I shouldn't even ask, I removed it, I'm sorry. Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 22:34, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

@Blaze The Movie Fan: What should I look into before nominating things like articles, categories etc. for deletion? WP:BEFORE has a list of things to check before nominating for deletion. RudolfRed (talk) 04:00, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Is there a way to expunge a reverted version of an article I edited?

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Teahouse § Is there a way to expunge a reverted version of an article I edited?

Another editor is complaining. I don't know if this is what the editor wants me to do, but was wondering if it could be done so I can see if it resolves the issue. Thanks. Biolitblue (talk) 00:57, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Nefazodone
Biolitblue, I do not think the other editor is asking for your edits to be expunged from the edit history of the article. — Remsense诉 03:30, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Biolitblue (talk) 04:11, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

What do I do with this user?

Special:Contributions/202.58.91.57 seems very religious and blanked a section containing things they disagree with, I've reverted the blanking with uw-delete1 but they did technically give a reason in their edit summary, it's just that the reason is... how do I put into words what's wrong with it? BalaM314 (π) (talk) 11:24, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

BalaM314, given their use of sectarian slurs in the edit summary, in this case I would select from one of {{uw-bes3}}, {{uw-notcensored3}}—anywhere from 2 to 4im severity, really. It seems like a school IP, so odds aren't great. — Remsense诉 11:34, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Oh, also.
Sometimes, just {{uw-vandalism}}, per WP:SPADE.— Remsense诉 11:36, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Careful, though - if someone genuinely believes they're making the article better (as may very well be the case here), describing their actions as 'vandalism' can be inappropriate and may unnecessarily upset them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DragonflySixtyseven (talk • contribs) 2024-01-16T15:04:14 (UTC)

Of course, assuming good faith is important as the default mode of editing Wikipedia. Often, the briefer the interaction, the less justifiable it is not to do so. But instances like these are well into WP:SPADE territory, in my view. Remsense诉 03:34, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

{{uw-npov2}} (or maybe 3 or occasionally, depending how offensive edit-summary and any changed text is) is where I often start with these sorts of things. The edit is completely unacceptable, but the reason and effect of the edit is the lack of neutrality (to put it mildly). DMacks (talk) 04:19, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

DMacks, certainly. I do think the vast majority of the time it's preferable to pick a template/engage with a user based on the material changed in the article—that said, there are certainly cases where the contents of the edit summary/their stated intent are the most proximate issue that needs to be addressed. — Remsense诉 04:23, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

My draft Zack Guzman

hello, i am Currently working this draft Draft:Zack Guzman. I think sources i used are fine but maybe im not that experienced in using right sources, can someone help me find good sources? thx Deondernemers (talk) 07:16, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Deondernemers, reliable sources generally need to demonstrate some distance from the subject to establish notability. You've cited two "profile" pages from employers of the subject, and two direct interviews with the subject. Each of these is a source close to the subject, and the interviews are about his company, not him per se. That leaves the article from SiliconANGLE—which does not seem like it has sufficient editorial oversight at a glance, but let's assume it's generally reliable—which is mostly about the subject's company, not him.
I recommend reading the guideline linked above. If you have more questions, feel free to ask. Cheers! — Remsense诉 07:29, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Remsense. I will try to find more source that is not interview or profile page. Maybe I will try for the company later.

Also what does SiliconANGLE mean? Deondernemers (talk) 07:35, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Deondernemers, it's the name of one of the websites that you cited. — Remsense诉 07:36, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Oh, that is so silly of me! I think i forgot because i search through goog News.

Also I am here to practice english so i can speak english very well with my wife. Do you have any suggestion for the best way to practice here? I thought making articles would be a good idea... Deondernemers (talk) 07:39, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Deondernemers, since many Dutch people speak English I am not sure how useful you would find this to be, but have you considered translating English Wikipedia articles into Dutch? — Remsense诉 07:47, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah i did one http://nl.wiki.x.io/wiki/William_Lundbeck but found it to be a little bit boring. Making it from zero is fun. and yes, almost everyone i know can speak english. I can also speak it fine but i am refining it.

I will consider doing more. Anyway, thank you for your help! also I would appreciate it if you find anything wrong with the english i used in articles please help fixing. Don't want to disrupt wikipedia. thx Deondernemers (talk) 07:52, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Deondernemers, nl:Reinard Zandvoort and nl:Etsko Kruisinga don't have articles here, and Hendrik Poutsma doesn't even have one in Dutch. Actual grammar (as opposed to all the twaddle about "correct language") is challenging. So there are three good subjects for you. -- Hoary (talk) 08:42, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Ref #1 is a one-line name mention; ref #2 does not mention him at all; Company business, i.e., describing money raised, does not contrubte to establishing notability. David notMD (talk) 09:36, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

How to delete sections

We want to delete delay sec & opposition section from our Wikipedia page how to do that Kolkata West International City 2409:40E0:1002:2722:905:C94C:6DEA:FA17 (talk) 10:49, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello. First, please read conflict of interest and paid editing for information on required formal disclosures. These are easier to make with an account, but even if you don't wish to create an account, you must disclose your relationship with this development.

The section will not be removed just because- Wikipedia articles contain all information found in reliable sources, good or bad. If there is a reason based in Wikipedia policy to remove something, it should be discussed on the article talk oage(Talk:Kolkata West International City). 331dot (talk) 10:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

There is no such thing as 'our' Wikipedia page. There are articles, often the collective efforts of dozens to hundreds of editors over years. Deletions of referenced content must be justified on Talk page first. Second, if editors have a personal (COI) or paid (PAID) connection to an article, those editors are restricted to proposing changes on the Talk page, to be accepted or rejected by non-involved editors. David notMD (talk) 12:52, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

What is your connection to User:Bdweeja? That account is an undeclared paid editor who deleted the content you mention, and was reverted. Also, User:DMSurojit appears to also be an undeclared paid editor who added promotional content, also reverted. Undeclared paid editors are at risk of being indefinitely blocked. David notMD (talk) 09:47, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Advancements in High-Frequency Mobile X-Ray Machines: Revolutionizing Point-of-Care Imaging

text of an essay

Introduction: In recent years, the field of medical imaging has witnessed a significant transformation with the introduction of high-frequency mobile X-ray machines. These portable devices have revolutionized point-of-care imaging, offering healthcare professionals the flexibility to conduct on-the-spot diagnostic examinations. In this article, we will explore the key features and benefits of high-frequency mobile X-ray machines and their impact on modern healthcare. Understanding High-Frequency Mobile X-Ray Machines: High-frequency mobile X-ray machines are portable imaging devices designed to provide healthcare practitioners with the ability to perform X-ray examinations at the patient's bedside or any point-of-care location. These machines utilize advanced technology to generate high-frequency X-rays, resulting in improved image quality and reduced radiation exposure for both patients and healthcare providers. Key Features and Advantages: Portability: One of the primary advantages of high-frequency mobile X-ray machines is their portability. These compact and lightweight devices can be easily transported within a healthcare facility or even to remote locations, allowing for rapid imaging in emergency situations or when traditional imaging facilities are not readily accessible. High-Frequency Technology: These machines employ high-frequency X-ray generators, which operate at frequencies greater than conventional X-ray machines. This technology enhances image clarity and resolution while minimizing radiation exposure. The result is improved diagnostic accuracy and reduced potential harm to patients. Wireless Connectivity: Many high-frequency mobile X-ray machines are equipped with wireless connectivity features. This enables seamless integration with electronic health record (EHR) systems, facilitating quick and efficient sharing of diagnostic images with other healthcare professionals. Real-time access to patient data enhances collaborative decision-making. Ease of Use: Designed with user-friendly interfaces, these machines are easy for healthcare professionals to operate. The simplified controls and automated features streamline the imaging process, ensuring that even non-specialized personnel can perform X-ray examinations with minimal training. Quick Image Acquisition: High-frequency mobile X-ray machines offer rapid image acquisition, providing almost instantaneous results. This is especially crucial in emergency situations where timely diagnosis can significantly impact patient outcomes. Quick access to diagnostic information allows for prompt decision-making and treatment planning. Applications in Healthcare: The applications of high-frequency mobile X-ray machines span a wide range of healthcare settings, including: Emergency Departments: Rapid imaging capabilities are invaluable in emergency situations, helping healthcare providers promptly assess injuries and guide immediate treatment decisions. Intensive Care Units (ICUs): These machines facilitate bedside imaging for critically ill patients, minimizing the need for patient transportation and reducing the risk of complications. Long-Term Care Facilities: Portable X-ray units are beneficial in long-term care settings, where they can be used for routine examinations without the need for patient transfer. Remote or Underserved Areas: High-frequency mobile X-ray machines play a crucial role in providing diagnostic services in remote or underserved areas where access to traditional imaging facilities may be limited. Conclusion: The integration of high-frequency mobile X-ray machines into modern healthcare practices represents a significant advancement in medical imaging technology. These portable devices enhance the efficiency and accessibility of diagnostic services, ultimately contributing to improved patient outcomes. As technology continues to evolve, the role of these innovative machines is likely to expand, further shaping the landscape of point-of-care imaging.

Horizonmeditech (talk) 11:19, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Horizonmeditech. Do you have a question about editing Wikipedia? This is a helpdesk for editors. You seem to have posted a random essay? Qcne (talk) 11:46, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Horizonmeditech, and welcome to the Teahouse.

It looks as if you are trying to contribute to Wikipedia, but it also looks as if you don't understand what Wikipedia is.

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia - a tertiary source. A Wikipedia article should be a summary of what reliable published sources say about a subject, nothing more. No Wikipedia article should advance an argument or a conclusion (though it may summarise an argument or conclusion in a single published source). So the material you have posted above (on the second attempt - you previously posted it at the talk page of a random article about beer, where I have reverted it) is not appropriate for Wikipedia. It is also not appropriate to post it here.

If you do intend to create an article (which I would not advise until you have several months' experience editing existing articles and learning how Wikipedia works) please read your first article carefully first.

Finally, your user name suggests that you are connected with an Indian company called Horizon Meditech. If this is so, and you intend to edit anything at all connected with the company or its activities, you must make a formal declaration of yourself as a paid editor. You should also change your user name (or abandon the account and create a new one) as user names which imply that they are editing on behalf of an organisation are not permitted. ColinFine (talk) 12:01, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Trying to update Mariano Vivanco's career section

 Courtesy link: Mariano Vivanco

Hi there - I've not been successful in editing a page for my employer (Mariano Vivanco). We are trying to add his past exhibitions to his career section:

PERU - Frieze Art Fair - London, 2023

PERU - G&M Design Gallery - Monaco, 2023

Terrence Higgins Trust Charity Auction by Christie’s - London, 2023

25 - G&M Design Gallery - Monaco, 2020

Vogue: Like A Painting - Mexico City, 2019

Vogue: Like A Painting - Copenhagen, 2018

Paris Photo Art Fair by Bernheimer Fine Art Photography - Paris, 2017

Masterpiece Art Fair by Bernheimer Fine Art Photography - London, 2017

Vogue: Like A Painting - Seoul, 2017

ArtGenève Art Fair by Bernheimer Fine Art Photography - Geneva, 2017

Bling Bling Baby - NRW - Forum Museum, Dusseldorf, 2017

Without references, it's not getting approved. I'm not sure how to link references to the text. For example, his recent exhibition at G&M Design Gallery had an article posted about it. https://monacolife.net/gm-design-gallery-showcases-the-history-of-peru-through-the-lens-of-mariano-vivanco/

Can someone please help guide me? Photomvltd (talk) 11:17, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Photomvltd. Firstly, as you are being paid by Mariano you must make a paid editing declaration. Failure to do so is a breach of Wikimedia Terms and Conditions and will lead to your account being blocked. I will leave instructions on your User Talk Page.

You are right that without references your additions will be reverted. Verifiably is a key policy on Wikipedia. You must back up each of your additions with a reference and an in-line citation. To learn how to do this please follow the tutorial at WP:INTREFVE.

Finally, I would recommend reading When your boss tells you to edit Wikipedia. Remember: it is prohibited to use Wikipedia to promote a subject.

Hope that helps, let me know if you have any questions. Qcne (talk) 11:49, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Hell, Photomvltd, and welcome to the Teahouse.

I'm afraid there are several things you need to understand, and things you have to do, before you can do anything with this.

The first is that, as a paid editor you are required as part of Wikipedia's terms of service to make a formal declaration of your status - see the first link for how to do this.

Secondly, you user name is not acceptable, because it appears to be representing an organisation. All Wikipedia accounts are personal and used by a single person, and they may not have names which suggest that they are editing on behalf of an organisation. Something like "John at Photomv" would be acceptable. You can either ask to change your username at CHU or, since you have only made a few edits, it may be simpler to abandon that account and create a new one.

Now, getting on to your edits: Please understand that Wikipedia's article Mariano Vivanco does not belong to Vivanco, and is not controlled by him: he and his employees and associates should not be editing the article at all. What you should do is make edit requests (see that link for how) on the article's talk page. Any material you wish to introduce should be supported by a citation to a reliable published source| - and preferably a source wholly unconnected with Vivanco.

The review you mention above would be adequate for supporting that particular exhibition. There is a way of presenting citations (see WP:REFB) but for the purposes of an edit request, the link you posted here would be fine, and the editor reviewing your request could reformat it. ColinFine (talk) 11:49, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you ColinFine - will take this onboard and update the username Photomvltd (talk) 12:25, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

St Mary Catholic Church, Anlo Afiadenyigba

The article with the above name was deleted because I did not edit it over six months. How can I get it redeleted so that I can add fresh information to it with additional referencing Saluakiwumi (talk) 13:15, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Saluakiwumi, and welcome to the Teahouse. Your draft Draft:St Mary Catholic Church, Anlo Afiadenyigba is still there. You need to remove all the external links in the text (some of them could be replaced by wikilinks to other Wikipedia articles; some of them should be turned into citations; and others should be removed as they add nothing to the article.

You also need to format your citations: see WP:REFB. ColinFine (talk) 13:33, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I also note that you do not say even which country this is in. You should at least Wikilink the name Anlo Afiadenyigba. ColinFine (talk) 13:34, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Needing help with templates

How do I make a template (or userbox)? I wanna make a few templates (for userboxes) but don’t know how. Cometkeiko (talk) 13:36, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @Cometkeiko, and welcome to the Teahouse. See WP:CREATEUBX for some guidelines. ContributeToTheWiki (talk • contribs) 14:17, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Also, see Help:Templates#Writing templates for more general information about writing templates. ContributeToTheWiki (talk • contribs) 14:20, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

When I cite a source why does it say it is sourced to a Vanity Press?

I edited Jean Terrell and Cindy Birdsong and it is saying that I sourced it from vanity press when I did not know if it is or not. I sourced it from this book from both articles. Was that a violation? TheGreatestLuvofAll ( chat with me ) 14:36, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

AuthorHouse, the publisher of that book, absolutely is a vanity press. Vanity presses have no real quality controls, so such books should be treated as self published - which means that they should not be used as sources on biographies of living people. - MrOllie (talk) 14:41, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Ok. I will remove it TheGreatestLuvofAll ( chat with me ) 14:41, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

sources

Hello Tea House! I am triying to post a bio of a living person and in every revision the editors tell me that i have to add reliable sources. I put in there, and I am using como sources to verify the information the web page of a UN organism and media news. Aren't that reliable sources? Which kind of sources shall I use? Please, can you enlighten me with this. Best, MRuRa (talk) 12:14, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Natalia Bayona
@MRuRa, while the information on UN agency websites is likely reliable, here we are discussing whether reliable sources establish notability for a subject specifically. It's expected that an agency would list their employees or members on their website. To establish notability, we need significant discussion of the subject from secondary sources—i.e. sources that are not closely affiliated with the subject, such as news outlets, academic journal articles, or published books. Most of your sources are from a body she is closely affiliated with, as its present director. Regarding the "infobae.com" source, my Spanish is not good enough to tell you more, but I recommend reading the pages I've linked in this reply, they are very helpful. Cheers! — Remsense诉 12:23, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

@MRuRa: See Wikipedia:Golden Rule to learn about kind of sources we expect to see. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:05, 17 January 2024 (UTC)