Wikipedia:Teahouse: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 13:45, 2 April 2021

Shortcuts

331dot, 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.

To read the newest questions, skip to bottom
About the Teahouse

Most recent archives
1207, 1208, 1209, 1210, 1211, 1212, 1213, 1214, 1215, 1216, 1217, 1218, 1219, 1220, 1221, 1222, 1223, 1224, 1225, 1226

Change Talking Tom and Friends logo

On 24 March 2021, the franchise recently changes its logo alongside its most apps. Lkas123 (talk) 09:43, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lkas123: Welcome to the Teahouse! If you are talking about changing the logo on Wikipedia, you have to upload an image. The new logo will fall under a non-free file; however, United States copyright law allows one to use non-free images of low resolution, called fair use. Sungodtemple a tcg fan!!1 !11 !! (talk) 12:07, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth adding to this that Wikipedia's policy on using non-free files is more restrictive than fair use law, and the non-free content criteria must all be met for a fair use file to remain on Wikipedia. If this is a change in logo and the logo is non-free then you can add the new logo in the article to replace the old one. However, depending on the simplicity of the logo it may actually be ineligible for copyright, so that we can use it freely. Are you able to provide an external URL link to an image of the new logo? — Bilorv (talk) 14:01, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look at the official website listed in the external links section of Talking Tom and Friends, which has a thumbnail of the logo. Apparently the logo change is relatively minor (the old logo (used at Talking Tom and Friends and Talking Tom and Friends (TV series)) was white text with red outline but now it is red text with no outline, and the "AND" has been replaced with "&"). Besides, since the logo is just text, I believe it is not eligible for copyright, though I may be wrong. 45.251.33.225 (talk) 15:44, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, do text-only logos qualify for copyrighting under any circumstances? AFAIK they shouldn't but I'm curious (I'm the same IP that explained the difference between the logos. please don't ping or message me, as I am on a dynamic IP range). 45.251.33.215 (talk) 14:02, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The concept of threshold for originality varies from country to country; some like the US have a comparitively high threshold, while others like the UK have a comparitively low threshold. So, whether a simple text logo is going to be considered eligible for copyright protection depends upon the laws of the country of origin and how the courts have ruled. See c:COM:FONT for more on this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:45, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And would the logo we are talking about be eligible for copyright in Slovenia (which is a EU member), which is where Outfit7 (the franchise owner) is based? The page at commons doesn't say anything about Slovenian logos though they do discuss logos in general, but I noticed that Google Chrome's logo, which is more creative IMO, is not eligible for copyright (presumably because Google is American and the threshold of originality is higher there?). 45.251.33.137 (talk) 04:10, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

According to c:COM:TOO Slovenia, Solvenia's threshold of originality depends "field of creativity", but I'm not sure how to exactly apply that to File:Talking Tom and Friends logo.svg, the logo currently shown on the series's official website or even to File:Outfit7 Logo 2018.svg. Moreover, three countries are listed as the "country of origin" for the series and none of them is Slovenia; so, maybe Outfit7 doesn't own the copyright on the logo or Slovenia isn't the country of origin. If you want to find out more about this you can ask about them at c:COM:VPC; the file's are uploaded to Commons so there's no much Wikipedia can do about them.

As I posted above The concept of threshold for originality varies from country to country; some like the US have a comparitively high threshold, while others like the UK have a comparitively low threshold. So, whether a simple text logo is going to be considered eligible for copyright protection depends upon the laws of the country of origin and how the courts have ruled. The US has a pretty high threshold of originality compared to some other countries (e.g. it doesn't apply a sweat of the brow type of rationale to assessing creativity); so, many logos for US companies (see c:COM:TOO United States) are considered ineligible for copyright protection), but these same logos might be treated differently from a TOO standpoint by other countries.

FWIW, people are uploading files to Commons all of the time, mostly in good faith, and probably none of them actually contact a copyright lawyer and go to court before doing so. They either upload the file based upon what they have been able to find out on their own or from others about file licensing or simply don't bother to worry about at all. So, lots of files are uploaded to Commons which eventually end up deleted for one reason or another. Sometimes the only way to kinda sort things out is to actually go to Commons and start a discussion about a particular file. Even if these three files weren't OK for Commons, they certainly could be uploaded locally to Wikipedia as non-free content if you wanted to be really cautious, but they should even be OK to be uploaded to Wikipedia as {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} because they would be {{PD-logo}} in the US even if they weren't in their countries of origin. Commons requires content to be freely licensed or PD in both the United States and in its country of origin; Wikipedia only requires the former if the content would be considered PD in the US under the principle of national treatment. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:44, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I suppose that the logo update can wait since the old logo is still rather similar to the new one (and I'm too busy). As for the absence of Slovenia from the country of origin, it may be because someone keeps on adding America as a country of origin and maybe quietly removing Slovenia because the actual production is not done in Slovenia (the only American thing about the series is the actors' nationalities and the pronunciation of whatever words they say, otherwise it's a fully European series, as it is broadcast in the UK, was initially animated in Austria and is currently animated in Spain). I've readded it since Outfit7 does own the franchise and has never sold it as far as Google can say. 45.251.33.137 (talk) 11:09, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I found out just now that the Talking Tom and Friends YouTube channel has a different variation of the new logo (white text on red background. The channel can be accessed by going to any YT video given as episode reference in the episode table at List of Talking Tom and Friends (TV series) episodes). Just thought I might as well point it out if Lkas123 is watching this and can upload the logo. 45.251.33.161 (talk) 10:53, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Missing article on the xC programming language

I am considering starting an article on the "xC" programming language. This is a language related to the occam (programming language) both in theory and in the design process and some of the people involved. xC is a proprietary language, with a free toolset (xTIMEcomposer) by the company XMOS.

I am a retired programmer who use the xC language a lot, and also blog about it. But I also have a disclaimer there that contains "I have no affiliation with any of the companies or persons I mention in my notes. I have no ads, there’s no money involved, no gifts are accepted. No donations, no affiliate advertisements, no rewards and no supporter support! It’s entirely a hobby with no income of any sort. Just fun and expenses." So I have nothing to do with XMOS except for the few support mails.

I am also affiliated with the local university NTNU in Trondheim, Norway: where I work with real-time / concurrency programming related matters, mostly as a censor.

I consider that the xC language really is in need of a Wikipedia page.

How do I proceed to make sure that such an article has enough notability for Wikipedia not to want to delete it later on?

I would consider the fact that it is proprietary as the biggest obstacle to finding independent sources, but it certainly is visible in the Tiobe index at https://www.tiobe.com/tiobe-index/programming-languages-definition/. Plus, when the occam page managed to get this notability, it should be possible to also find such sources for xC.

I am a little uncertain about "xC" or "XC", I'd have to query about this. XMOS seem to use it spelt either way.

I was thinking to start it at first and add { {compu-prog-stub} } to it. That would be needed. Making such an article not being a programming manual is also challenging.

PS. I discoverd that there was no xC page when I added it to the LLVM page the other day. Øyvind Teig (talk) 14:35, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Aclassifier, and welcome to the Teahouse. As with all Wikipedia articles on any subject, the first and most important question is whether or not the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability, which mostly translates into: Are there enough reliably published independent sources about it? Being propriertary is not an issue, but if that means that there is little about it that is not written or published by the team or the company who produce it, then it will not be notable, and there is no point in your spending any time trying to create an article about it. --ColinFine (talk)

Thanks ColinFine. I had noticed about notability, I guess that's why I asked. There are quite a lot of available documentation on the xC programming language. However, finding reliable sources from outside of XMOS is challenging, I guess. I can query about this at the XCore Exchange Community forum, and see if I can get any help there. Is there any way to "protect" an article for some time (perhaps with the { {compu-prog-stub} }) to see what might come up by other authors? Or maybe alternatively suggest a source list here? –Øyvind Teig (talk) 21:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Aclassifier. Rather than thinking about "protecting" an article, I urge you to use the articles for creation process and create a draft. As long as it doesn't contain copyright infringements or personal attacks, a draft can stay there as long as you keep working on it, and when you think it might be ready to be accepted as an article, you can submit it for review. See your first article. --ColinFine (talk) 22:22, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have now discovered that there is a very nice article on XC, as seen on XC (programming language) at "campusafrica" (whatever that is). It says it is a copy of an originally published Wikipedia version, still seen at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XC_(programming_language)?oldid=901782500. I did not find any trace of any deletion process. Could anybody help on finding out what happened to this page? I see that it only has reference to two very XMOS close sources, which may be hard on the notability requirement. (I see that it has not been updated with the combinable or distributable task types feature, indicating that if this were a page as of now, it would need editing.) Could there be any way to relist this page as a "draft"? In my opinion it's really too bad that this language does not have any Wikipedia page. Now there only is this redirect. (So there may have been a rather good reason that I didn't notice the lack of a page before recently). –Øyvind Teig (talk) 17:00, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Aclassifier: the page was redirected, you can see the history here. A lot of the information there doesn't belong in Wikipedia, but you could restore parts of what was there to the article. Though, since there were not sufficient independent reliable sources, it's possible it would get redirected. You could copy parts to Special:MyPage/xC to work on, just make sure you mention "copied from old version of 'XC (programming language)'" in your edit summary. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:40, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Elli: Thanks! Some investigations into the history of that page and I agree with the comments there. It indeed had “multiple issues” like “more citations needed” and “original research” missing (from March 2020). Also a comment that the article was too much of a programmer’s manual. There also was a conflict of interest (COI): self promotion issue with it. I cannot "invent" any of the missing references, I could do a rewrite - but since Wikipedia seems to have a stringent notability requirement it's probable that even a much shorter and more lexical page might be redirected again. But without links to the web.archive.org etc, it might look "better" at least. I blame myself for not having been on the field when the page was in crisis, but not done is not done. But then I probably might not have been able to save it. "Testing" where Wikipedia's limit goes with respect to notability against the fact that the xC language (in my opinion) has the potential to become rather important with some of its ideas, in the future. As an intellectual piece of work, Wikipedia should in my opinion have xC shown. Would there be any notability vs. "intellectual importantness" tradeoff? I foresee the answer: it's again not notable enough that I think its intellectual properties hold, some other out there in the academia should have seen that as well. But then, it is proprietary, a property that often doesn't trigger academic work. Especially in the latest years, where getting funds seems to be more dependent on ratings of which publications/conferences a publication is (or is not) published. May be this is a problem that should be discussed by Wikipedia, as the line of reasoning has elements of biting itself in the tail. Proprietary not a problem in itself (above), but then maybe this starts the problem? Which end up in Wikipedia and the public loosing intellectial heritage. I personally don't think this is an "aside", it's probably a quite central problem. –Øyvind Teig (talk) 08:18, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Aclassifier: it's an interesting problem, but the issue is that "importantness", aside from notability, is really quite subjective. An alternative way to think of Wikipedia's policies about notability and reliable sources are that they are there to prevent editing disputes. If we allowed original research, for example, we'd have people disagreeing on what is true - so instead we just go by what reliable sources say. Indeed, with notability, it's the same - what we should include isn't something easy to determine, so we just go off of what reliable sources say.

Though, I think you're making notability too much of a barrier. A few news articles about investment in the programming language, why some people use it, etc, and you have notability (assuming they're, well, independent, paying for news to write such an article is not allowed, obv).

Basically, if with independent sources, you could write a decent article, it's probably notable. And that's exactly the reason the policy exists in the first place. Elli (talk | contribs) 08:27, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Elli: much to think about! As much I'd love to refer to my own blogs about xC (and a fringe presentation for a conference in 2018, plus one to appear in April) I would have to present this problem on the xCore Exchange forum. My stuff is too informal. –Øyvind Teig (talk) 08:39, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Aclassifier: feel free, if you can find some media coverage perhaps it would qualify. Elli (talk | contribs) 08:42, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have done some searching and indeed found relevant academic papers. Like in the ACM Digital Library and The Internet Archive Scholar. –Øyvind Teig (talk) 18:18, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why aren’t there any pushpin maps for Brazilian states?

When I go to template maps I preemptively put in ‘Mato Grosso’ or ‘Brazil Mato Grosso’ even though I know it doesn’t work, only Brazil as a country works, which is confusing because Brazil is a very big country, with probably the most Portuguese speaking users on Wikipedia, so why haven’t they been made yet? Is it because villages in Brazil are not considered notable and what is borderline notable is the separate municipality maps for Brazilian states? They should add them. And I had a look around the templates, there are literally none, surprising. LongWinterBranches158 (talk) 23:54, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@LongWinterBranches158: I'd assume they simply haven't been created yet? Wikipedia feels somewhat thorough so omissions can be surprising - but often, omissions are just that. Feel free to contribute them! Elli (talk | contribs) 05:59, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@LongWinterBranches158: There are certainly some pushpin maps for Brazilian states, though some of them have rather nonintuitive names (see, for example, Module:Location map/data/Brazil Minas Gerais state, Module:Location map/data/Brazil Rio de Janeiro State, Module:Location map/data/Brazil Rondônia, Module:Location map/data/Brazil Sao Paulo, Module:Location map/data/Amapá). There is a file of a Mato Grosso location map, but no one's apparently used it to create a template or module to display pushpin maps. You can see how to create one at Template:Location map/Creating a new map definition, or if that's too much for you, ask at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop for someone to create one. Deor (talk) 17:53, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Use of non-free image (correct use of rationale?)

Recently, the image File:MONTERO (Call Me By Your Name) -SATAN'S EXTENDED VERSION-.jpeg was uploaded to Wikipedia and added to the article Montero (Call Me by Your Name) without a non-free use rationale. My question is, can a user beside the uploader add one? Note that I have preemptively done it to avoid deletion without knowing the guidelines surrounding it. If yes, is the usage of Template:non-free use rationale album cover used correctly here? My main concern is the image's status as an alternate cover, and if this is represented with the "Other information" parameter or something else.

Many thanks, Orcaguy (talk) 14:48, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Orcaguy. Anyone can add a non-free use rationale to a file's page, but adding a non-free use rationale is WP:JUSTONE (actually just one part of one) of the ten non-free content use criteria that need to be satisfied each time a file is used in an article. Just for reference, one album cover is generally deemed sufficient for primary identification purposes in stand-alone articles about albums, but any additional album cover usually have to be the subject of sourced critical commentary somewhere in the article as explained here. So, even though you added a non-free use rationale for this file, someone might disagree and decide to challenge the validity of the rationale. Don't just assume that providing a non-free use rationale automatically makes the file's non-free use policy compliant because alternative versions of album covers are sometimes tricky to sort out and ones which are simply added to show the cover art have ended up being deleted in some cases. So, you should try and find sourced critical commentary related to the cover art of the extended version (not just about the extended version, but about its cover) if possible and add that to the article to better establish the non-free use of the file. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:41, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect Merge

I accidentally chose the wrong article to propose That's What He Said Podcast be merged into and I haven't learned how to end a merge discussion yet. Would someone be willing to close the discussion so I can recommend it be merged with the article about the host? Otherwise could you at least provide links to the right place where I can look into how I would go about resolving a merge discussion. TipsyElephant (talk) 16:05, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think an admin will close the discussion if they find it irrevlevant or something. As far as I know normal users cannot close discussions. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 18:32, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TipsyElephant: Just as an update, I've gone ahead and closed the discussion. As demonstrated, non-admin editors can close discussions if they know when to close and what the consensus (if any) of the discussion is. There's a lot more information that goes into closing at Wikipedia:Closing discussions. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:53, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where can I help?

Hi everyone :) I'm new here and still finding my feet... I was wondering whether there's a place where one can be taken (at random maybe?) to articles that need a bit of love (copy-editing for instance). Thanks! FESxam (talk) 17:27, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@FESxam: Welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for wanting to help! Check out Wikipedia:Task_Center for some ideas on how to help out. There is also WP:TYPO for finding and fixing typos, and also WP:GUILD for copyediting tasks. Finally, you can just hit the "random article" link in the side bar and you may land on an article that needs some work. RudolfRed (talk) 17:35, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@FESxam: Welcome to the Teahouse (and by extension, Wikipedia). You may want to check out the The Wikipedia Adventure as an interactive tutorial, SuggestBot for requests, and the Guild of Copy Editors as a relevant WikiProject. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:36, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome FESxam! As Tenryuu said above, you'll want to start with The Wikipedia Adventure, however I have noticed that it tends to be rather buggy so if there are any problem, ask here and people will point you to the right place. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 17:40, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tenryuu @Blaze The Wolf @RudolfRed Thanks a lot for the tips and the warm welcome! I've adopted a typo already ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by FESxam (talk • contribs) 14:30, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2 questions

How do I expand a stub article and why had Suggestbot not give me my list of suggestions yet. I asked for them on March 10, and it's almost April, and I had still not got my editing suggestions. JennilyW (talk) 01:09, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JennilyW: the smartest way to do this would be to identify all of your available resources and gather them together. Read all the resources, identify whether or not they are reliable, and extract information from the sources into the article. By doing this, you're making the article longer, and therefore, it will not be a stub.

Here's an example: Let's say there's an article for a rapper named "Teahouse". The article has three attached sources, one about him, one about his new song, and one about his upcoming album. The article, as it is, only documents the existence of the rapper and his most popular song. To make this article not a stub, you would look at your sources and expand the article based on those sources.

As for your other question, perhaps you inputted the template incorrectly? I'm not sure. Maybe try again. versacespace talk to me 02:25, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JennilyW. I have also found that SuggestBot appears to be stalled and have commented about it on User talk:Nettrom (the editor responsible for the bot). He has not yet replied. Currently, the bot request is the only thing on my own Talk Page, so anyone can see the presence of its template (via the source editor). SuggestBot worked correctly for me on March 5th. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:05, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone, I am a newbie here!

Hello, This is Rego Paul. I am a new user here. I have been perusing Wikipedia for years and finally decided to join. I am very much excited and to take part in different topics. Would love to chat with others on here about building an encyclopedia, I am still learning new things. I am now in the IT bachelor's program at Mumbai University. Hope to get to know some of you. Have a wonderful day!! ReGo Paul (talk) 05:25, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ReGo Paul, welcome to Wikipedia! I see someone's posted some helpful links and an unhelpful comment on your talk page. So it goes. I hope you have a lot of fun here building the encyclopedia along with all of us. If you have any specific questions as you go, please feel welcome to post them here at the Teahouse. That's exactly what we're here for › Mortee _talk 22:35, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much Mortee I will surely do that.:) --ReGo Paul (talk) 09:43, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Help with my article infobox

Hi, could someone please help me fix the syntaxes in the infobox on this article? Thanks! Draft:Savanna Karmue

Tracksthegeneral (talk) 06:11, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tracksthegeneral, I don't see any problems with the infobox. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:34, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dodger67, someone already went ahead and fixed it after I asked. Thanks though! Tracksthegeneral (talk) 07:35, 31 March 2021 (UTC)Tracksthegeneral[reply]

@Tracksthegeneral: I suggest cropping the photograph so we can see her face, or using a different photograph - see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images. GoingBatty (talk) 17:04, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GoingBatty: Thanks for input, how do I crop the image? Tracksthegeneral (talk) 17:14, 31 March 2021 (UTC)Tracksthegeneral[reply]

@Tracksthegeneral: You could crop the image on your computer or phone and then upload the cropped version. GoingBatty (talk) 17:47, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GoingBatty: Will do, thanks! Tracksthegeneral (talk) 18:58, 31 March 2021 (UTC)Tracksthegeneral[reply]

There's also Croptool, for images that are on Commons. (Toolforge is owned by the WMF) DS (talk) 23:21, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hide page title

Hi. I am making a main page alternative and want to hide the page title and the bit which says 'from wikipedia the free encyclopedia', like the actual main page. Thank you Ihfshkahduahkjevrwgaljekdvhrwlhefjkd (talk) 07:14, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ihfshkahduahkjevrwgaljekdvhrwlhefjkd, I don't think that's possible, the main page is basically fixed. I'm sure other editors know more than me. Nice username by the way. Gerald WL 07:17, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: Actually, that is a smart idea for a main page. You can request refurbishment at Talk:Main Page. Gerald WL 07:18, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gerald. Must be a special software thing just for the main page Ihfshkahduahkjevrwgaljekdvhrwlhefjkd (talk) 08:34, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ihfshkahduahkjevrwgaljekdvhrwlhefjkd: you could probably do this with user CSS, though that would only apply for you, of course. Elli (talk | contribs) 08:43, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are Netflix, Hotstar Considered as reliable source?

Are Netflix, Hotstar Considered a reliable source? One Page Creator undid my edits for Priyanka_Choudhary. I removed this link https://www.hotstar.com/in/tv/savdhaan-india-fir/15034/weddings-and-blackmails/1000255432 Sonofstar (talk) 07:19, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sonofstar. Netflix and Hotstar may be somewhat reliable sources but they certainly are not independent sources because both companies are in the business of selling video content online. Acceptable Wikipedia articles should mostly summarize what reliable, independent sources say, and sources that are not independent do not establish notability, and their use should be kept to a minimum. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:30, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sonofstar, in that very case, Hotstar is reliable to show the main cast of the series, as WP:PRIMARY. Gerald WL 07:39, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So as it is reliable but not independent, can we add this or such links in the page?? Just asking to avoid mistakes in future. Seems like here we can but it depends also sometimes. Am I right? Sonofstar (talk) 08:55, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sonofstar. Yes, you can cite non-independent sources as references, but only when the information they are being used to support is such as can be cited to primary sources. --ColinFine (talk) 12:47, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Tab

No edit tab, only edit source tab

Hi! I'm new to Wikipedia and have just finished the editing training. I'm just wondering why I don't have the 'edit' tab, but I do have the 'edit source' tab? Thank you :) Child of Prophecy (talk) 08:12, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Child of Prophecy: you need to enable Wikipedia:VisualEditor. Elli (talk | contribs) 08:28, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(though my personal opinion is that you're better off just learning Wikitext) Elli (talk | contribs) 08:28, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

InterWiki link working and not working

I introduced the same InterWiki link, Piscicelli , in two different Wiki pages:
https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ducato_di_Napoli, where it works, and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giacomo_Piscicelli , where it does not work ("Page does not exist").

Please suggest what I should do. --Floridasso (talk) 08:56, 31 March 2021 (UTC) Floridasso (talk) 08:56, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't use what's normally called an interwiki link. Instead you used a regular Wikipedia link, pointing to something within the same Wikipedia. Used within it:Wikipedia, your link "[[Piscicelli (famiglia)|Piscicelli]]" leads to the it:Wikipedia it:Piscicelli (famiglia), which exists; used within en:Wikipedia, the same little piece of code leads to the [en:Wikipedia] Piscicelli (famiglia), which (unsurprisingly) doesn't exist. -- Hoary (talk) 09:23, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tahnk you Hoary,

I did as suggested in the Interwiki page.

--Floridasso (talk) 09:50, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Floridasso. The way you formatted the interlanguage link is not really the recommended way of doing so any longer per WP:ILL#Inline links (links in the text of the article); so, I've reformatted the link for you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:39, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aromanians; Aromanian language

I am a new editor and would like to make some changes to the respective pages. Legione-Romana (talk) 09:28, 31 March 2021 (UTC))[reply]

Legione-Romana, you are welcome to improve either or both of the articles Aromanians and Aromanian language. Be sure to cite reliable sources, of course. -- Hoary (talk) 11:07, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Mcghee

Hi - I have received some great help here before for the draft about Johnny Mcghee Trumpeter. I have now edited it down and addedwith citations and evidence. However; I have had the photograph I uploaded queried again by Timtrent but did not know how else to respond to them directly.I hope this works! I have the photograph from a private album and went away and checked with a lawyer about the copyright and there is no issue due to it's age and permissions and so there are no copyright issues.I photographed the original with an iPhone - is there anyway I can upload the image more directly as I understand why that may have caused a problem.Many thanks 15700cathy 15700cathy (talk) 11:51, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 15700cathy. The file you uploaded to Commons is being discussed at c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Johnny McGhee Trumpeter.jpg. You can post a comment in that discussion if you like. If you'd like to leave a message for Timtrent, you can do so at c:User talk:Timtrent. As for the copyright on the photo, you might want to take a very careful look at c:Commons:Hirtle and c:Commons:United States because this photo doesn't look old enough to be within the public domain simply because of its age; moreover, "copyright expired album" doesn't really mean anything and doesn't help clarify the provenance of the image. Furhtermore, you can't really claim the file is your "own work" if you didn't take the original photo. Photographing the original with your iPhone doesn't make you the copyright holder as explained here. Try to think of it like this: you borrow a book from your local library and then you use your iPhone to take photos of each page of the book. Doing such a thing wouldn't make you the copyright holder of the book. Another example would be using your DVR to record a movie that you want to be able to watch at some other time. Doing such a thing wouldn't make you the copyright holder of the movie. The only ways the copyright of the original photo would likely be transferred to you is if there was a copyright transfer agreement between you and the person who took the photo, or if the person who took the photo left you the rights to the photo (i.e. you inherited it from them) when they died. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:02, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Used to have old account

Thanks for inviting me to the Tea House. I used to have an old account that I have created sometime 2011 that I cannot seem to remember. I went to the page or pages I created and It already appears that somebody created the same page on a later date. Is there a way I can recover the account? Palakasan (talk) 13:05, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Palakasan. I'm not sure what you mean by I went to the page or pages I created and It already appears that somebody created the same page on a later date. I don't think it's possible another person to take over your account unless you give them your password or the account is otherwise WP:COMPROMISED. Can you provide a link to the other page or at least the name of the other page? If you simply don't remember the password for the other account, then perhaps WP:LOSTPASSWORD will explain what you need to do. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:18, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A username can occasionally be usurped with help from a global renamer if there were no substantial edits in the old account, but I'm not also sure what the question being asked here is. Do you mean that you created an article (something in the mainspace, for example the page Coffee) and you now see in the page history that somebody else created it? That could be the result of a page being deleted (for instance, as the result of a deletion discussion) and later recreated. If you name the page(s) in question then we can likely tell you something more specific. — Bilorv (talk) 15:24, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I have visited the pages I remember I created, it appears that my old account was 2008 and I last used n 2016. I don't want to post the pages I created here for privacy issues. I also don't know how to reply here. I just used the edit box, it that OK? Palakasan (talk) 16:00, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have replied correctly. Are you asking if you can regain access to your old account? If you did not add an email address to your old account to recover the password, and cannot remember the password, you cannot regain access to it, as no one else has that information. If you wish, you can identify your current account as a successor to your old account on your user page("I am Palakasan, I previously used Account1234 but no longer have access"). If you regained access to your old account, it won't change the fact that someone else created the page you have at issue, but you may certainly edit it. As noted, it is hard to say more than that without knowing the pages in question(which you certainly do not need to reveal, just saying). 331dot (talk) 08:09, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Palakasan means they've forgotten their old user name, and tried to find it by looking at the page histories of articles they remember creating. I suppose it's possible those articles were deleted and then recreated by another editor. If I had the article names, as an administrator I could check that. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:12, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there anything to do with the worst films to be considered?

Oi! Oi! I need an edit of this! AdwenKnowItAll (talk) 13:08, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@AdwenKnowItAll: You may likely have to provide a bit more context for anyone to be able to help. GMG ^talk 13:09, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@AdwenKnowItAll: Your edit was reverted because you "introduced multiple grammatical errors" per the edit summary left by the editor who reverted you.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 14:58, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Help with Determining Next Steps on Editing

Do I need permission from editors who have been commenting on my potential edits to try again? My previous edits did not go through for, in particular, a link issue. Dontanner (talk) 13:21, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dontanner. Wikipedia wants us to be WP:BOLD, but sometimes when we're bold another editor disagrees with us and WP:REVERTs (either total or partially) the edit we made. When that happens, the best thing to do is to try and figure out why our edit was reverted by WP:DISCUSSing things on the article talk page per WP:BRD. Of course, things can be much more complicated than that, and the reason for reverting our edit might not be a good reason at all. Even in such cases though, it's better to try and resolve things through discussion unless the revert reinstates a serious violation of some Wikipedia policy or guideline like a copyright violation or a WP:BLP violation. If all you do is simply revert the reverter and restore you original edit without a really really good Wikipedia policy-based reason for doing so, there's a good chance that you'll risk an edit war which nobody wins. What you're going to need to do is try and establish a WP:CONSENSUS for the changes you want to make on the article's talk page. This seems to be pretty much the same advice given to you above in #Editing with new published attribution, but there's no much more to do then be patient and give other a chance to respond. It's quite possible they haven't noticed your message yet. Maybe try leaving a Template:Please see on their user talk pages so that they know that you'd like to discuss things with them on the article's talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:41, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:73b9:100:549c:24da:5ceb:c45d (talk) 22:44, 31 March 2021 (UTC)‎[reply]

Abusive behaviour!

Hi, I did my first edit today on Wikipedia and I have already had an unpleasant experience with the user Super Dromaeosaurus. I think that they are not here with the purpose of improving any page's content but to promote their biased viewpoint on the subject and reverse anything that does not suit them. They have just reverted all of my edits. What should I do? RegardsLegione-Romana (talk) 13:38, 31 March 2021 (UTC) Legione-Romana (talk) 13:38, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Legione-Romana. What you should do it try and remain cool and assume good faith. If you make an edit to an article that is subsequently reverted by someone else, don't immediately assume the worst. You should instead try and understand why the edit you made was reverted by looking for an edit summary explaining why or by discussing things on the article's talk page per WP:BRD. Wikipedia has lots of policies and guidelines so perhaps there's a pretty good reason why this other editor reverted you. So, follow Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and try and focus on the content of the edit being discussed and not what you think the motives of the other editor might be. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:56, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) : Welcome to the Teahouse, Legione-Romana. The editor Super Dromaeosaurus who reverted your edits stated in their edit summary "I'm sorry, but lots of this is unsourced and WP:OR". This doesn't mean that your additions were incorrect, merely that they could not be verified. A core principle of everything we write in articles is that readers can see where we got the information from — and one of the issues with Aromanian language is that it is inadequately sourced. It can be a shock for new editors to discover that Wikipedia cares less about what is true than it does about what is verifiable, preferably in a WP:SECONDARY reliable source. Things that may be true but don't have such sources are often the result of what we call WP:OR, that is "original research", which is not allowed. The simplest way forward is to ensure that what you add to articles has in-line citations backing up the material. Please don't be put off: you can use the Talk Page of any article to discuss with other editors how to improve articles and discuss your sources, in line with another policy summarised at WP:BRD. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:03, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I notify that the reason why I reverted most of the changes this user did is because some seemed unneccessary (such as rewriting of paragraphs) or because they consisted of unsourced information (link of the edit). I couldn't revert that one individually so I had to use Twinkle (a tool for reverting multiple edits) to revert all of them and restore then the positive changes the user did [1]. I left a message in the user's talk page. Super Ψ Dro 14:05, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aromanian language

Courtesy link: Aromanian language

FYI

– Merging section with above and transferring header link to a courtesy link. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:35, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat that the user 'Super Dromaeosaurus' is not here with the purpose of improving any content but to enforce their biased opinion. I doubt their integrity. Specifically, first of all, they are lying. They reverted all of my edits not just part of them as they pretend above. They have restored exactly the previous version. Secondly, they have justified the revert by citing a lack of sources for my edits. In that case, I ask them, do they have any source for the information that they are enforcing? RegardsLegione-Romana (talk) 14:17, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did revert all your edits because I couldn't revert individually the one that concerned me (this is what shows up if you try to revert it [2]). However, I then restored the positive edits. You can see what did I exactly revert and restore here. And no, the version to which I have restored it is not cited either, but I have also said that there were slight neutrality problems in parts of what you rewrote, so the previous version is preferred. I have detailed more about the reason for my reverts in those parts in your talk page and I offer you again help if you want to re-add information if you feel that the current one should be changed. Super Ψ Dro 14:33, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New editors (you) should not accuse other editors of abusive behaviour or lying because of a disagreement about content. Wikipedia has guidelines that are not obvious to new editors. One is that content requires references. There are many articles, especially older ones, that were never adequately referenced. Regardless, nowadays, changes, even to previously poorly referenced content, requires references. Talk pages of articles are the right place to work on achieving consensus. David notMD (talk) 22:27, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Legione-Romana, the first time you brought up the matter of editing these articles (in an earlier Teahouse thread), I said that you were welcome to do so, but added "Be sure to cite reliable sources, of course." That's what you must do. And David notMD's right: do not impute motives to other editors or attempt psychiatric evaluations of them unless you can provide clear evidence for what you're saying (and examples of behaviour that's merely compatible with base motives or psychopathology are not sufficient). This isn't just for new editors; it applies to old ones too: several times a week, I deal with work by editors whose contribution histories are easy to explain if they're writing for hire, very hard to explain otherwise, but I very rarely accuse anyone of editing for money. -- Hoary (talk) 02:47, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question on Notability

Hi, I would like to know if this article meets the guidelines for Wikipedia. It is on a book called The Heartfulness Way, so the real question is, if this book is notable enough to have an independent article?

Based upon my limited knowledge, and reading the WP:BK guildelines, I think it meets the notability criteria on following accounts - 1) it has been a subject of several newspaper articles and independent reviews, 2) it has been part of bestseller list 3) it was unveiled by The President of India who talked about it.

Good amount of info is available on it in the public domain, if some of you can make your independent assessment and share your opinion here, it will help me learn how to decide whether a topic is notable or not. Ensconce (talk) 14:22, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: The link provided above goes to article about the book has since been deleted and turned into a redirect to Kamlesh D. Patel, who is one of the authors. The proper place for a discussion is on the Patel Talk page. David notMD (talk) 14:39, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(See Talk:Kamlesh D. Patel#Possible notability of The Heartfulness Way.) — Bilorv (talk) 15:33, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arlington National interment

What is the longest time period from date of death to being interred at Arlington National Cemetery? Any information on the deceased available? Deacon3111 (talk) 15:15, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Deacon3111: the Teahouse is for questions about Wikipedia, not questions about topics we cover in articles. You can ask some questions at the reference desk, but all "behind the scenes" pages are primarily designed to be used with improving Wikipedia articles in mind. You could try reading any references cited in the Wikipedia article you are talking about, to see if you could find an answer there, or there are lots of question and answer websites on the internet where you might be able to ask your question. — Bilorv (talk) 15:27, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Advice

I made a draft for an article about the henry stickmin series. What should I add AM3M3B0I (talk) 17:26, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, AM3M3B0I. Your draft is unreferenced, and unreferenced drafts are never going to be accepted. Please read Your first article for what is required. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:44, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How to place a picture correctly (simple question)

I added photos to wiki pages like Freddy Carter but I can't seem to get the placement right nor do I understand how to get rid of the borders. I wanted to add a small subline stating where it was from, but it seemed to show with the subline and messing up the photo. How do I correct the pic?? Teria0000 (talk) 17:40, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Teria0000. The copyright status of the photo of Freddy Carter that you uploaded is dubious. It was first published in a copyrighted magazine and you credited it to Joseph Sinclair. Are you Sinclair and if not, why are you uploading a copyright protected photo as if it was your own work? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:54, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the box issue for you but the bigger issue is the copyright problem. There is now a deletion discussion on Wikimedia Commons regarding that photo. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:03, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Popularity of Wiki Pages

Is there a way to know how popular a wiki page is or how much traffic it gets? AbuRas1 (talk) 18:24, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@AbuRas1: If you click "page information" in the side bar it will show you number of views in last 30 days. RudolfRed (talk) 18:30, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, AbuRas1. Yes, in desktop mode, every article has a "Page information" tab with lots of statistics. There is a link to an interactive page views tool. Here is an example for Abraham Lincoln. You can see that his article has been viewed almost 400,000 times in the last three weeks. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:34, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@AbuRas1: The bottom of "Page information" and the top of the "View history" tab both have a page views link to the same site. User:PrimeHunter/Pageviews.js can save you a click by placing the link on the page itself. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:05, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

View history and then selecting Page views has recent days as the default, but clicking on the contents of the dates box allows you to select, month, this year, last year, or customize dates. David notMD (talk) 20:17, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! PrimeHunter and RudolfRed — Preceding unsigned comment added by AbuRas1 (talk • contribs) 20:32, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Entry for Leviticus Nightclub

I just submitted an article but it was rejected because it did not have legitimate sources. My sources were Ebony magazine and the NY Amsterdam News. Aren't these outlets legitimate? Newton Figures (talk) 19:06, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Newton Figures. Currently, your draft User:Newton Figures/sandbox has no references and will not be accepted. Please read Referencing for beginners and Your first article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:43, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In my previous question, I meant to mention Black Enterprise as one of my sources instead of Ebony magazine. Newton Figures (talk) 19:08, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Still, no evidence that you have tried to create references. How are you mentioning 'sources'? Wikipedia requires not just that you found sources to confirm content, but that the sources also be incorporated into the article as references. See Help:Referencing for beginners. David notMD (talk) 20:21, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of whether you have sources, you haven't included them in the draft. It's like the difference between having clothes and wearing clothes. DS (talk) 23:02, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How to go about adding a description of the gameplay to a game article

So I want to add information on the gameplay of the game SnowRunner to the article (as currently it doesn't really have any besides just a basic overview of what it is) as I think I would be able to do this well since i own the game (hopefully I won't have a conflict of interest). How exactly would I go about doing this? I know that it would have to include references (Myself not being a reference cause that would be rather stupid). Would it be better to go about making a draft of what i want to add first? Apologies for so many questions. I'm just trying to improve the article. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 19:10, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Blaze The Wolf. Please read WP:GAMEGUIDE, which explains why this idea is not appropriate. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:06, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen328, reading WP:GAMEGUIDE and the relevant article, I think there's a little more gray area than that. The article is currently stub-class (the lowest quality assessment), so it needs lots of expansion. Blaze The Wolf, you can look to featured video game articles for an idea of what's appropriate to add. The key point from WP:GAMEGUIDE, though, is that you don't want to go into excess detail or turn the article into an instruction manual. But adding a basic high-level overview of the gameplay mechanics, especially anything notable about them that has been covered in external sources, would likely be a plus. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:29, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Blaze The Wolf: However, Blaze, if you are interested in writing an in-depth game guide, our sister project Wikibooks has recently voted to allow video game strategy guides for "significant games", which under their guidelines would include SnowRunner. Also, SnowRunner can absolutely include a 'Gameplay' section, as pretty much any good video game article does. As you and Sdkb noted, however, it wouldn't be a guide, and the information would need to be cited to a reliable source.TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 20:33, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rod Brown Denver Broncos

A picture of a white man is on this article and he is not the Rod Brown American football player from Gainesville Texas. Can this be deleted. If you want a picture of the real Rod Brown for this article. I can send you one. 142.147.51.21 (talk) 21:58, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no photo at Rod_Brown_(gridiron_football). If you saw the photo in Google, then that is an issue with Google's Knowledge Graph and out of Wikipedia's control, but you can report the problem to Google. RudolfRed (talk) 22:01, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edited article

I recently edited the article Pinus pseudostrobus, and am wondering whether it is good currently. One problem I am having is that the refs are showing up as (3)(2), rather than (2)(3). Is this an issue, or is it ok? If the article is not good currently, could someone tell me how I could improve it? Abies balsamica (talk) 23:59, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Abies balsamica: Welcome to the Teahouse! I reordered the references for you, but the order doesn't really matter. Could you please add some captions for the gallery photos? Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 00:11, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the question, Abies balsamica! To add to the above, references being numbered out of order is not a problem, but if you wish to keep them in ascending order (some editors do) then you can just swap the order. The first reference to occur on the page is numbered 1, the second 2 etc. but if a reference is repeated then the same number is used. Anyway, the actual issue with the reference formatting (but it's only a tiny one!) is that we don't use punctuation before references, which GoingBatty also fixed. As for the article, maybe others can tell you more because I'm not a subject expert, but the addition of the references is definitely good, and the other changes look like an improvement to me. Hopefully Casliber will not mind a ping, as I think they're the go-to editor in this area. — Bilorv (talk) 00:18, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm....my ears are burning...let me take a look....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How do I add captions to the images? Sorry- I'm a new user and the code can be confusing. Abies balsamica (talk) 13:28, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Abies balsamica: There's more information at Help:Pictures § Thumbnails (with an example), but basically there's a parameter that generates a caption if none of the recognised keywords for size and orientation are used for it. Alternatively, if you turn on the visual editor to add a new image, you can click on "Insert" along the toolbar and select "Images and media" from the dropdown menu. There you can select what image to use and click "Use this image" in the top-right corner to select it. The following interface has a field to add a caption. You can also get to the same screen by selecting an image and clicking "Edit" in the associated popup that shows up. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 13:42, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Abies balsamica: I added two captions so you could see how its done. Feel free to improve the captions. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 14:01, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence about introduced to New Zealand has been there since 2010 - never referenced. David notMD (talk) 01:56, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reorganization

Hi Thank you for inviting me to the Teahouse. My Question - If a {{Cleanup reorganize|date=March 2021}} is placed and I have already cleaned up the article, when will it be removed? Palakasan (talk) 02:09, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can remove it yourself. See Help:Maintenance template removal for more info (or click "Learn how and when to remove this template message" in the template above). Kleinpecan (talk) 02:14, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Change Redirect

How do you change or request a change of a Redirect?--Pibal373 (talk) 03:04, 1 April 2021 (UTC) Pibal373 (talk) 03:04, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pibal373: Welcome to the Teahouse. If a redirect brings you to a second page, there is a small string of text at the very top that will say (Redirected from [page]). You can click on that to bring you to the redirecting page, where you can edit the link to the appropriate target. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:09, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Curious Emergency shutoff... button of (any?) Bot

Uh... idk what to ask like how does it look like after one presses the emergency stop like does it do anything or does something instantly notice a change if so what change or changes... and how would one know if it A were inadvertently pushed/pressed both if done by themself as well as if another had inadvertently done such as described, also what would show up or whatnot like would anything change as to regards/for regarding display etc? Also is there a way to TRY using an emergency shutoff w/o it being unknown potentially whether it is disturbing— not like morally wrong but like effecting something etc in an unintended or inintentional/unexpected way or having the potential for perhaps interference... should one just use the sandbox and/or like genuinely pretend imagine that it is an emergency shutoff and that by editing the sandbox Its really pushing/pressing/hitting etc the button for shutoff/emergency shutoff? Kinda not tryna get banned is why kinda... reluctant? Hesitant? Idk what it is— to try doing so/such... oh if one is reading this lets both try so that no matter what if something goes wrong we will just be above to say that well we'll just have to hope for the best :D and that way neither one gets punished via means of being deemed that that renders it impossible to or be capable of doing something that is not ok. Oh btw what is the reference saying "do not..." beneath this paragraph to tildes... like that's name of a computer code/format/language right? And am now realizing idk if what this is doing is helpful, about to be mistook as or taken as vandalism, or just plain not doing anything or getting anywhere so if successful.. is this how to ask questions on here? &Jvc why the name teahouse... no reason it just reminds of or makes think of the "turbo time" pr something something teahouse whatever that is/was off of a show that was maybe still on called jhony test.. anyways yeah tysvm for reading this long af ya prolly gonna think this is practically a religipusly associated to the book or books known as the bibke or bibles... bible length of a barache barage? Of... idk just babble so trailing off now kinda like tina/bobs burgers Carpetlice (talk) 04:21, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Carpetlice: In 99% of the bots I know, the emergency shutoff button only works for Administrators anyway, because it contains a link to Special:Block under the hood, a page only working if you are an administrator. For all other users, those buttons have no effect. And yes, the button is realy only for emergencies, because odds are that your disrupt the bot at what he is currently doing. These buttons will stop the bot right awawy, as a nature consequence off the block appliied to the bot account, meaning you will probbably catch it somewhere between two edits which were intended to be run both. Victor Schmidt (talk) 06:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some bots, like User:AnomieBOT, also have shut-off pages for each task that anyone can edit (for example, User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/TFDClerk). However, please don't do this if there isn't a need to shut the bot off. OwO (what's this?) 07:19, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Login error: "There seems to be a problem with your login session; this action has been canceled as a precaution against session hijacking. Please resubmit the form. You may receive this message if you are blocking cookies."

Hello! I have been a registered editor for sometime. Couple days ago I started getting this error when I tried to login on Microsoft Edge. To be clear, I am not blocking cookies, as the error suggests. I searched online and found that people with this issue are usually using some special server and some mediawiki installation; I am doing none of those. I am just a average reader using regular ethernet connection on a regular browser. I am still able to login from Internet Explorer and Google Chrome. Your help is much appreciated! Luminoxius (talk) 04:32, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's a chance it may be a problem with either Edge in general or your Edge browser. If you haven't already tried reinstalling Edge try accessing Wikipedia from Edge's incognito mode (Whatever it's called). There's a chance you just need to clear your cookies as they do occasionally have to be cleared to get a website to work right. (NOTE: I'm not trying to prank you, I'm attempting to help you with your issue) Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 15:04, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response! Both suggested solutions, incognito and clearing cookies, worked. I can login normally now! --Luminoxius (talk) 18:24, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! I've had to do that once or twice before (not on Wikipedia). A Wild Wolf has appeared! | Gotta catch 'em all! (talk) 22:44, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Richa Jain

hey my friend made a page exactly same to my page on richa jain his page was declined so i thought i would make it but whenever i am putting it out for a review i am getting the message that one page is already under review but i contacted the guy who made the page his page was declined than why my page is not getting rewieved please help Himanshushukla433 (talk) 04:47, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Himanshushukla433: welcome back to the Teahouse. When you create a new section in the Teahouse, please keep the subject line/heading short, and write your question below the heading. I have fixed it for you above.

As the reviewer explained on your user talk page, Draft:Richa Jain exists and can be edited by anybody, including you. The draft has not been submitted for review since it was last declined, in fact it hasn't been edited at all since then, but when a draft has been declined there is no need to create a new draft about the same topic. If a draft is rejected, rather than declined, it means that the reviewer has determined that there can't be a Wikipedia article about that topic, but that hasn't happened with this draft. It looks like your sandbox draft is basically a copy of Draft:Richa Jain, and so it has the same issues (so it would be pointless to review it until those issues have been fixed). As I was typing this, the creator of the draft blanked it, which is inappropriate – I have restored it.

Important: since you are in contact with the person the draft is about, you have a conflict of interest. Please read the information at Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. If you have more questions about that, you can ask them here. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 07:49, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Starting a project (not WikiProject)

Can a user start a project, not a wikiproject but a project like making a list of basic and notable questions with simple and reliable answers, if yes then where to start, should I start it on subpage of my userpage or other, also what are the guidelines. ExclusiveEditor (talk) 05:07, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ExclusiveEditor: Is this for your own personal use? You could start a subpage in your user space. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:14, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No it is not for my personal use, I am creating a list of basic questions with reliable answers for new editors on Wikipedia.ExclusiveEditor (talk) 06:15, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ExclusiveEditor: writings about Wikipedia are allowed in your userspace, of course. If you think it might be useful to others, then you could put it in project-space (Wikipedia:Essay title), just make sure to tag it with {{essay}}, {{Information page}}, or something similar. I'd recommend starting it as a subpage of your userpage, though. OwO (what's this?) 07:17, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ExclusiveEditor: One thing you should not be doing is copying posts created by other users. User:ExclusiveEditor/ExclusiveHelp/Page1 has a couple of entries signed by other people, but those people have never edited that page. If you think somebody has explained something really well, or given particularly good advice, you could link to that post from your help page, but not copy their words and signature. You also cannot copy text straight from other Wikipedia pages without attribution; see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia for more information. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 08:43, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Contributing to a page through Wikiproject

Hello,

I am trying to edit NOYB, but before I do so I wanted to get feedback on TALK:NOYB. Upon going to the talk page I found it was claimed by multiple wikiprojects. Upon joining wikiprojects for organizations, I cant seem to figure out how to contribute or request feedback on my potential edits, and additionally, im confused on how to actually submit the edits once I get feedback. I found the talk page for the organizations wikiproject- should I post my ideas for edits there? If there isnt a response over a few weeks can I join a different wikiproject and post to that talk page? How do I get approval to make edits?

Thanks for the help! MrSirGuyFriendBuddyOlPal (talk) 06:30, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MrSirGuyFriendBuddyOlPal: hey, I'd recommend just going ahead and making the edits - see Wikipedia:Be bold. If you really don't feel confident in them, then you could post them at the article's talkpage, or the Wikiprojects' talkpages, for example at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Organizations. Seriously, though, I would just suggest making the edits to the article first. Joining Wikiprojects is entirely unnecessary and you are already approved to edit the page. OwO (what's this?) 07:16, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Help Create a Page

Please help me create a page Editormian (talk) 07:39, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Editormian Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Successfully creating a new article(not just a "page") is the hardest thing to do on Wikipedia. It takes much time and practice. New users who dive right in to creating new articles often end up disappointed and with hurt feelings as something that they spent hours on is mercilessly edited and even deleted by others. I don't want you to have any bad feelings, so I would suggest that you first spend time editing existing articles in areas that interest you, to get a feel for how Wikipedia operates and what is expected of article content. I'd also suggest using the new user tutorial.

If you still want to create a new article now, you should read Your First Article, then visit Articles for Creation to create and submit a draft article for review. This way you find out any problems first. 331dot (talk) 07:53, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tea house

What is the Wikipedia tea house about? and how do I start a discussion in the tea house? Asibazu (talk) 08:15, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Asibazu, the Teahouse is a place for new users to get help. They can ask any questions they might have about editing or reading Wikipedia, and some experienced editors often called "hosts" will try to answer their questions. Giraffe ^{(who stole my "r"?)} 08:18, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you host Girrefe, Now I understand better Asibazu (talk) 08:29, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Asibazu Discussions about specific articles can take place on the Talk pages of those articles. Each editor also has a Talk page, so there can be direct communication. David notMD (talk) 13:52, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Birthday Committee

What type of page is Wikipedia:Birthday Committee, is it essay or information page or any other? If I want to create something like that then how to Create? ExclusiveEditor (talk) 08:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ExclusiveEditor I guess the best way to describe that page would be to describe it as a project page. Are you saying you want to create your own Birthday Committee? 331dot (talk) 08:28, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

331dot No I don't want to create a birthday committee but I want to create a list of basic questions with simple and reliable answers of Wikipedia which will help new editors. This would consist of multiple pages as 10 question would be on a single page and questions would obviously be more. Also I want this list of Questions and Answers lists to be edited by all and everyone to add new question and answers. Therefore this would be not only for my personal use but for all of us. I have created a liitle on my subpages, like Index and first page and members (I want members). But all of these is on my subpages but I want it to reach everyone which is not possible on subpages.ExclusiveEditor (talk) 08:39, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ExclusiveEditor So you want to create something like Frequently Asked Questions? 331dot (talk) 08:41, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

331dot Yes!— Preceding unsigned comment added by ExclusiveEditor (talk • contribs)

ExclusiveEditor I'd suggest that before attempting to create something new and perhaps duplicative that you offer any changes you feel are needed on the talk pages for the FAQ. 331dot (talk) 14:13, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Need help to improve my first article draft

Hi All,

I have created my first ever article and now seeking help from all experienced editor here to guide me further what else shall I do to improve it further. Here is the draft for your kind reference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Samira_Gupta

Please, help me out to better understand the Wiki platform and mistakes if I have made any in order to improve my draft further.

Looking forward to your prompt response. Thanks in advance! Aartisingh85 (talk) 09:27, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Aartisingh85: welcome to the Teahouse. It looks like that was not only your first-ever draft but your first-ever edit to Wikipedia; it is always better for a new editor to start by editing and improving existing articles, for instance by checking references or adding new information based on reliable sources.

Concerning the draft you created, it is about a person but does not show how the person is notable according to Wikipedia's definition of notability. It has no reliable sources. There are three references to press releases (and two of them are the same press release, so it's actually just two sources). Press releases do not show notability, and should be avoided as far as possible since they are usually meant to advertise or promote a topic. The fourth reference is to Goodreads, a crowdsourced website which is also not a reliable source. Finally, the tone of the draft is promotional. It is not always easy to write in a neutral style, but it is crucial to do so on Wikipedia. That is one of the reasons why it is better to start by making small-scale edits to existing articles. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 10:00, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bonadea: Thanks for your prompt response, well I have got your point here about the tone of the draft, I gone through it again, and find that it's getting promotional, and I will definitely try to get this fix by changing the tone of the draft to neutral. Also, please let me know what kind of notability would be exactly required here, I mean in terms of news or something, as you have mentioned that press releases are not countable, then what kind of source exactly needed? Since, I have found these sources so far which I thought must be reliable, but as you suggested now, I'll try to come up with the right citations then. Please suggest Aartisingh85 (talk) 15:49, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

editing of wikipedia pages

editing

I have tried to edit the page on alpha-synuclein (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha-synuclein) but it does not seem possible to add or move references. Some references are in the wrong place or not present, such as the paper where the protein from human brain was first named (Jakes et al. FEBS Letter 1994), where its genes SNCA was first named (Spillantini et al. Genomics 1995) and the papers where for the first time alpha-synuclein was described in Lewy bodies (Spillantini et al. Nature 1997) and in the filaments that form them in Parkinson's disease and Dementia with Lewy bodies (Spillantini et al. PNAS 1998) and in the cytoplasmic inclusions of multiple system atrophy (Spillantini et al. Neurosci Lett 1998). The paper describing how the existence of a subgroup of dopaminergic neurones in the substantia nigra depend on alpha-synuclein presence (Gracia-Reitbock et al. Exp Neurol. 2013) and that in a transgenic mouse and human brain aggregation of alpha-synuclein at the synapse leads to SNARE protein redistribution (Garcia-Reitbock et al. Brain 2010) are not cited among other references. I would like to edit the alpha-synuclein page to acknowledge this work with the references. 11mgs (talk) 09:53, 1 April 2021 (UTC) 11mgs (talk) 09:53, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse 11mgs. Looking at your edit history, you may have a conflict of interest regarding some of these additions but other than that I'm not sure why you have had any problems since I was able to go into the Source Editor for Alpha-synuclein as usual. I suggest you make very specific edit requests on the Talk page of the article using the template {{edit request}} if you do indeed have a conflict of interest and work with others who will pick up your suggestions. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:04, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 11mgs. If you are the subject of the biographical article you have been editing, you do have a COI in editing that. But so long as you don't seek to highly promote your own works—essentially abide by the guidance at WP:SELFCITE—you are exactly the type of person we need to help with article on topics like Alpha-synuclein, a subject matter expert, and have no disabling COI in doing so, as reflected in guideline section I linked. This seems especially true as to nuances in articles on complex science topics, where the details, what to focus on, knowing where the sources are, etc., are something often far more difficult to get "right" for non-experts, than it is for general topics. Though it's difficult to tell from your question what exact problem you had with accessing and editing the references in the protein article, I think you might be facing a common misunderstanding about where the references are located and how they propagate, which misunderstanding we have a canned template to explain. For that reason, immediately below, after the end of this post, I am going to insert that template ({{Edit refs}}), with its explanation, and hope it addresses the issue. If it does not, can you please explain the problem you had with a bit more specificity? By the way, editing here has a bit of a learning curve. I would suggest starting out with taking a careful tour through the Wikipedia:Tutorial to get some sea legs. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:18, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When you are reading an article and see a references section near the bottom populated by a series of numbered citations, you might think that if you edit the page, you will see those citations typed in that section and be able to edit them. However, usually what you will see is markup similar to this:

==References== {{reflist}} or <references />

In that case, the text of citations is actually in the body of the article, directly next to the statements or paragraphs the citations support, using <ref>...</ref> tags, which display when you are reading an article as footnotes (e.g.^[1]^[2]). The template code shown above in the references section collates and displays all of the citations within the article in a numbered list in which the numbers correspond to the footnote numbers in the text. By clicking on the ^{^} symbol next to a citation display, you can easily find exactly where in the body of the article the citation text appears in order to edit it. For more detail, please see Help:Referencing for beginners, Help:Introduction to referencing, and Wikipedia:Citing sources.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:18, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Fuhghettaboutit, I was trying to add a reference at the end of this sentence: "It was later determined that NACP was the human homologue of Torpedo synuclein. Therefore, NACP is now referred to as human alpha-synuclein." ref: Jakes R., Spillantini M.G., Goedert M.: Identification of two distinct synucleins from human brain. FEBS Letters 345, 27-32, 1994. PMID: 8194594.

and to add after ref 73 two other references showing for the first time alpha-synuclein in filaments in PD, DLB and MSA (Spillantini M.G., Crowther R.A., Jakes R., Hasegawa M., Goedert M.: α-Synuclein in filamentous inclusions of Lewy bodies from Parkinson’s disease and dementia with Lewy bodies. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 95, 6469-6473, 1998. PMID:9600990); Spillantini M.G., Crowther R.A., Jakes R., Cairns N.J., Lantos P.L., Goedert M.: Filamentousα-synuclein inclusions link multiple system atrophy with Parkinson’s disease and dementia with Lewy bodies. Neuroscience Letters 251, 205-208, 1998. PMID:9726379.

I did not know it was a COI to add something openly available in the literature if one looks for it... However, all this is too complicated, thanks for letting me know, if somebody else knowing the history one day wants, can change it...

FYI

– Merging with above. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 13:28, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1-I have edited the Wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Grazia_Spillantini updating it, but several of the changes I made have remained in red writing not black, how can I make the writing black? 11mgs (talk) 09:54, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@11mgs: Hello, and Welcome to the Teahouse. Its because you have surrounded them with souble sqare brackets ([[Example]]), which tells the software to behind Wikipedia to make that text an internal link. Internal links on Wikipedia are red if the target page doesn't exist. YOu can turn them black by removing the double square brackets around them. Victor Schmidt (talk) 10:51, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Victor for the suggestion, I have done it and now the writing is black. However how can I make everything blue like the writing already there, and also how I can add a title after FRS and FMedSci, I would like to add UOSI but does not show up. 11mgs (talk) 11:32, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comment in the Section above. If you are Maria Grazia Spillantini (as is fairly clear from your edit history) you should not make any more additions directly to the article but only via edit requests on its Talk Page. To answer your latest question, links will be blue if the article or reference text from a URL exists, as with "Maria Grazia Spillantini" here in my second sentence, while Maria Grazia now is red since that name is not used for any article. You can't make "everything blue" as we don't use coloured text except to indicate links (or lack of links). Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:12, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Michael, I was trying to move a reference to the correct place but yes, I guess I have a COI just that the work is not properly cited or better history seems missed by who wrote the page. I do not know who edited it or who can include also our papers 2.99.170.88 (talk) 12:15, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As with any Wikipedia page, the "View History" tab shows each edit made to a page, 11mgs. The recent editors are the ones likely to have the page (and associated Talk Page) on their watchlist and hence are the ones who would notice your edit request. Or you could use the "alert" mechanism to politely ask them to take a look at your request, in the same way as I've mentioned you here. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:38, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Move over redir (I think?)

A new article on a band has been created at The 400 unit. I wanted to move it to the correct capitalisation at The 400 Unit, but there exists a redir from that name to the article on the front man Jason Isbell, and the redir page has a fair bit of history. Any advice? Thanks, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:11, 1 April 2021 (UTC) DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:11, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging the new article's creator @TheMoodyTracey: for possible comments. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:18, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aydin Onac Wikepedia entry

Courtesy link: Aydin Önaç

Hi I recently made some edits to the above Wikepedia entry. Apologies if I did something wrong, but you have removed ALL the edits I made. Perhaps you could explain exactly which edit caused the problem? many thanks David David J Churchill (talk) 13:12, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@David J Churchill: Welcome to the Teahouse. It appears that the slew of edits you made to the page seem to promote Önaç, and removed content that talked about him as a controversial figure and referenced. Wikipedia doesn't approve of puffery and requires reliable sources for content. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 13:27, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for the feedback. A 'slew' of edits and 'puffery' seem rather harsh and subjective terms. However, I shall try to stick to factual, objective details in future entries. David — Preceding unsigned comment added by David J Churchill (talk • contribs) 13:56, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever reverted David J Churchill's edits is describing Aydin Önaç as "disgraced" in Wikipedia's voice in the first sentence. This is a glaring violation of our policy on Biographies of living people which I have removed and which should not be restored. I am personally unfamiliar with the issues, but to my mind, the article focuses too much on alleged controversies rather than neutrally describing this man's whole life and career in context. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:25, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Link to pdf problem

I am trying to correct a pdf link on my own Wiki page. It previously linked to two articles my wife and I wrote about Truman Capote and his story Hand-carved Coffins. But somehow this link was changed to an article which had nothing to do with mine. I am trying to replace this incorrect link with the correct one which is this: url=http://www.reprints.longform.org/hoax-truman-capote-secret. But after inserting the link and saving it, I still can't click through the link to the article. Can someone advise me what I am doing wrong please? If you look at the site, the link I am trying to edit is the second one under the heading Published Articles - HOAX: the secrets that Truman Capote took the grave. Many thanks, Peter Gillman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Gillman Petercg (talk) 13:53, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Petercg: Welcome to the Teahouse! That link doesn't work for me when I paste it in my browser, so please check the link.

More concerning, however, is that you are editing your own autobiography, adding awards and other information without independent reliable sources. Please read WP:AUTO, and please declare your conflict of interest by adding {{UserboxCOI|Petercg}}. In the future, please do not edit the article about you. Instead, you may post suggestions at Talk:Peter Gillman with the {{request edit}} template, and another editor will help you. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 14:38, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question regarding Jessica Guo

Hi there, I'm asking here as I can't find within the many admin pages what the best next step is here (I don't want to revert things myself). On Jessica Guo, information has been added by a user with a history of changes that have been reverted (both on this article and on Jean-Paul Banos). Currently, it claims "police have discovered her secretly training at fencing club, against provincial restrictions" which is unsourced and also troublesome, as this is the biography of a young person. What would be the best next step for this claim to be undone (keeping in mind Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring)? Simeon (talk) 13:57, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Simeon: I agree about the BLP violation. It's good practice to initiate a discussion on the article's talk page to let them know that they're supposed to discuss with you. If you've tried to discuss but they're refusing to engage, then it's perfectly acceptable to go to WP:AN3. ◢ Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 14:44, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple citations

Hi I'm trying to make multiple citations in a single footnote but the template link doesn't exist https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Multiref

Is it still possible to multiple citations in a single footnote?

Much thanks Palakasan (talk) 14:47, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Palakasan, and welcome to the Teahouse. This can be done in the visual editor or in source editing. For source editing, simply contain everything in ref tags, but don't use any ref tags inside those. For the visual editor, simply go to 'Cite', 'Manual', 'Basic form', and create multiple citations in there. It will all come out as a single footnote. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 15:15, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Palakasan: Here's one way to do it:

<ref>Multiple sources: *{{cite web |url=https://www.google.com |title=Title1 |work=Work1}} *{{cite web |url=https://www.google.com |title=Title2 |work=Work2}} *{{cite web |url=https://www.google.com |title=Title3 |work=Work3}} </ref>

...which will look like this:^[1]

References

^
Multiple sources:
- "Title1". Work1.
- "Title2". Work2.
- "Title3". Work3.

Hope this helps - happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 15:21, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you TheTechnician27(Talk page) and GoingBatty (talk), I was able to do it! Palakasan (talk) 17:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HELP here is an update - after all the work of cleaning up the multiple inline citations it was reverted after a minute. I didn't add any citations that wasn't there 5 edits ago. I may have moved it around. Is there a way my latest edits can be put back and I will just remove the problematic referenced youtube after?

Palakasan (talk) 18:04, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Palakasan: I presume you're referring to your edits to Bong Coo, which you may have already fixed. GoingBatty (talk) 19:52, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GoingBatty: Hi Yes, among the pages I've edited today this is the most troublesome, I was able to fix it but I got another tag after I combined multiple citations in a single footnote; removed inappropriate link; added inline citation to the word accomplished I still got this -Tags: references removed possible unreferenced addition to BLP

I am being flagged for links that I didn't even add but was just fixing :) Thanks

Palakasan (talk) 20:18, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Palakasan: Sorry you're having trouble updating this article. I suggest you post on the article talk page, so other editors interested in this topic can provide the appropriate guidance. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 23:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

what will be the root cause for not labeling inward register in audit

45.116.1.190 (talk) 16:12, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse! This page is for asking questions about Wikipedia. Does your question relate to a Wikipedia article? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 16:15, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

root cause for not labeling inward register in audit 45.116.1.190 (talk) 16:16, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Repeating the exact text you posted before does not provide any clarity. If your question related to a specific Wikipedia article, could you please provide a link to the article? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 16:18, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April 1st Fun

Is there anything fun going on at Wikipedia for April 1st? I know there are some jokes on the front page but I don't know where to find all of the fun April 1st stuff. Tyrone Madera (talk) 16:38, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Tyrone Madera, most of the in-house festivities can be found here - enjoy them while they last :-) Pahunkat (talk) 16:41, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tyrone Madera: Refer to Wikipedia:April Fools/April Fools' Day 2021‎‎, thanks. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 16:41, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aseleste & Pahunkat, thank you both :-) Tyrone Madera (talk) 16:56, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And as always, remember April 1st still has some rules. Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

template for Bible verse

I have been using [[s:Bible (King James)/Psalms#Psalm 23|Psalms:23]], but I want a template that will actually show the verse under discussion. I have looked everywhere and can't find one that makes the verse readable - is there one? Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:05, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jenhawk777: Would using a {{quote}} template or blockquoting right after the link suit your needs? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:12, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I want a non-King James reference too.

Tenryuu 🐲 And write out the verse myself - or what did you have in mind? Is that allowed?!? I found some templates but they had the term "bull" in them and I don't know what that is - they were about references that use an off wiki site.

Tenryuu 🐲 Could the many brilliant techno-geeks we have here invent one? Where can I ask that question?

A template that would automatically display an English translation of a Bible verse raises the issue of which translation? Bible translations into English describes some of the issues, and the most widely read translation, the King James Version uses archaic language and has some inaccuracies. The New Revised Standard Version is widely used by mainstream bible scholars but is not accepted by conservative Christian denominations. Jewish editors would be unhappy with either. How would these issues be resolved? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think Bible-verses are a little like WP:ENGVAR/WP:CITEVAR, as in up to creator, use what's in the article already, don't change unless there's good reason. Plus, like the other VAR:s, one may encounter editors with strong opinions on what is "right". I tend to use [3] outside Christian stuff, someone recommended it at some point, but since we insert these verses for our readers, in general a more modern translation is reasonable. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:38, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen³²⁸ All the WP Bible templates require the designation of a version but don't specify any particular one. Gråbergs Gråa Sång is correct: choice is left to the editor. Bible verses are included largely for readers who are otherwise unfamiliar with the Bible, so they can see for themselves what is being paraphrased and claimed in the article. It's an exemplar of what is otherwise claimed in a secondary source. "The historian Peter Brown writes that Tertullian argued Paul said thus and so in Romans 12:1 (Bible template of Roman 12:1 placed here) which led to civil unrest." Romans 12:1 needs to show up so people can see what is being discussed. Surely someone knows some way to reference a Bible verse with a template that makes it visible. Do we not have that on WP after all this time? I think those who reference the Koran do. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:42, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jenhawk777, when I search for Bible templates, I find Wikipedia:WikiProject Bible/Templates which have nothing to do with rendering individual Bible verses. Can you please provide wikilinks to the documentation for the Bible and Koran templates that you are discussing? Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:48, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen³²⁸ I am confused. Are you asking me to provide a wikilink to what I don't know how to find and am asking you if you can? I don't have a wikilink. If I did I wouldn't be here. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:50, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's a discussion of how to reference Bible verses here: Wikipedia:Citing sources/Bible but it doesn't do us much good in answering my question. This is very frustrating. I can't believe I'm the only person to ever ask this! Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:00, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jenhawk, can you link to an article that "does" Quran-verses like you want? I don't remember seeing that. If I understand you correctly, you want something like a preview card but for a bit of scripture. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:21, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[citation needed], [who?], and etc.

How can I just edit that minor part without messing up the article? Fari Dark (talk) 18:13, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your question isn't entirely clear; we can give a better answer if you clarify (e.g. what do you mean by "that minor part"?)

The way you edit an instance of ^{[citation needed]} or ^[who?] is to look through the article source for the relevant instance of

{{citation needed|...}}

or

{{cn|...}}

or ~~whatever the template name is for ^[who?]~~

{{who|...}}

then edit text between the brace pairs as appropriate.

To add a ^{[citation needed]} or ^[who?], it's the same process as with any template; put in

{{template name|options}}

(for ^{[citation needed]}, the template name is

cn

or

citation needed

~~I don't know what it is~~ for ^[who?] it is

who

). Xnft (talk) 19:08, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fari Dark: For a new editor, lets try to make that simple. If there is a citation needed in the text and you believe you can provide a valid ref, click on edit for the section that has the cn, remove the cn, and add the ref(s) there. When properly done, a number will be generated where you added a ref, and the ref itself will be added to the numbered list of references. I turned your mis-formated attempt into a ref, although no idea where it belongs in the text. David notMD (talk) 20:35, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How to add pictures on a person's bibliography

Kairo owethu (talk) 20:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Same question aked by same person below at #How to add pictures on a person's bibliography_2. Please respond there to avoid redundant or fragmentted answers. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:57, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for adding me, what happens from here?

Thanks for welcoming me to the tea room. I have tried to publish my article but it doesn't seem to have gone anywhere, does anyone know how I can track its progress? SomeGuyFromEngland (talk) 20:53, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SomeGuyFromEngland, and welcome to the Teahouse. I have added a header to your sandbox User:SomeGuyFromEngland/sandbox which allows you to submit it for review. I can see you have put a lot of work into it; but it needs further work on the references: see CITE. The problem is that your references are bare URLs, and point to a aggregation site. Your first citation is not actually to some family history site, but to a particular page in (presumably) a real, published book, that I guess is called "Our Own Sevier ... (etc)". What the citation should tell the reader is the title, publisher, date, author, (and ideally ISBN if there is one) of this book, and the page number cited. A link such as you have provided is a useful convenience, but it is not an essential part of the citation. Part of the reason for giving a full citation is so that the reader (and, more to the point, a reviewer) can quickly judge the likely relevance and reliability of the source: is it published by a reputable publisher? How old is it? Does it appear to be written or published by somebody close to the subject of the article? I believe that a list of a hundred bare-URL references is likely to be much less attractive to a reviewer than 100 well-formatted citations, so as it stands, your draft is likely to stay on the heap for longer before somebody can face picking it up to review. Also, Wikipedia has a very strong preference for secondary sources: I suspect that quite a few of your sources are primary sources: these are permitted, but can be used only in limited ways. --ColinFine (talk) (another guy from England) 21:23, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

OP has been indefinitely blocked per WP:NOTHERE; so, nothing further needed here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:00, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HOW DO I NOMINATE A PAGE FOR DELETION FOR APRIL FOOLS DAY FrontRoadGirls (talk) 21:18, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You don't and trying to do so is probably going to seen as disruptive by some Wikipedia administrators which may lead to a warning, but could also possibly lead to a block. Finally, please try to avoid typing in all capital letters since doing so is often interpreted as "shouting" at someone. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:42, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FOOLS allows it with some restrictions. RudolfRed (talk) 21:54, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Editing

Thank you David notMD. Think I asked a wrong question, I meant, for example: There is some confusion in the literature on whether al-Khwārizmī's full name is ابو عبد الله محمد بن موسى الخوارزمي‎ Abū ʿAbdallāh Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī or ابو جعفر محمد بن موسی الخوارزمی‎ Abū Ja‘far Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī. Ibn Khaldun notes in his encyclopedic work: "The first who wrote upon this branch [algebra] was Abu ‘Abdallah al-Khowarizmi, after whom came Abu Kamil Shoja‘ ibn Aslam." (MacGuckin de Slane)[citation needed]. In the introduction to his critical commentary on Robert of Chester's Latin translation of al-Khwārizmī's Algebra, L.C. Karpinski notes that Abū Ja‘far Muḥammad ibn Mūsā refers to the eldest of the Banū Mūsā brothers. Karpinski notes in his review on (Ruska 1917) that in (Ruska 1918): "Ruska here inadvertently speaks of the author as Abū Ga‘far M. b. M., instead of Abū Abdallah M. b. M." Donald Knuth writes it as Abū ’Abd Allāh Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī and quotes it as meaning "literally, 'Father of Abdullah, Mohammed, son of Moses, native of Khwārizm,'" citing previous work by Heinz Zemanek. [3] And I want to change where its between Bold text with this: Ibn Khaldun notes in his Prolegomena: "The first to write on this discipline [algebra] was Abu 'Abdallah al-Khuwarizmi. After him, there was Abu Kamil Shuja' b. Aslam. People followed in his steps."<refIbn Khaldūn, The Muqaddimah : An introduction to history, Translated from the Arabic by Franz Rosenthal, New York: Princeton (1958), Chapter VI:19</ref> But I can't insert it where it should be and it show my edit at the end. Fari Dark (talk) 21:27, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing discussion on your Talk page. David notMD (talk) 21:55, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Dr. David notMD, under Notes, 1. Where its stated: Ibn Khaldun notes in his encyclopedic work: "The first who wrote upon this branch [algebra] was Abu ‘Abdallah al-Khowarizmi, after whom came Abu Kamil Shoja‘ ibn Aslam." (MacGuckin de Slane)[citation needed]; I meant to remove that sentence and replace it with mine. Fari Dark (talk) 23:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fari Dark, David notMD has written that the discussion continues on your talk page. -- Hoary (talk) 23:12, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. David notMD, Thank you for your guidance and support, it is where it should be now. Fari Dark (talk) 12:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CREATING A PAGE

HOW DO I CREATE A WIKIPEDIA PAGE? Yodeddy (talk) 21:38, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Yodeddy! Article creation requires being autoconfirmed. If I were you, I would stick to editing articles for now, as it is hard to stick to Wikipedia's hundreds of guidelines, especially if you don't know many of them. Sungodtemple a tcg fan!!1 !11 !! (talk) 21:59, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As explained in Help:Your first article, and of course with CapsLock turned off. -- Hoary (talk) 22:01, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yodeddy. First of all, please don't type in all capital letters when you post because it's often taken as a sign of anger or shouting. Next, Wikipedia has lots of types of pages; so, it's not clear what you mean by Wikipedia page. If you mean you want to create a Wikipedia:Article about someone or something, then please take a look at Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not before trying to do so. On the other hand, if you mean you want to create a Wikipedia:User page, then please take a look at Wikipedia:User pages#What may I have in my user pages? before trying to do so. If you still have questions after reading any of those pages, feel free to come back to the Teahouse and ask them. You don't need to start a new discussion if you do have more questions, just add them to the bottom of this discussion thread. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:21, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How to add a picture on an existing bibliography

Kairo owethu (talk) 21:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

you just asked this. please be patient. RudolfRed (talk) 21:53, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If the picture isn't yet at Wikipedia Commons, then see Help:Introduction to images with Wiki Markup/1, and the pages that follow. If it is already there, then jump ahead to Help:Introduction to images with Wiki Markup/3. -- Hoary (talk) 22:06, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To complement what Hoary says, Kairo owethu: if the picture is already in Wikimedia Commons, then it is straightforward. If it isn't, then it needs to be uploaded. If it is a picture you took yourself, you can probably do that; if it is not, then it is likely that it cannot be used in Wikipedia. See the links Hoary provided for the details. --ColinFine (talk) 22:15, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hi Kairo owethu. It's hard to give you a very specific answer without knowing more details, but you can find out some more information in Wikipedia:Image use policy and Wikipedia:Copyrights#Images. Basically what you need to do depends on whether the image you want to add has already been uploaded to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons. If it has, then how it can be used depends upon the type of copyright license it has. So, if you want to use an image of this type, it will be easier for a Teahouse host to help you if you can provide the file name of the image and the name of the Wikipedia page you want to add it to. If, however, the image you want to use doesn't exist (i.e. hasn't yet been uploaded to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons), then things are more complicated and whether it can be uploaded depends upon its copyright status. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kairo owethu: Pedantic comment - I think you mean biography. A bibliography on Wikipedia would more commonly be called "references", which don't include images. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:45, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Timtempleton, possibly more pedantic metacomment: Not necessarily; see for example Category:Bibliographies of people. -- Hoary (talk) 23:15, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hoary: You can teach an old dog new tricks. That's a very specific ask then! TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:18, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April Fool nonsense

It is time we ended this nonsense. It was all very well when wikipedia started, but now wikipedia is serious. No other encyclopedia runs close to the influence wikipedia has. Also, the April Fool Day fun is restricted to a very few countries and many users of wikipedia will have no idea what it is about. --Bduke (talk) 01:11, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you may wish to suggest this somewhere more appropriate; at a first guess, Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous). -- Hoary (talk) 01:52, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have done so. Thanks. --Bduke (talk) 02:03, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is this Federal name change enough to change the page name with a redirect from the old/ derogatory geographic name?

What is the effect on Wikipedia when the U. S. Board on Geographic Names changes a derogatory or racist geographic place name? Please, see the “Squaw Tits” talk page. [4] Thanks --Ooligan (talk) 03:45, 2 April 2021 (UTC) Ooligan (talk) 03:45, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The new name is “Isanaklesh Peaks.” --Ooligan (talk) 04:18, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You might look at Wikipedia:Requested moves#CM. -- Hoary (talk) 04:48, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright on images?

I'm working on an article on an extinct roller Ueekenkcoracias, and again, I'm not sure if I can add images or not from www.nlm.nih.gov. If it helps, I'm not in the USA. Thanks in advance! Borophagus talk 08:15, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From here? Either way, it's a question that's better asked here at Commons (frequented by more people who are familiar with copyright issues). -- Hoary (talk) 08:28, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll definitely ask there. Thanks!Borophagus talk 08:32, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Borophagus. Where you are doesn't really matter in most cases. Anyway, if you scroll down to the very bottom of the website, you'll see a link titled Copyright where you find information on the content hosted on that website. You also find some general information in WP:PD#US government works. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:29, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'll read up a little (and ask on Commons as well!). Thanks!Borophagus talk 08:32, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adding wikiproject tags to Afc submission

User:TheSokks/Sandbox 3 Hello, I tried moving my sandbox User:TheSokks/Sandbox 3 to Draft:Uzor Arukwe but the draft already exists so I decided to submit the sandbox for Afc review but noted that I could not add wikiproject tags as is. Kindly help. The Sokks💕 ^_(talk) 08:22, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to replace the draft you've already made with the sandbox, just copy and paste the HTML code of the sandbox to the draft page and publish your changes. That should do the trick. Borophagus talk 08:28, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was not made by me. Thats why I dont want to replace it. The Sokks💕 ^_(talk) 08:35, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. I hadn't realized that. Not sure what to do then, unfortunately. Sorry!Borophagus talk 08:37, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Borophagus: in response to 08:28, if anything, he needs to copy the Wiki code (Which is not HTML). Trying to copy the HTML source code over almost never works. For example, the link to my userpage uses this HTML code: <a href="/wiki/User:Victor_Schmidt" title="User:Victor Schmidt">Victor Schmidt</a>. Trying to copy that into an edit window will not work. Victor Schmidt (talk) 08:44, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I meant the wikicode smh

Well, thanks for correcting me! Borophagus talk 08:46, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, TheSokks, and welcome to the Teahouse. It's not obvious what to do in this sort of situation. But my suggestion would be to drop a note to Godstime Elijah (normally on their user talk page, but I've pinged them here, so they will probably join this discussion), suggesting you work together. Since your draft is much better developed, my suggestion would be that they put {{db-author}} on their draft, requesting deletion (other editors have edits that page, but not made substantial contributions); but you can't do that. --ColinFine (talk) 11:23, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this brilliant suggestion! I guess I'll await Godstime Elijah's response since he's been pinged here. Also just saw that the draft is eligible for deletion by G13 in about 10 days. I can wait till then if there's no response. Thank you once again. The Sokks💕 ^_(talk) 11:57, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Found a controversial sentence that has no working source

Hi

Im new and recently started to attempt to make contributions and edits.

I visited the page for One Flew Over The Cukoos Nest (novel)

The page contains what I felt was a controversial sentence: "It was Kesey's experience with LSD and other psychedelics that made him sympathetic toward the patients."

When i clicked on the source link for this sentence I found the link didnt work: https://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,829087,00.html

So I then attempted to find the article at time.com using a search engine instead. I found a review of the novel, however it did not contain any sentiment or statement that validated the controversial sentence in the wikipedia entry: http://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,829087,00.html

I would therefore like to suggest this sentence be deleted from the entry.

Since I am still new and learning the correct procedure, it would be good to know if I would be justified making such an edit and if so how to go about doing so in a manner that ensures the reasons for doing so are clear and fair.

Many thanks VeMangoTree (talk) 08:50, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

VeMangoTree Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I don't know enough about the subject matter to tell you if such an edit would be valid, but if you feel it would be, you may make the edit and give your reason in either(or both) the edit summary and the article talk page. You may discuss it on the article talk page first if you would like other opinions on the matter first. 331dot (talk) 09:00, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, VeMangoTree. I looked up the original URL in the Internet Archive and found it here. It appears to be the same article that you found by searching the Time website. I haven't read the article, but if it doesn't support that sentence, then you would be justified in removing it per WP:VERIFY. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:01, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@VeMangoTree: Good catch! It looks like the reference was used appropriately for the two other points where it appears, so I would perhaps replace the cite for the bad sentence with {{citation needed}} (unless you think it's totally out of order, then just remove it). Note that the citation tag for that sentence is the main one out of the three, and the two others simply reference its name, so you'd have to replace one of the other <ref name="Time review" /> snippets with the full one you removed from the unsupported sentence. Also, normally I'd say look through the edit history to find who added it and ask, but it's been there for over 10 years, so chances are slim :-( EditorInTheRye (talk) 09:06, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

hello

183.82.103.70 (talk) 10:29, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Do you have a question? Kleinpecan (talk) 10:37, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Plaques

Courtesy link: List of blue plaques

Hi, I'm inexperienced at editing and don't want to make anything worse.

On the UK Blue plaques page there's a table. In the table is an entry for Florence Nightingale but the link to the reference 63 is broken and the photo is of a different blue plaque holder, George Herbert Lawrence who is not listed in the table but should be. Florence's plaque has a photo on Derbyshire County Council's Blue plaques page.

If it's not too much trouble, could someone please fix this? I try to edit articles where I see obvious typos or errors, but I struggle to add references (gone horribly wrong twice, sigh) and I am still gathering data for my first article, so this is beyond me at the moment, but would probably take minutes if you were experienced.

TIA, SW Sistahwendle (talk) 11:36, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attack!

Hi, could someone provide me with some instructions on how to bring to the attention of the administrators the issue of personal attack by other users on Wikipedia? Specifically, the user Super Dromaeosaurus is accusing me of having issues with Romania. Regards, Legione-Romana (talk) 12:56, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]. Hm... Super Ψ Dro 13:20, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As a third perspective, I will point out that any one of these edits by itself is vandalism, and the vandalism is all against Romania and Romanians in these diffs. bop34 • talk • contribs 13:40, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

does each award require reference

issue is on G._V._Prakash_Kumar page. does we need reference for each award (nomination or won)? Gi vi an (talk) 13:23, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Multiple sources:
"Title1". Work1.

"Title2". Work2.

"Title3". Work3.

[2] "Title1". Work1.

[3] "Title2". Work2.

[4] "Title3". Work3.

[1]

@@ Line 88: / Line 88: @@
 If I have a similar question, is it good to pile in here, or should I create my own question with a new number?  I currently have about seven help articles open, but am still struggling to understand the rules around selecting an image for the article I'm drafting.  The image will be of the front cover of a first edition of a book (published 1987), for the infobox of the article.  There are not very many examples online, just images on Amazon advertising the book for sale, but I could photograph the copy I have at home if they are not suitable.  I am not sure a) if I'm allowed to lift one of the online images or create my own photograph and b) if so, what information I have to include when uploading the image.  For example, who has the copyright to the image?  Is it the publisher, the person who did the design, the author, the person who took the photo?  Is it fair to use the image in this context under the 'fair use' policy?  There are many more images of the cover a recent new edition of the book, on the publisher's website, for example.  It might be possible to ask for permission to use these, from the person actually holding the copyright.  But I feel that the original cover will be closer to the intention of the article, as the impact when the book first came out seems most relevant.  Would be grateful for any help anyone can offer, thanks.  [[User:Crinoline|Crinoline]] ([[User talk:Crinoline|talk]]) 22:15, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 : Hi {{u|Crinoline}}. [[:WP:NFC|Non-free content]] can only be used in articles per [[:WP:NFCC#9|non-free content use criterion #9]]; so, please don't upload any such files until the draft you're working on has been approved or otherwise added to the [[:WP:MAINSPACE]] as explained at [[:WP:DRAFTS#Preparing drafts]]. If you try to add an non-free file to a draft, it will eventually end up being removed and perhaps even deleted per [[:WP:F5]] if it's not being used in any other article. So, it's best to wait.{{pb}}The copyright of a book cover is most likely going to be held by the company that publishes the book. There may be some cases where the cover's designer (if independent of the publisher) or the book's author might share in the copyright, or cases where the book's cover incorporates other copyrighted works; however, in general, I believe it's the book's publisher. So, if you see the cover art being used anywhere online that is not an official website of the publisher, author, or designer of the cover, then that website probably doesn't own the copyright on the cover art (even if they claim they do). If you take a photo of a book cover, then you might be creating a [[:WP:Derivative work]] depending upon the nature (i.e. degree of creativity involved in taking the photo) of the photo, but most likely it would be a "slavish reproduction" with no new creativity added and thus not eligible for its own separate copyright protection per [[:c:Commons:2D copying]]. Think of it like this: you go to the library, take a book of the shelf and then [[:wikt:Xerox#Verb|xerox]] it (i.e. make a photo copy of the cover). All you've basically done is reproduce the cover in a different medium without adding any creativity that would create a new copyright for the xerox of the book.{{pb}}You should if possible try to use the cover art from the first edition of the book as explained at the "Images" section of [[:Wikipedia:WikiProject Books]] for contextual purposes. For copyright purposes, the book cover would almost certainly need to be treated as [[:WP:NFC|non-free content]] (see item one of [[:WP:NFCI]] and [[:WP:NFC#cite_note-3]] for more details) unless you can demonstrate it's been freely released per [[:WP:COPY#IMAGES]] or otherwise in the [[:WP:PD|public domain]] for some reason. If possible, you should try to find an official website where the cover can be seen and download the image from there. It should be OK to download a file from Amazon as long as the book is being sold by the publisher via Amazon and not being sold second-hand by some other third-party because that might involve another copyright holder if it's a photo taken by someone else. If you photograph the cover yourself, you should try to frame things so that only the cover is shown and there are no other possibly copyright protected elements visible. When you upload the file, you should try to include as much info about the book and its cover as possible, but at least include the publisher, the author, the link where the image came from, and the isbn number. If you know any more like who designed the cover, then please add that too.{{pb}} Finally as for {{tq|If I have a similar question, is it good to pile in here, or should I create my own question with a new number?}}, well that's a moot point now, but for future reference I think it's better to start a new discussion thread unless it's a response to the original question that was asked. -- [[User:Marchjuly|Marchjuly]] ([[User talk:Marchjuly|talk]]) 22:59, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
+::Thanks {{u|Marchjuly}}, that information is all very helpful, and has completely clarified what I need to do: i.e. wait till the article is published to add the image; then photograph the book cover (as the original publisher doesn't seem to have a website) and crop with no background; then add to the infobox, which contains the advised additional information.  Noted that next time I should create a new thread for a new question!  Thanks again.  [[User:Crinoline|Crinoline]] ([[User talk:Crinoline|talk]]) 13:45, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 == Incorrect Merge ==