Wikipedia:Teahouse

Dbfirs, a Teahouse host

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

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

New to Wikipedia? See our tutorial for new editors or introduction to contributing page.
Note: Newer questions appear at the bottom of the Teahouse. Completed questions are archived within 2-3 days.

Help

Wikipedia

Memorable editing tales?

The more I get involved in Wiki editing and read Teahouse and Help Desk replies from senior editors, the more I’m curious if somewhere there’s a collection of stories about intriguing editing situations they’ve been been involved in over the years. I can just picture the old-timers sitting around a campfire under the stars sharing memorable tales.

Augnablik (talk) 02:50, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Some of this may be of interest:

• WP:HOAXLIST
• WP:LAME
• WP:PRESS 24
• WP:SIGNPOST
• Depths of Wikipedia
• Wikipediocracy
• User:JPxG/Oracle/Largest AfDs

Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:39, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, @Gråbergs Gråa Sång … you’ve certainly expanded my to-do list exponentially! I delved into your first suggestion, WP:HOAXLIST, and found myself alternately in laughter and horror that so many hoaxes had actually gotten through Wikipedia’s security posts — even if they amount to only something like 1% of all posts. That’s 1% too many.

I think I have my reading all cut out for me over the next week, with your suggested list. Augnablik (talk) 09:29, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

@Augnablik One more: WP:CITOGENESIS. This [1] is a favorite of mine. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:46, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

@Augnablik You might find some of the 'hairiest tales' being dewscribed during the week-long discussion process when an editor applies to become an administrator. Quite ofte,n the applicants are asked to describe difficult or challenging editing situations they have found themselves having to deal with. You can read mine here, and you simply have to change the url by replacing the username of the editor you're interested in hearing more from.

Sometimes the questioners tease out fascinating issues the applicant has encountered - sometimes dealing with them well; other times not. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:59, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

My already long reading list provided by @Gråbergs Gråa Sång has expanded hugely with your suggestion to read “some of the ‘hairiest tales’ … during the week-long discussion process when an editor applies to become an administrator."

Actually, Nick, this will probably surprise you but it's the second time that I’ve read your write-up for your exam week. The first was a few months ago when, as has occurred with some frequency, you gave me a particularly helpful answer to one of my questions in the Teahouse. I don’t remember what that question was, but I do remember the deep resonance I felt. So I decided to find out more about you. When I went to your user page, I eventually found a link to your write-up.

Reading it made me feel an even closer bond with you and the other senior editors as well, even those I hadn’t yet connected with, as I became aware of some of the behind-the-scenes work you’ve all had to carry on. I think it must have been through reading your write-up that I felt an unusually strong sense of commitment to the Wikipedia mission and of belonging in its editor community that brought me to a much further point than no accumulation of editor points could have.

I hope all editors get to find out about such stories from your merry band. Augnablik (talk) 10:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

And for a (somewhat) fictitious cases, but based on "real" events, and also and to highlight the sometimes very pronounced hairiness of Wiki-bureaucracy, see WP:LIGHTBULB and Wikipedia:No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man. Maybe also the BJAODN part of Wikipedia:Silly Things. Lectonar (talk) 11:36, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

😱 WP:LIGHTBULB is a scream, @Lectonar! Once recuperated from the acute hilarity attack it brought on, I'll get to your other suggestions. Augnablik (talk) 16:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

@Augnablik What a kind thing to say! Thank you. I'm glad my and others efforts here have inspired you. That's precisely what we need in order to ensure a good supply of younger enthusiastic and committed editors. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 16:09, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

"Younger" editors? If only you knew, Nick! 😂 Well, your other two adjectives fit me ("enthusiastic" and "committed").

Now, thanks to you and several others, I have my own private collection of memorable editing tales. Wish someone would do a great service and weave them together for the enjoyment of all involved in Wiki editing, from the badgeless to those with the largest badge collection. Augnablik (talk) 10:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Augnablik, you are "someone" - did I hear you volunteering? WP:JUSTDOIT - Arjayay (talk) 10:19, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

@Arjayay, I just checked WebMD to see what might account for your question and this is what I found out:

”If what you heard really doesn’t have a source, it might be an ‘auditory hallucination.’” 😂 Augnablik (talk) 10:48, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Another one for your collection:[2] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:29, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång, you’ve contributed to this thread several times now, and you seem to be an editor who might have quite a badge collection in addition to memorable editing tales … how about you taking this project ahead? Augnablik (talk) 10:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I edit pages like WP:PRESS 24 quite a bit, I also add items to "This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:" when I find them (see Talk:Recession for an example). With those and the other pages, I think the area is reasonably covered (with some bonus-content on my userpage). We also have a, thankfully small, number of WP-articles about WP-content, see Category:Wikipedia content. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:04, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Thing is, how to get everything available into one space rather than spread out in many different places in Wikidom. Augnablik (talk) 05:19, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

These are some interesting stories. Thanks for sharing! Fiona la Rue (talk) 10:51, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

what should be done to improve this?

Copy of User:SHRIDHAR ADHIKARI/sandbox

Computer Engineering Future For many years, computer engineering—a profession that combines computer science with electrical engineering—has been at the forefront of technological progress. Future developments and technologies have the potential to significantly alter the field of computer engineering. The Quantum World Computer engineering is about to undergo a revolution thanks to quantum computing, which makes use of the ideas of quantum physics. Quantum computers, as opposed to classical computers, employ quantum bits, or "qubits," which are multistate entities that may exist simultaneously. This enables quantum computers to carry out intricate computations at rates that are not possible for conventional computers. Although quantum computing is still in its infancy, there are a plethora of possible uses for it in drug discovery, cryptography, and optimization issues. Both machine learning and artificial intelligence Healthcare and finance are just two of the industries that artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) have already begun to revolutionize. Computer engineers will be essential in creating effective hardware and algorithms to enable AI and ML applications as these technologies grow. AI will probably be included into more commonplace gadgets in the future, which will contribute to the development of smart homes, driverless cars, and customized healthcare. Internet of Things (IoT) The network of physical objects, ranging from industrial machinery to household appliances, that are linked to the internet in order to gather and exchange data is known as the Internet of Things (IoT). Computer developers will face issues with data security, privacy, and the creation of high-performance, low-power technology as more gadgets become "smart." Engineering with Neuromorphic Properties A recent development in computer engineering is called "neuromorphic engineering," which entails creating systems, circuits, and algorithms that resemble the neural networks and processing power of the brain. This may result in the creation of extremely effective, intelligent computers with learning and adapting capabilities. Online safety The significance of cybersecurity is increasing along with our dependence on digital technologies. It will be necessary for future computer engineers to create systems with strong security features in order to defend against more complex cyberattacks. Conclusion In conclusion, computer engineering has a promising and bright future. Computer engineers will continue to lead innovation and shape the future of our digital world as technology advances at an unparalleled rate. References: - www.techopedia.com www.technologyreview.com www.builtin.com www.technologyreview.com www.weforum.org www.imaginovation.net www.iotforall.com www.arxiv.org www.weforum.org www.securityintelligence.com www.gartner.com www.weforum.org www.cybersecuritydive.com www.link.springer.com www.frontiersin.org www.forbes.com www.usaid.gov www.knowledgehut.com www.weforum.org

i want to know what to edit in this article in order to be published .

and how to know if our article is published or not? SHRIDHAR ADHIKARI (talk) 09:47, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

@SHRIDHAR ADHIKARI, Your draft is not supported by reliable sources which is needed to establish notability of the subject. Please cite reliable sources that will improve the article. GrabUp - Talk 09:53, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

how to improve it, sir?

please suggest me! SHRIDHAR ADHIKARI (talk) 03:37, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

See below.-- Hoary (talk) 20:18, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

SHRIDHAR ADHIKARI, the subject of your User:SHRIDHAR ADHIKARI/sandbox is "Computer Engineering Future". As explained here (NB a policy page), this is not an encyclopedic subject. For this reason, if I had reviewed this draft, I would not have declined it. Instead, I'd have rejected it. Please stop working on it. -- Hoary (talk) 10:26, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

how to improve it, sir?

please suggest me! SHRIDHAR ADHIKARI (talk) 03:41, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

In accordance with "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball", just stop. -- Hoary (talk) 20:18, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Question regarding 'Draft:Nicole Sahin'

Hi there, I wrote this article (Draft:Nicole Sahin) a few weeks back, and subsequently received feedback that the tone of some of the content was promotional and that some of the references weren't reliable. I have rectified the issues (or at least I believe I have) and I would now like to know where and how to ask one of you special Wikipedia souls to review it. Can you advise, please? KWriteReturn (talk) 23:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

KWriteReturn I (who am soulless) just looked at a single sentence, namely:

In 2005, Sahin joined the newly founded High Street Partners (HSP), a software-enabled international business services firm which facilitated the international expansion of fast-growing tech companies including Tesla and Duke University.

This cites one source, which doesn't mention "Sahin" (whose referent I think I understand) or "software-enabled" or "business services" (whose meanings, if any, I don't understand). (Does "business services" here mean advising businesses about all sorts of regulations? The source does talk about that.) It doesn't say that Tesla was growing fast.

Incidentally, "an extended period of time travelling" made me think of something about Doctor Who; but on rereading, it seemed to mean just "a long period travelling". Well, how long? (Just be direct: "after two years travelling" or whatever. Citing a reliable source, of course.)

The whole thing is in a kind of corporate-advertising-speak.

Thank you for being upfront about article creation for income. Hope you're being paid handsomely! -- Hoary (talk) 01:48, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Hoary, I have made more edits based on the feedback I have received - would you mind taking another look at Draft:Nicole Sahin to see if it's acceptable for publishing? KWriteReturn (talk) 02:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

If she's both (A) "best known as the CEO and founder of G-P (Globalization Partners)" and (B) notable, I'd expect G-P to be notable. And if G-P is notable, I'd expect that it would have an article here ... but it doesn't. -- Hoary (talk) 04:10, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Great point @Hoary. I've come across a lot of secondary sources for G-P which would attest to its notability, so I'm sure it's just a matter of time. Does this preclude Sahin from having an article of her own? KWriteReturn (talk) 04:55, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Not necessarily. -- Hoary (talk) 06:26, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, @Hoary. I made more edits to the article, today - could you please let me know if it's ready for publishing? KWriteReturn (talk) 08:12, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I haven't examined the history of the draft in detail, but it does look as if the warnings at the top were placed there by JSFarman. I'd ask (on User talk:JSFarman) if they are still needed. If they are, improve the draft so that they're no longer needed. If/when they aren't, submit the draft for review. -- Hoary (talk) 08:30, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

The lead of the article gives the latest valuation of her company, without providing a clear explanation of what it does. This makes it look like a WeWork-style scam - such scams often try to use Wikipedia to promote themselves. It doesn't look good. Maproom (talk) 18:20, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

@Maproom: what's WeWork? —usernamekiran (talk) 12:04, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

If only you had a good encylopedia to hand, you'd be able to look up WeWork.   Maproom (talk) 16:38, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Question about the article "Yatai City"

I was browsing through categories when I found the article for Yatai City. The point of view seems skewed and the sources seem either dubious or outright deprecated, as in the case of the Epoch Times. When I tried to find better sources with a quick google, there are only a few that seemed good. I just wanted to check that attempting to fix the article (which would probably require a full rewrite) was the correct course of action given that based on its recency and lack of a talk page I don't think it's been reviewed. Zygmeyer (talk) 02:26, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it's very much the correct course -- unless, of course, the reliable sources aren't sufficient, whereupon AfD is called for. I note that the city is "strategically situated" (as if many others were situated by somebody blindfolded and sticking a pin into a map); and that "infrastructure construction" [can't we coin "infrastruction"?] was "on wasteland" -- as major "development" so often is, at least until one examines the criteria used to dub it "wasteland". Et cetera. Unfortunately I can't read either Chinese or Burmese and so can't help, but I wish you well. -- Hoary (talk) 03:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

@Hoary: "strategically situated" is actually a term, and used often in military/conflicts related stuff. —usernamekiran (talk) 12:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Usernamekiran, could it not be expressed for ease of understanding (rather as "collateral damage" can be expressed as "killing civilians")? -- Hoary (talk) 21:51, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Requested Articles

So, I've written and fulfilled nearly a dozen article requests in the Military History section. Are the fulfilled requests supposed to be removed from the list or should they stay as is? Thanks. TheBrowniess (talk) 07:12, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello, TheBrowniess. I commend you for working on requested articles. Once the new article is in main space, then please remove it from Requested Articles, with an edit summary stating that you wrote the article, with a wikilink to the new article. Cullen328 (talk) 07:57, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

So should I include links to all the articles in a single edit summary or should I create a separate edit summary for each one? TheBrowniess (talk) 11:22, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

That is up to you. My choice would be individual edits and summaries for each article. Very lengthy edit summaries are unwieldy in my opinion. Cullen328 (talk) 17:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! I did the latter. TheBrowniess (talk) 08:11, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Editing contentious article

Hi. The "Gaza floating pier" article has a message that users with <500 edits may not edit it, but the article is not explicitly protected. I made an edit request, but the wizard gives an error message because the page is not protected: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gaza_floating_pier#Adjust_short_description

Does the protection status of the page need to be adjusted, or is this simply an edge case not covered by the wizard? Will my edit request still be processed even if this warning appears? Yawkat (talk) 07:53, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Yawkat, I believe that page protection is optional, Wikipedia:Contentious topics#Standard set lists page protection as one of the standard set of page restrictions which may be imposed by a single uninvolved administrator. I couldn't see the warning, but your request was answered. TSventon (talk) 09:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Reviewed page created from redirect

If a redirect is turned into a full page, does it need to be reviewed before it can been seen on search engines, or does it just take time for the search engine to realise that it is no longer a redirect page? Anguswiki (talk) 15:54, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it has to be reviewed by new pages patrol. Turning the redirect into an article marks it as unreviewed and adds it to the NPP queue again. Toadspike [Talk] 17:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Anguswiki (talk) 09:38, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

@Anguswiki: also to be noted, regardless of the time of the review, it is totally upto the search engine when to list/index the article on the search engine. —usernamekiran (talk) 11:45, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

question

Is there a section on Wikipedia where it talks about sources for persons? GoodHue291 (talk) 19:25, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons certainly covers much of this, but if you have further questions in this area that it doesn't answer, feel free to return here and specify them. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.2.67.173 (talk) 20:27, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

If an article detail data is not available in any site except on one then I can put it's external link

I write article on much unique famous peoples who are not on Wikipedia then what is good way to publish here can it's necessary to add external link or citation because when Wikipedia has no any data then how can i add links or citation on Wikipedia AimaanKhann (talk) 19:37, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

"Courtesy link": This seems to be about the article Quenlin Blackwell (which I suspect is ripe for deletion). -- Hoary (talk) 20:25, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I would support deletion. But the user is new, and that might appear harsh. At the minimum, I think it should be draftified; it's certainly not fit for main space. Feline Hymnic (talk) 20:35, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

User:GoodHue291 tagged it for PROD (article was moved to Quenlin Blackwell-The Journey of a Social Media). I think it's speediable. The article as written needs TNT to solve the overwhelmingly promotional tone and claims, and it failed AFD-notability 13 months ago (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quenlin Blackwell). DMacks (talk) 13:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi AimaanKhann. You might find the information in Help:Your first article and Help:Referencing for beginners helpful, but basically only articles written about subjects deemed to meet Wikipedia:Notability are considered OK for Wikipedia. It's makes no difference how well written or how many images/links/citations an article includes, it will alost cerainly end up being deleted at some point if the subject matter is not considered Wikipedia notable. Adding citations is certainly necessary to establish how the subject of an article is Wikipedia notable, and citations are also need to verify article content; but, subjects are generally only considered to be Wikipedia notable when others (i.e. secondary reliable sources) have written about them in some significant way. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:21, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Why "Teahouse," not "Coffeehouse"?

Just curious about the above question in regard to the name of this Wiki area. Perhaps it was the preferred beverage of the members of the naming committee?

☕ I wonder if any of my fellow coffee fans have had some beans to grind about this over the years ... Augnablik (talk) 20:53, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

@Augnablik: A question like this is probably more suited for Wikipedia talk:Teahouse. Despite it's name, the TH isn't really a forum for water cooler types of discussions like this or even the WP:THQ#Memorable editing tales? discussion that you started above. This my personal opinion perhaps, but it's probably best to not try and stray too far outside the scope of the TH with your questions. Having said that, you can probably find out much more about the "history" of the TH in its talk page's archives, and there might be relevant discussion related to its name. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:09, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Ooops. Augnablik (talk) 21:17, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

@Augnablik The answer lies in the very top of the page, in the "About the Teahouse" link, where it says The name Teahouse is meant to evoke the idea of a comfortable social space for meaningful personal interaction among peers. The name Teahouse is also a nod to the English Wikipedia essay a nice cup of tea and a sit down, which urges editors to acknowledge one another's good points, and is often used to nudge people towards being congenial when things get heated. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 21:12, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, though it could also have been a nice cup of COFFEE and a sit down. But how about we clear the cups and table the discussion — I guess it was more of a fun question than a true help topic (even though I really did come to wonder about the name). Augnablik (talk) 21:41, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Trying to translate Wiki page but confused about requirements

Hey, I'm trying to translate a wikipedia (specifically, Yuba County Five) to Russian to help practice and keep up-to-date my Russian skills (I've been studying it for multiple years at University). However, I'm confused about the requirements that I must meet to do so. I got a message that says I should set up my Babel, I did that, but I'm unsure where to go from here to be able to edit the Wiki page. Roblewi (talk) 22:52, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

@Roblewi: I am not sure why you need babel, unless it is part of the translation tool? See WP:TRANSLATEUS for guidance from en wiki and ru:Википедия:Перевод_статей for the rules on RU wiki. RudolfRed (talk) 23:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

@Roblewi There are no official "requirements". If you believe you are able to translate the article, you may. WP:Babel is just something you put on your userpage to let others know what languages you speak. Toadspike [Talk] 08:36, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Ok f we want to help translate, is it okay to use Google Translate if we get stuck? Fiona la Rue (talk) 10:52, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi Fiona la Rue. When it comes to English Wikipedia, machine translations aren't really desirable for the reasons given in WP:MACHINETRANSLATION. Russian Wikpedia might have policies aren't as restrictive, but you'll need to ask there to make sure. Personally, I wouldn't really recommend using Google translate unless you're fairly competent in both the source language (English) and Russian to be able to check the translation for mistakes. You might be better off seeking help from one of the users listed at WP:TRANSLATORS to see if you can find someone good enough at Russian to help with the translation. You could also try WP:RUSSIA since there may be some members of that WikiProject who are also good at Russian.

In addition, one important thing to remember about WP:TRANSLATEUS is that not all Wikipedia projects have the same policies and guidelines. Translating an English Wikipedia article into Russian is fine if you're just doing it for practice and for personal enjoyment. Translating and English Wikipedia article into Russian for Russian Wikipedia, however, can be trickier because you're going to need to make sure that the subject matter meets relevant Russian Wikipedia policy and guidelines, particularly when it comes to Russian Wikipedia's guidelines on Wikipedia notablity (ru:Википедия:Значимость). You shouldn't just automatically assume that because an article exists on English Wikipedia, it also should exist on Russian Wikipedia. This is also something else you're going to need to ask about at Russian Wikipedia.

Finally, in your post above you stated Ok f we want to help translate, but it's not clear who the "we" is. Assuming that you're only referring to yourself, then it's not big deal. If, however, you perhaps referring to yourself and others who might also be working with you on this project, the please take a look at WP:SHAREDACCOUNT for some information you should be aware of. As long as everyone creates their own Wikipedia account and only one person uses it to edit, things should be OK. If, on the other hand, people start sharing accounts, then that would be a problem that could possibly lead to the account being blocked. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:24, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive editing question.

This is my first time asking a question here so forgive me if I do something incorrectly.

There's an IP user who is spamming numerous automotive vehicle articles with very excessive wikilinks to other vehicles that are at best tangentially related. It's not just a few vehicle links, but sometimes dozens, for example: [3] [4] [5] [6]. It seriously harms readability and is completely unnecessary.
I've left more than one message on their talk page trying to describe why these edits should stop but they keep on putting these links to other vehicles in. I don't want to revert them too much lest I breach 3RR and I don't know if these edits cross the line into outright vandalism. I'm not exactly sure what I should do in this situation. Is this something for ANI or some other forum perhaps?
Any assistance from more experienced editors would be much appreciated! Sigma440 (talk) 00:08, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @Sigma440, and welcome to the Teahouse. (deafult welcome response))

Unfortunately I'm not an expperienced editor here, but I've seen the vastly redundant addition of information in one of the edited articles. I think this is vandalism to some extent.

maybe you could contact a moderator here, ask that mod to place some restrictions on this IP user, or to contact this user.

or you could summarise all the added info.

Or you could just painstakingly remove all the addidions one by one.

Either way, all the best. Garethphua (talk) 07:11, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

@Sigma440 These edits seem non-constructive, and if they don't stop when told, could be vandalism. You should leave a warning on the IP editor's Talk page telling them not to do this. If they still continue, you can report them at WP:AIV, which is the usual place for reporting vandals to admins. Toadspike [Talk] 08:39, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Recreating a deleted article

Can a deleted article be recreated where by the article is been improved? Abigailka (talk) 00:39, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

@Abigailka: It depends on the reason for deletion, but yes this can happen in some cases. See WP:REFUND RudolfRed (talk) 02:40, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Assuming Abigailka is talking about RG Qluck Wise (based on their creation of Draft:RG Qluck Wise, REFUND is not an option because the article was deleted via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RG Qluck Wise. That AFD provides important information about what you will need to include in any attempt at creating an article on that subject. DMacks (talk) 13:49, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Addition to an article

The page on B-24 Liberator Accidents could be updated with information I recently discovered about my great-uncle, Robert Larsen. Sergeant Larsen served with the 539th Bomb Squadron, 382nd Bomb Group, from Pocatello Army Air Base during World War II. While on a flight from Pocatello to Hamilton Field in Northern California, a fire caused an explosion aboard B-24D Liberator #41-24255, and the bomber crashed one mile northeast of Nubieber, in Lassen County, California. (His death was Aug. 5, 1943) Nine Crew members were killed: 2601:603:1081:60E0:6C7C:992E:4F8E:8484 (talk) 03:29, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello, IP user, and welcome to the Teahouse. The article might indeed be updated - but only if you have a reliable published source for the information. I'm afraid unpublished documents and personal recollections are not accepted as a basis for information in Wikipedia articles.

If you have such a source, I suggest starting a discussion on the talk page (I presume that's Talk:Accidents and incidents involving the Consolidated B-24 Liberator). ColinFine (talk) 04:03, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

How to stylize your signature?

I would like to know how to stylize your signature. Thanks! Snipertron12 (talk) 08:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

@Snipertron12 WP:Signature tutorial is great; it's where I got inspiration for mine. But be sure to follow WP:SIG. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 08:40, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! 𝗦𝗻𝗶𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗧𝗿𝗼𝗻𝟭𝟮 [|User|Talk|] 08:51, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Like '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 09:04, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Snipertron12. Please be aware that Wikipedia is a project to build an encyclopedia, not some gigantic video game. Always keep your eyes on the prize, the real prize, which is improving the encyclopedia. Improving articles should always takes precedence over stylizing your signature. Cullen328 (talk) 09:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Alright. 𝗦𝗻𝗶𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗧𝗿𝗼𝗻𝟭𝟮 [|User|Talk|] 13:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Questions off limits?

As a Wikipedia member since 2009, with just dozens of dozen edits over that period of time, I hope you can help clarify participation in Talk discussions.

I asked two questions today in discussions, related specifically to article information policy, and making no content changes. Both questions regarded editing clarification. Both questions were deleted without explanation. I have linked the two instances below for your easy access. Can you help me understand why questions would simply be deleted rather than at least referred to sources relevant to answering them?

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1224569412

2: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ANakba&oldid=prev&diff=1224554040

Any and all direction is greatly appreciated. Jetpower (talk) 09:47, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi Jetpower, welcome to the Teahouse. The reason for the reverts was explained in the edit summaries: [7] [8]. Blue text like WP:ARBECR and WP:ECR is clickable links (leading to the same place here). "see header notice" in the first edit summary refers to the box "Warning: active arbitration remedies" near the top of Talk:Gaza–Israel conflict. The box can also be seen at Template:ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement. Your account has too few edits to participate in discussions about the Arab–Israeli conflict, maybe the most contentious topic in Wikipedia where numerous unproductive discussions have gone out of control. The account must be over 30 days old and have over 500 edits. Your account creation was actually in 2008 but you only have 64 edits. It may seem unfair that you aren't allowed to participate in those discussions but the decision wasn't taken ligthly and you haven't seen the problems which caused it. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:33, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Jetpower. The articles and talk pages you are trying to edit are under strict Extended confirmed protection. All articles without exception having to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict have these heightened restrictions. Edit requsts are limited to utterly uncontroversial things like typographical errors or misspellings. Other than that, you are not permitted to edit in that topic area. Your account is old enough but has made only 64 edits. You need to make at least 436 more productive, useful edits, and do not try to crank them out thoughtlessly. Cullen328 (talk) 10:39, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Draft Review

Can anyone review Draft:RG Qluck Wise

Best regards, Abigailka (talk) 14:40, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

@Abigailka Reviewers usually don't review drafts on request. Like the template says, This may take 3 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 2,709 pending submissions waiting for review. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 14:44, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Abigailka, the text of Draft:RG Qluck Wise cites only two sources. The first appears to have been written by the subject, and the second is based on what he's said, so neither is independent of him. Please read about Wikipedia's concept of notability: to get your draft accepted, you'll need several reliable independent published sources. Maproom (talk) 19:26, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

searching for the appropriate place to discus misconduct by fellow editor?

Hello, What is the appropriate place to raise my concern regarding Gaming the use of Policies and guidelines of Wikipedia?

I have tried writing in the reliable source notice board and Found out it was not the right place, what is the right place? 79.180.47.77 (talk) 14:53, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

It's not clear what is exact issue. First official policy you need to consider WP:AGF i.e. assume good faith.

Usually I always say is if content dispute goes of the track then go back to the track according to the WP:DR. If your real concern is content then Would strongly advice to avoid personalization of dispute as much as possible.

Any personal issues still remain discuss at user talk page. Next step you can inform at admin talk page if any admin has handled the article or talk page. Follow WP:DDE protocol.( Emphasis added). Last resort is WP:ANI. Before going to WP:ANI you need to know WP:BOOMERANG. Bookku (talk) 15:08, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Hey Bookku, thanks for the replay!

unfortunately, the editors from the group which I have suspicion in collaboration and "gaming the system" have also informed me I am Not Allowed to describe or discuss my Issue related to the topic as non-register user or it will count as "forum shopping"/"canvasing", and that basically I am Only allowed to Raise Edit Request that ~99% with the editors will agree with in that topic. (at least that what I was able to understand from the response)

.

for that reason, I will keeping my question Hypothetical and not exact to understand the policy and good editorial standard.

I've re-read all the policies and I am more confused then I was before :)

according to WP:DR,

if an editor try to gain consensus thro BOLD editing, and another editor remove his sources material, in requisite that the source is biased source, and he re-instate it without gaining consensus, then he has started an "edit-war", am I correct in my interpretation of the rule?

basically, I am Asking is what are the correct steps that I should Take if I see something like this happen again as an unregister user see Wrong Information That Have been inserted to Wikipedia. 79.180.47.77 (talk) 19:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

IP, you are trying to edit contentious articles with an IP. Some but not all contentious areas have seen enough disruption in the past that more severe remedies are in effect and more stringent rules apply than are explained for the general case in our policies and guidelines. The other editors are correct that you should not be editing Isreal-Palestine area as an unregistered editor. You need to register an account and gain sufficient experience editing elsewhere. This is so that everyone can get to know you as an editor and you get to know Wikipedia better before you dive into controversies from which very few editors emerge triumphant. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 19:48, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Hey UsedToBeCool, thank you for your comment,

just a clarification, I Am not trying to Edit contentious articles without register, I am trying to understand how unregister users can ask for clarification regarding violation made by registers users in the contentious fields articles, via edit request like it is allowed according to the policy.

thanks. 79.180.47.77 (talk) 21:00, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

IP, it is generally expected that established editors working that area will be the ones to bring up issues with other editors working in the same contentious topic area. If something is obvious, severe, etc. you could potentially bring it up and get it addressed but it is unlikely you've found something that all others have missed. There is very high level of vigilance and scrutiny in place on almost every article and every editor in that area from groups of editors with high level of competence and experience. If you must, you could bring it up with the editor concerned on their talk page, and failing that on the talk page of one of the admins. If you really have found something that everyone has missed, you may get the intended result. However, that is unlikely. More likely, you'll be raising one of the many common complaints editors on each side have about another, which lead nowhere, because if they could, they would have already. And you will likely get yourself blocked, because there is no way to tell a good faith unregistered passerby from a malicious actor that's using IPs to harass the opposiing side or continue previous beefs with editors concerned, anonymously. Yet again, if you are at all interested in the editing in this area, I would advise you to register an account and edit for a month or two in non-controversial areas, before you dive in. Best, — Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:08, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Following an exchange with this editor at their talk page, I cannot help but feel that they are WP:NOTHERE Selfstudier (talk) 22:18, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

How do I create a page on mobile

How do i create a page on a mobile device Polarbear1224 (talk) 16:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Same as on desktop. Since you're new you'll need to go through Articles for Creation. Read and inwardly digest the instructions there, then click on "Click here to start a new article". -- D'n'B-t -- 17:10, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Polarbear1224. Please read my essay User:Cullen328/Smartphone editing. Good luck. Cullen328 (talk) 21:04, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

formatting table

Where can I learn about making a table with text in columns? Thanks. rootsmusic (talk) 17:05, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

@Rootsmusic: Welcome to the Teahouse. Does Help:Table address your question? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:07, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes @Tenryuu, thanks! rootsmusic (talk) 18:36, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Help With Editing

Hi, let me tell you a scenario. I want to create a battle but I'm not sure how to add references in the battle infobox. Could you please tell me? I want to use a reference i got for the infobox, and for something else. Basically, I'm going to reuse the reference i put in the battle on other paragraphs as well. Thanks. Also, what is the difference between footnotes, references and sources? Thanks so much and have a good day! :) Fauji Enthusiast (talk) 17:30, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

@Fauji Enthusiast: Add the <ref> where you fill in the info box item. I'm not sure how to describe it. Look at other article's as example, such as the info box in Battle of Gettysburgh RudolfRed (talk) 21:23, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

but the thing is they haven't reused the reference again, i want to reuse the reference in the infobox and not make duplicate references. Thanks for the help though! Appreciate it! :) Fauji Enthusiast (talk) 21:36, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

@Fauji Enthusiast: Yes it does reuse references using WP:NAMEDREF RudolfRed (talk) 03:45, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

It's really easy if you use Visual Editor. Press "Cite" and then go to "Reuse" and select the reference you want to reuse — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Sky Source

How Poor Can Sent Own satellite to Space or Raise money for Completion of Moon Visit? Word " Poor " is changeable with " Deserving " AG.PAK (talk) 17:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

This is a forum for questions about editing Wikipedia. Do you have a question about editing Wikipedia? -- D'n'B-t -- 18:14, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Navbox on Mobile?

How can I enable NavBoxs in the when using the mobile view? I've tried to edit my user CSS, but the navboxes still do not render. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 20:43, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

@BillHPike: I'm not sure you can. It's a long-standing problem.

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T124168

RudolfRed (talk) 21:18, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi BillHPike. It's not possible. The navbox code is deliberately omitted to save space so there is nothing to unhide with CSS or JavaScript. The MinervaNeue skin at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering reminds of the mobile version but includes navboxes. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:25, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Question

Hey Teahouse, say if I wanted to create an article on Wikipedia. Is there certain requirements to do so? GoodHue291 (talk) 22:10, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

@GoodHue291 There aren't really any requirements that you in particular need to meet, more requirements that the article needs to meet. See your first article, the golden rules, the general notability guidelines and the guidance on not working backwards for the main things you'll need to be wary of.

That being said, you'll generally want to have some decent experience under your belt to make sure you understand how citations and the manual of style works; that's why people generally advise that you stick to making improvements to other articles until you feel absolutely ready and know that the article you plan to make is notable. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 22:21, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Reliable sources on niche non-English topics and WP:BIAS

I am editing an article on a Japanese film that is considered niche in the west, and its reception section has many citations of western critics and academics. I am Japanese and am familiar with the film and also the topic in general, and I feel that many of the western sources being cited are of very low quality, being filled with demonstrably and factually wrong statements. However, when I called attention to these sources, I was told that they count as reliable by Wikipedia standards. An example of reasoning was "because this book was published by a reputable British publishing company" but I find it dubious that anyone at this company could possibly have the knowledge necessary to fact check such a book. Another editor posted a profile of the writer of the book, saying it makes him a reliable source, which basically read "this person has a PhD in an unrelated field and also wrote this book" - I questioned whether the book is a reliable source, and was told that going by Wikipedia's guidelines on reliability, the book is reliable because the author wrote the book. How does this make any sense?

Regarding a different source I also pointed out how it was filled with factual errors, with an especially bad one that it claims is "well-documented" with no sources, that the Wikipedia article itself refutes. Yet when I pointed this out, I was told "as an editor, you cannot bring your own perspective to shape the topic and override reliable sources". The only perspective I am bringing here is one of a Japanese person who is familiar with the topic. Am I not allowed to question sources that are clearly of low quality yet are being claimed as reliable?

It would be one thing if these sources were clearly marked as providing a western perspective on the topic, but some of them claimed to be speaking about Japan (and were clearly wrong), and others were presented as impartial objective fact despite being highly subjective if not demonstrably false. 27.84.15.217 (talk) 02:35, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Angel's Egg '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 02:36, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

A single source provides the perspective of its author(s), I wouldn't extend it to sum up a "western perspective". If the source is wrong that can be raised on the talkpage, as you have done. You may find that supporting your statements with other sources, in any language, will bolster your case. CMD (talk) 04:17, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

That was simply an example of one particularly bad source being pushed as reliable. Before I started editing the article, all of the sources listed on that article's reception section were western ones, and the entire reception section pushed a narrative that the film, I quote, "did not do well with critics on its release" completely disregarding that at the points in time of the western critic reviews (mostly 00s) the film had in fact been critically acclaimed for decades.

My question is, what am I even to do when there are so many bad western sources filled with demonstrable factual mistakes on a niche Japanese topic, with English-speaking editors from Anglophone countries insisting that they are reliable sources nevertheless solely based on the authors or publications and not on the actual content no matter how much the problematic content is pointed out. You say to find other sources, even in other languages, but sometimes claims in these English sources are so outlandish that nobody would even think to write down something that would refute them.

This is thankfully not quoted in the article, but the source I listed above said "this film remains obscure in Japan" which is obviously false because there were magazine articles and books writing about the film and posters in train stations all over Tokyo, which meant that nobody in Japan bothered to write down "this film is not obscure". Since this source is considered reliable, anyone could argue that because this white man said it was obscure in Japan, and nobody said it wasn't, it was obscure in Japan, facts be damned.

And again, when I questioned these sources, I was told "Please remember that as an editor, you cannot bring your own perspective to shape the topic and override reliable sources" so what can I even do about them if I am not allowed to bring my perspective as someone who actually knows about the topic/understands the language/actually saw things with my own eyes, and "override" clearly factually wrong sources?

27.84.15.217 (talk) 05:18, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Then what you need to do is find in-depth discussion of the movie in Japanese sources, and present those. On Wikipedia, we can only go from what sources say- so if you think what a source is saying is wrong, the only way you can counter that is by providing a reliable source that says the opposite. I'm familiar with the fact that, due to language barriers, two Wikis will have an article on the exact same topic that presents the subject in two very different lights. It's frustrating- but the only way to deal with it is to simply find other sources, prove they're reliable, and be very careful to not insert your own opinions into a conversation. It just unfairly prejudices other editors against you. So, instead of saying "It wasn't obscure in Japan- I saw tonnes of posters about it!" say "These high quality magazine/newspaper reporters wrote about this film at the time, saying XYZ about it. How can we fit this into the article?" GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 06:13, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

And what about claims that are so outlandish that there are no sources arguing against them because of how obvious they would be to any Japanese person? They are to be left as they are, perpetuating WP:BIAS and violating WP:NPOV? For example, the discussion regarding Yasuke often results in people bringing up the supposed Japanese saying "For a Samurai to be brave, he must have a bit of black blood" which simply does not exist in Japan. There are no writings about this at all in Japan because nobody has heard of it, meaning there are no writings refuting it. It actually originates from how a white man made up a racist lie 150 years ago Yet there are many western English language articles, many on "reliable" websites, just bringing it up like it is fact. If someone were to quote that, is it simply to be taken as fact? 27.84.15.217 (talk) 07:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC) 27.84.15.217 (talk) 07:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Reddit is obviously not a reliable source except for WP:ABOUTSELF since it consists of user generated content, so I am unsure why you linked to Reddit. The ability to evaluate the reliability of a source, and to explain convincingly why a given source is or is not reliable is among the most important skills of a productive Wikipedia editor. As for Yasuke, please note that Talk: Yasuke includes serious discussion of the reliability of sources. For some reason that I do not understand, that article has recently become highly contentious. Reddit, maybe? Editors need to insist on the use of the highest quality reliable sources, whether in Japanese or English or any other language. If ample high quality reliable sources about a Japanese topic exist in English, then use those sources. If the only high quality sources are in Japanese, then use the Japanese sources. When you write The only perspective I am bringing here is one of a Japanese person who is familiar with the topic, that is a classic example of No original research, which is forbidden on the English Wikipedia. You are just another random person on the internet. How does anybody know that you are actually Japanese instead of a glib Ethiopian who has read a bit about Japan? How does anyone know that you are "familiar with the topic" as opposed to being a convincing bullshit artist? We know that you are a productive editor based only on the quality of your source analysis and the quality of other reliable sources that you bring to the discussion. Unsubstantiated ad hominen remarks about "Western sources" accomplish nothing here, and leads to other editors ignoring your input. You need to be precise and analytical on the talk pages of the specific articles, instead of hurling divisive generalities around. That accomplishes nothing, except frustrating yourself and the other editors you interact with. Cullen328 (talk) 09:15, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I purposely cited Reddit there , which is not considered a reliable source, because that post is the only accurate information I have actually seen in English regarding the supposed Japanese saying "For a Samurai to be brave, he must have a bit of black blood" which is otherwise uncritically accepted as fact by sources that Wikipedia might very well regard as "reliable."

If you had bothered to actually read my posts, you would have seen that I mentioned pointing out demonstrable factual falsehoods in multiple western sources on a niche Japanese topic only for users to tell me that the sources are reliable by Wikipedia standards, because are published by reputable western publishers/websites. You appear to be intentionally mischaracterizing my concerns about low quality sources as "unsubstantiated ad hominem remarks" but them being western is relevant because that suggests they would not have the ability to fact check content on a niche Japanese topic. I was highlighting the systemic bias present in relying solely on Western sources for articles on non-Western topics, and was told that questioning these sources is "original research", a claim you are repeating, and I find this tone offensive, as it sounds like racially-biased gatekeeping and gaslighting against non-western editors. 27.84.15.217 (talk) 10:12, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:SOURCES in Japanese language are not banned from en.wiki, but they have to be reliably published. I.e. not WP:SPS. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:23, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

This is not about Japanese sources. It is about the systemic bias WP:BIAS caused by English sources of dubious quality which are judged as reliable sources by Wikipedia editors due to factors like their publishers being counted as reliable, because WP:SOURCES does not account for things like cultural contexts for niche non-western topics which a western publisher might have no expertise in and cannot fact check as a result.

I was asking for advice on how to deal with particularly bad cases where a statement might be so obviously outlandish as to be something natives would not even bother to write about, meaning there would be no sources to counter the false statement. My intention of mentioning the fake Japanese saying in relation to the Yasuke topic was to highlight how western media, many of which are considered reliable sources by Wikipedia, sometimes parrot such falsehoods without any factchecking at all, and the link to Reddit was to show how sometimes sources deemed unreliable by Wikipedia can be far more accurate than supposed reliable sources as that post bothered to look into the source of the supposed saying and posted sources proving its origins. 27.84.15.217 (talk) 11:03, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

All reliable sources make mistakes, being reliable does not mean being infallible. Similarly, not being considered a reliable source does not mean a source is wrong, just that it is difficult to use it on Wikipedia. This applies to English and non-English sources. If the phrase you mention is used somewhere on Wikipedia, you should raise the issue on the relevant talkpage. CMD (talk) 11:08, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

When I questioned some "reliable" sources that were clearly filled with demonstrable factual falsehoods on Talk:Angel's Egg I was told "as an editor, you cannot bring your own perspective to shape the topic and override reliable sources" and that the source is still reliable solely because of its publisher (a British publisher, with the topic being that of a niche Japanese film. As I highlighted above, why should this publisher be considered reliable in this specific context?). Also, the person saying that did not address the issues regarding the source I brought up, only saying that the publisher makes the source reliable and that I am not allowed to question it. What is one even to do in such a case? 27.84.15.217 (talk) 11:28, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy ping: Erik, who made the comment. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 11:30, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I think others here have echoed my sentiment. An editor cannot quote their brain or life experience to overturn what is printed in reliable sources. If an editor believes that a reliable source is potentially incorrect, find other reliable sources commenting on that point (not just a source that says the opposite), and report it all per WP:SOURCESDISAGREE. (And especially being honest in reporting if they find more reliable sources agreeing with that original perspective.) We do it all the time with film articles' critical receptions where some commentators will have different takeaways in analyzing the reviews.

Here, I was worried about how the book Stray Dog of Anime: The Films of Mamoru Oshii by a reputable publisher and a credible author was considered to be not reliable and not fitting WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Any book focused on the filmmaker is going to be context that matters, more than some generalist newspaper making an offhand comment about the film or the filmmaker.

If reliable sources contradict, we as editors cannot profess to know the truth. Maybe sources had access to something we don't. Maybe we are misled by our own firsthand or secondhand experiences. Our presumptions have to be put aside because that's not verifiable, unlike what is in reliable sources. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:00, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:TRUTH may be of interest. I don't know why a western publisher would be unable to fact check something you say is so obvious, but if the facts are as demonstrable as you say, you should be able to demonstrate them. HerrWaus (talk) 13:51, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

This also seems to be an overreading of the comments in question. Anyone can question a source, but as noted above there are ways to better convey the issues. CMD (talk) 16:14, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

References

Special:Log/Spamblacklist

Greetings. I'm looking into whether it would be wise to ask for a particular website to be removed from the local spam blacklist. Specifically, I'm trying to see how many attempts to add links to this site have been blocked, and whether those attempts seem abusive.

The Special:Log/spamblacklist page looks like it should be useful - it looks like you can put "foo" into the Title field it would show you all the attempts to add links to foo.com. However, this never works. Is there a right way to use this page? Or is there a different page that would be more useful? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:18, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi Clayoquot. In the field "Target (title or User:username for user)", "title" means the wiki page somebody tried to edit. Special:Log/spamblacklist has no way to search for the links users tried to add. I don't know whether any external tools can do it. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Duplicate content

Hi everyone,

I noticed that there are templates for duplicate content, such as Template:Duplication. I'm curious if Wikipedia has any specific policies or guidelines regarding duplicated content. Additionally, what steps should be taken if an editor continues to create duplicate content? Is there a user warning template available for this situation, and can editors be formally warned?

Thank you for your help! Ckfasdf (talk) 06:56, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

@Ckfasdf: It is difficult to answer questions in the abstract. Please state the article that is causing you concern, or at least give examples. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:03, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

@Ckfasdf If an entire article is a duplicate of another article, it can be tagged for speedy deletion under A10. Editors are allowed to copy part of one article into another article, if it makes sense to do so; they should say where they copied the text from in their edit summary. If the text they are adding makes no sense, then they can be warned for vandalism, and if they do not stop, you can report them to WP:AIV. Toadspike [Talk] 10:40, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing and Toadspike: The example are like this: an editor made an article, let's call it Article X. It has three sections, each one copied from sections of Articles A, B, and C. Since it's duplicating from three different articles (A/B/C), using A10 is tricky because A10 only applies to duplicates of a single article/section/source.

There is also straightforward example like this: the editor added a section to Article D and then copied that same section into Article E, which is a spin-off of Article D. Now, both articles D and E have exactly same section (or duplicate content). Ckfasdf (talk) 12:57, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

As long as article X meets our requirements for notability, and all cases of copying were somehow attributed, both examples are okay. Toadspike [Talk] 13:56, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

@Toadspike: Even though it is duplicate content? Please note that the entire article X is essentially an exact copy of one section taken from article A, one section taken from article B, and one section taken from article C. IMO, duplicate content makes it difficult to update the information, as we usually simply update it in articles A/B/C, but now we also need to update it in article X. I also believe duplication issue is the reason we have A10. Ckfasdf (talk) 14:27, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

If you link a specific article, maybe I can address this specific case, but as a general rule duplicate content is okay. If you’re worried about updating the same info across pages, you could set up one page to transclude content from the other. Articles need context, and sometimes several articles need the same context; we can’t ban people from explaining the same thing twice anywhere on the encyclopedia. Toadspike [Talk] 14:47, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Draft of upcoming movie

There is a new draft named Draft:Shadow of the Colossus (film) that was created a few minutes ago. The talk page is protected for unknown reasons, can someone unblock it? Please 201.188.133.126 (talk) 07:40, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

The talk page is not protected. It simply doesn't exist. You can create it by adding content and publishing it. Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:04, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Please note that blocked users are not allowed to edit even from a different IP address; the block relates to you personally. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:42, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Company Page article Rejected

My article got rejected as it sounds more like an advert. It is a company page. Looking for suggestions on how to improve Pooja Hearzap (talk) 11:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

@Pooja Hearzap Please read HELP:YFA 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

It was indeed a company page. I have deleted it as blatant advertising. Please read Wikipedia:When your boss tells you to edit Wikipedia. -- Hoary (talk) 11:52, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi! Please see WP:COI for information. Sage or something (talk) 16:49, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Huge Information Removal?

Hi all respected Wikipedians,

Is this content removal by User:S0091 authentic as per Wikipedia guidelines? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WNS_Global_Services&diff=prev&oldid=1224686788 Would be grateful for any assistance in this matter. 110.227.37.228 (talk) 12:25, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi IP Editor. I would have agreed with the removal- most of it is routine business activities based on press releases, which Wikipedia is not interested in.

Are you affiliated with the company? Qcne (talk) 12:47, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Moved page not showing in Google

my article has been moved to main space in the past two to three days now but still not appearing of Google,

please is there any solution?

Mnationonly (talk) 12:52, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Mnationonly. As per WP:INDEXING, mainspace articles either appear in 90 days or when reviewed by a new page patroller, whichever is soonest. Qcne (talk) 12:52, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Please how to get the page patroller to review it? Mnationonly (talk) 12:56, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

There is currently a backlog of ten thousand pages to be reviewed, so I suggest you wait the 90 days. What's the rush? Qcne (talk) 12:57, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Okay no problem, thanks for the reply Mnationonly (talk) 12:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

@Mnationonly: Patrollers don't have to work on the oldest articles first and the time varies greatly but it's often much faster than 90 days. A review or 90 days is required to allow indexing by external search engines. We don't control when they actually do it after that. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Much faster for real. Okay that's fine Mnationonly (talk) 13:20, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

help adding a name to an existing list?

I am a "techno-peasant" and want only to add the name of a missing professor to a list of "notable professors" on the existing Wikipedia page of an art academy. I have tried to learn how to do this online following Wikipedia "instructions" without success (too technical for my old brain!). Can someone guide me through this simple editing task in a simple way? Thank you! Sandramaura (talk) 15:57, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Does the missing professor have a Wikipedia article? Theroadislong (talk) 16:00, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi Sandramaura, welcome to the Teahouse. Please name the professor and link the page of the academy. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:54, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Removing Bharat Mehra Draft page in sandbox

I created a draft page for Bharat Mehra but did not submit it for review as my colleague advised me to practice in the Sandbox. Well, I created a page for Bharat Mehra in my sandbox and submitted what I thought was a practice publish where the sandbox software would flag what was wrong with my entry! Well, the submission was real time and rejected because it was duplicate of my unsubmitted draft! Here's the help I need:

1. I'd like to remove the old sandbox draft - is that ok? User:Researcherasc/sandbox - Help!
2. The submitted Bharat Mehra page awaiting review here: Draft:Bharat Mehra - just sharing but advice also welcome!

Thank you!

Anita Researcherasc (talk) 16:32, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi there! There should be no restriction with your sandbox, so you should be ok to do that. Sage or something (talk) 16:47, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

@Sage or something thank you! Best, Anita Researcherasc (talk) 18:23, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Welcome :)

Sage or something (talk) 18:24, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

@Researcherasc You can just WP:BLANK your own sandbox. Your draft has a lot of problems. In no particular order: 1) remove all external links from the body text; 2) remove all but the most important publications by Mehra and provide evidence that the ones left are indeed notable (e.g. based on citations); 3) remove anything not backed up by reliable, published sources and give inline citations for all that remains. The latter is a policy described at this link. You must show how Mehra is wikinotable, as described for academics. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:22, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

@Michael D. Turnbull thank you! This is helpful. Re draft: I deleted most of the external links and will keep checking. I managed to find his Google Scholar page - which I could not before, another problem to sort out for another day - but I have added Scholar and deleted most publications. Yes, my colleague who enticed me back into wiki editing did review the page over the weekend and emailed me " the main hurdle for page approval  is notability and Dr. Mehra's page certainly exceeds those requirements. (Wikipedia:Notability - Wikipedia)." I will re-read the inline cite policy again and also keep improving as I find the time. Thanks, again! Best, Anita Researcherasc (talk) 18:22, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Researcherasc. I used to work at a University where one of my tasks was to create academic bios on our research impact portal.

Your draft really reminds me of when I used to write those. That is not a good thing! A Wikipedia article is not a place to place a full resume.

I think Bharat does meet our WP:NACADEMIC criteria, but I would remove the Impact, Professional Associations, and Grants (Funded Research) sections entirely. They really don't provide any encyclopaedic value at all.

I am also a reviewer and would be happy to have another look at it once you remove those sections. Qcne (talk) 18:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Sections deleted as recommended @Qcne thanks! Hope this passes now. Researcherasc (talk) 19:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I can't seem to get source #6 to load, do you have an alternative? Might only be available on the utk.edu network? Qcne (talk) 19:13, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Collapse a larger wiki table

I feel like this shouldn’t be too hard, but I cannot figure out how to make the entire table collapsible. It is too wide for good page style, the table can be found here: 2024 Lithuanian presidential election#Opinion polls Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 16:47, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

@Yoblyblob: It can be done, but not as the default display: see MOS:DONTHIDE. A redesign might be better. Bazza 7 (talk) 19:44, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

@Yoblyblob: The names could use {{Vertical header}} to make the columns more narrow. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:30, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Citation finding rabbit hole

I was going though the Citation Hunt Tool, finding something that looks like mathematics, but looking into it, I don't know this came to be. The baseball example was added in 2013, but the latitude was added in 2022. If it's pure mathematics, does it need a citation, or would an explanation work?

Also, while researching, I found things that this might've been copied from, or maybe it's the other way around.

Page 9 of this scribd upload is almost one-to-one. I don't know where it comes from, and it doesn't show the latitude. After that, I also found this book "Bang to Eternity and Betwixt: Cosmos", which seems to have copied the Coriolis force article, and many, many more. I believe the entire book is almost entirely made up of Wikipedia articles.

I am unsure of what to in this situation. Should I just delete the [citation needed] on the basis of discrete mathematics, or should I continue searching for an example that might've just come from Watchwolf49z, and the latitude from finding ϕ in the Rossby number equation? Goofierknot (talk) 17:45, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Delete

PLEASE can someone delete User_talk:48JcL48. I am the person who created the page as I was renamed from 48JcL48 to 48JCL. I am requesting an admin to delete the page. 48JCL (talk • contribs) 17:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi 48JCL,

The page was not recreated by you, but by the person who renamed you. It is common (and seems like it's policy) to leave the old talk page as a redirect to the new talk page, so that all your old signature links aren't broken, and so people can find you under your new name. Based on a quick scrolling thru the rename log, that's what happens to everyone who is renamed, except for people who (a) are vanishing, or (b) did not have a user talk page when renamed. If you have some kind of special situation, I'd recommend asking User:Ternarius, the person who renamed your account, if it would be OK to delete the page. Floquenbeam (talk) 18:14, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

(more) it's also OK to blank it, rather than keep the redirect, if you prefer. That makes it a little more difficult for people to find you, though. But speedy criteria don't apply here. Floquenbeam (talk) 18:23, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Paid Article

I would like to request help from someone experienced on managing WP:PAID. I have seen that Daniel K. Winn may have been created in that manner. It has been edited (additions of information) by a few editors, 2-3 IPs and a user-editor. The IP-editors (1 and 2) are without almost any other history except for this article and the user-editor is now blocked indefinitely for advertising or promotion. Although there is a paid disclosure, I think there is a serious issue of WP:COIRESPONSE, relying only "on the sources offered by the paid editor". I have also seen that the official website of Daniel K. Winn's gallery uses this article as an official channel, together in the list with other social media platforms (see my comment). Since I am not experienced in handing these issues, any help will be appreciated! Chiserc (talk) 18:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Wraparound of political party label within person infobox

Hi, When using the Template:Infobox_person, sometimes the 'Political party' label wraps around to another line e.g. Polly Billington, Dave Rowntree and Faiza Shaheen. However, sometimes it does not, which is easier to read e.g. Michael Ashcroft, Jackie Walker (activist) and Roz Savage. Please can someone advise me on how to stop the 'Political party' label from requiring two lines? Jontel (talk) 19:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I have found the answer; it is due to the length of other responses. Sorry. Jontel (talk) 21:18, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Is Pencilmation not american? Its australian

Hi Wikipedias, Pencilmation was an australian animated series in 1992. MrInteractions2 (talk) 19:47, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi @MrInteractions2. Our article Pencilmation discusses the 2004 YouTube web series. YouTube was not around in 1992, so perhaps there was another media franchise titled Pencilmation? However after a cursory Google search I cannot find anything from the 90s called that. Qcne (talk) 19:51, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Question

Hey Teahouse, for sentences in an article, is there a limit on how many citations/references you can put in a sentence?

So if I put 1,2,3 or 4, or even more citations for this sentence: "The dog went over the lazy cat" would it be acceptable on Wikipedia? GoodHue291 (talk) 19:55, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

@Hi GoodHue291, welcome to the Teahouse! Check out WP:CITEKILL which I think answers this nicely. Qcne (talk) 20:04, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Qcne! :) GoodHue291 (talk) 20:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Disputed Article

Hello. Is it possible to get a review of this disputed article for Harry L. Williams? I have made edits to my previous edits in an attempt to comply, and those have been further edited. The most recent comment was from OrangeMike who said, "This reads like it was written by Williams' press agent." I reached out to him a few weeks ago to ask what triggered his comment but have not heard back. I am working on behalf of Williams' current employer: Thurgood Marshall College Fund. I've disclosed all related information as a paid subcontractor. I'm not disagreeing, I simply want to get this article in good standing. I can guess what might be causing the issues, but an objective review would really help define this for me if at all possible. Thank you! Sigridtx (talk) 20:55, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Sigridtx The sentence Under his guidance, TMCF has created innovative partnerships, grown organizational stability, and advanced HBCU bipartisan support is promotional, hagiographic and entirely unreferenced. Who says that? You? That is the sort of thing that OrangeMike was probably referring to. Cullen328 (talk) 21:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Image question

Hi everyone.

I found an image that I’d like to add to an article, and it has this license: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/. It can be a bit confusing figuring out what licenses allow me to post what images where, so I thought I’d check here. Can I upload an image with this license? If so, should it be to wikimedia commons or to this local wikipedia? Hopefully this is a fairly straightforward query, but any help gratefully received. Thanks. SwollenSails (talk) 21:41, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello, SwollenSails. That is a non-commercial license which is not acceptable for Wikimedia Commons. Acceptable licenses do not restrict commercial re-use, which is commonplace for Commons images. As for uploading to English Wikipedia, the image would have to comply with the very stringent standards described in the Non-free images policy. Since you have not described the image, I cannot give you any further guidance at this time. Cullen328 (talk) 22:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC)