Wikipedia:Teahouse

Stormy clouds, a Teahouse host

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

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

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

Help Wikipedia

Didwho Welleh Twe

Next discussion : #Didwho Welleh Twe (2)

I have an image for my draft article. Where and how can I insert the image. Thanks

Dagbayonoh (talk) 23:16, 9 January 2022 (UTC) Dagbayonoh (talk) 23:16, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

@Dagbayonoh If you have the copyright for the image, you can go here to upload it, and then type [[File:filename]] to insert it. I.hate.spam.mail.here (This is YOUR page) (talk) 23:22, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Here are more options of inserting it:

• Thumb: [[File:500 x 500 SMPTE Color Bars.png|thumb|right]] makes the first image at right.

  

  . right can be substituted for left, right, or center.
• You can also use a caption: [[File:500 x 500 SMPTE Color Bars.png|thumb|right|caption]] makes

  

  Caption

  . I.hate.spam.mail.here (This is YOUR page) (talk) 23:27, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

One more thing to add: Make sure content you upload is free (as in free speech, not free beer.) You can read the definition of "free" here. -- I.hate.spam.mail.here (This is YOUR page) (talk) 23:34, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I hate spam mail, I followed your suggestions and was able to upload the image, but it would not insert into the article. The image is a photo of Didwho Welleh Twe, the subject of the article. It is a public domain Image, and I put the public domain mark 1.0. and the deceased person on the description but they would not help. Can you and any other person help insert the photo? Thanks again. Dagbayonoh (talk) 00:05, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Courtesy link to article: Didwho Welleh Twe.

@Dagbayonoh: what name did you give the picture when you uploaded it? We can't insert it without that... --Gronk Oz (talk) 01:44, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Gronk,thanks for replying. I uploaded the picture under File:Twe-e4853.jpg. The picture is of the subject of the article. I got the picture on the internet on articles on the subject. I think it is public domain because it was taken or photographed in Liberia and is used publically during and after the lifetime of the subject. I would appreciate your help. Dagbayonoh (talk) 23:40, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

From global contribs, it appears to be File:Twe-e4853.jpg. The PD-mark doesn't seem to have worked, and a bot has tagged it as missing license. @Dagbayonoh can you tell us where you obtained the photo and why you believe it's out of copyright? (Copyright in photographs is tricky; it can depend on when the photographer died, what country it was taken in, when it was first published, etc. It might otherwise qualify under our Wikipedia:Non-free content rules, but note that they are quite strict.) ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 13:17, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Oops, I missed that there is a second section about this, further down. ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 15:06, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Pelagic for replying. As I stated before, I got the picture on the internet on articles on the subject. I think it is public domain because it was taken or photographed in Liberia maybe in the 1920s and is used publically during and after the lifetime of the subject. I would like it if you can insert it in the article or show me how to if possible. Dagbayonoh (talk) 23:40, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOTWALLOFSHAME

(edit conflict) Hello, Teahouse hosts…

Yet another problem from an editor that looks experienced…

So, I’ve run into a bit of confusion with WP:NOTWALLOFSHAME. Per WP:KEEPDECLINEDUNBLOCK, it looks like people should not remove declined unblock requests while they are blocked. However, I’ve run across a case when you should not remove block notices while you are blocked. ({{uw-block}}, for example) So, does WP:KEEPDECLINEDUNBLOCK apply to just declined unblocks, or block notices themselves as well? Thanks. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 17:03, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

• I am quite sure that your understanding is correct (i.e. block notices should not be removed while the block is active), but I can find no firm footing in policy to assert that. The best I can have is Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Other_important_information which tells blocking admins to put relevant information in the block notice for other admins - from which one might make a weak inference that removing such notices goes against policy of using them to communicate information across admins. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 17:34, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

  @Tigraan — Excuse the late reply, but thank you. I’ll bear this in mind when considering WP:NOTWALLOFSHAME. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 13:57, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

  @3PPYB6 and Tigraan: Nope, per the current text, it's just declined unblock notices. I don't see the purpose in keeping the block notice around if the user doesn't want it there. There's a big pink box at the top of the user's contributions saying This IP address is currently blocked. along with the name of the admin and the time of the block. From there, it's easy to find the notice in the history. If an admin wants to communicate something to other users on the same IP, they should put that in the block reason instead. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:46, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

  @Suffusion of Yellow — In that case, I’ll consider that instead. The reason why I asked this was because I was unsure about the correlation between WP:NOTWALLOFSHAME and edit warring. Thank you. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 12:55, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Idea

Is there a way to submit an idea somewhere? ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 18:15, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

@Kaleeb18: Yes, and the right place to do so depends upon the idea. GoingBatty (talk) 18:21, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

@Kaleeb18 What is your idea, then? Nick Moyes (talk) 18:55, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, @GoingBatty: and @Nick Moyes: my idea is this “is there a way we could make a template that could ping all members of a WikiProject?” something along the lines of that. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 19:10, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

@Kaleeb18: I doubt it, but you could try WP:VPT. GoingBatty (talk) 19:19, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

@Kaleeb18: An edit can only ping up to 50 users per Help:Notifications#Mentions. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:48, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Gotcha. Thanks! ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 22:05, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

@Kaleeb18: Wikidata has d:Template:Ping project. It relies on naming conventions for the participant lists (complicated because WD is multi-lingual), and makes a check to exclude lists exceeding 50 user-links. ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 13:45, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@Pelagic: I think that is what I’m looking for but I’m kinda confused on how to use it. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 13:49, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi, @Kaleeb18, it's not just a question of "how?", but also "should?". You might find here on English Wikipedia, a proportion of people would be unhappy about being mass-pinged without prior consent. (In contrast, if I joined a Wikiproject on 'Data, I know that ping-project is already an accepted practice and that I'd be signing up for that.)

The way it works is to transclude a list of users and hide the text with "display: none". To use here on w:en, we'd need someone who is good with templates to make a local copy. If I was doing it, I might generalise the usage from {{Ping project|Some-project-name}} to {{Ping all|Any-page}}.

... Ohh, self-trout! From d:Template:Ping project, I tapped "Wikidata item" in the sidebar, which took me to Template:Mass notification (Q19546454), where it shows me that we already have {{Mass notification}} (and equivalents in some other languages, like w:fr:Modèle:Notif projet). I could also have just tapped English in the language links. The template here might work differently under the hood; I haven't looked at the source. Your idea is a good one, and it turns out it's already been implemented (though not widely used).

I love it when I learn something new in the process of answering a query! Hope that helps you too. ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 23:44, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@Pelagic: So all I would have to do is {{Ping project|Some-project-name}} to ping members to discuss something? ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 01:25, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Table of contents

Hi. I've just added a hall of fame awards list to Rondo Hatton Classic Horror Awards. Through 2003-2010 to start. All the years show up in the table of contents which makes the table of contents very long. Is there any way for the years not to show up in the table of contents? Thank you. The Horror, The Horror (talk) 22:53, 10 January 2022 (UTC) The Horror, The Horror (talk) 22:53, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Are you OK with what I did? David notMD (talk) 23:00, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I have added {{TOC limit|2}} instead of removing the section headings. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:10, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Better than what I did. David notMD (talk) 10:08, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you David notMD and PrimeHunter. I will remember that TOC code. People at the Teahouse have been wonderfully helpful! The Horror, The Horror (talk) 21:00, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Someone removed a citation

At Sinead Matthews, I gave a citation for a birth year. Another editor changed it to a date without a citation. Doesn't that violate Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons? I'm afraid to get into a fight with another editor, because everyone has been really nice to me so far but I've read about people fighting on Wikipedia. I don't have much time and I don't want to waste it fighting but I just feel that if something is wrong i should say something. Does anyone have any advice? The Horror, The Horror (talk) 23:04, 10 January 2022 (UTC) The Horror, The Horror (talk) 23:04, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

@The Horror, The Horror Assuming you used a Reliable Source for the citation, stick to your guns and reinstate the cited date with an edit summary inviting anyone wanting to revert you to first seek consensus at the article talk page. Then, nip over there and leave a post to explain your actions and invite discussion. You then hold the 'moral high ground' and can revert uncited changes in a BLP, with reference for the need to seek consensus. You coould also leave the other editor a formal warning notice for adding uncited content, escalating it each time if they continue. I've not looked at your edits, but I feel your approach is the right one and, as an admin, you'd have my support to revert. Repeated insistence and reinsertion of uncited content would be disruptive. But please try to avoid an WP:EDITWAR. It matters not a jot if relatively uncontentious information remains in an article for a few days until consensus is arrived at. If you want to link to the relevant article, feel free. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:57, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

@The Horror, The Horror I've just checked and see that you appear to have used a citation giving just a year as the person's birthdate, whilst they've inserted a full DD/MM/YYYY without evidence. Maybe try to discuss this on the talk page with them and encourage them to supply a better citation? Bear in mind that you're probably both after the same thing - accuracy. Sadly, I have so little interest in media personalities/film stars/actors/musicians etc that I'm not going to investigate further myself. Hopefully, you're good at using search engines to root out the very best sources yourself. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:20, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@The Horror, The Horror: If she was 24 when the cited article was published on 2005-01-19, then she would have been born between late Jan 1980 and early Jan 1981, no? How the other user knows it's specifically 8 Feb is anyone's guess. VIAF, LOC, and DNB give her birth year as 1980, but they don't cite sources for their records (for recent book authors it may be provided by the publishers, but for performers?). Anyway, Talk:Sinead Matthews is the best place to record concerns about accuracy and sourcing. ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 14:36, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you everyone! I will try this. The Horror, The Horror (talk) 20:55, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Wait, what are VIAF, LOC, and DNB? The Horror, The Horror (talk) 20:57, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Whether to include connected wikipedia pages

I'm drafting a wikipedia entry about a Southern Californian non-fiction author. I have found that two of his first cousins have wikipedia entries already, for something unrelated - they were baseball stars. Should I include the family ties, just to establish the connection, and possibly to show the family story of an early Southern Californian resident? Or should I not, because the cousins are not particularly relevant to the author's notable contributions? Prof Mo Lill (talk) 00:39, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@Prof Mo Lill: Welcome to the Teahouse! My vote is to focus on demonstrating how the author meets Wikipedia's notability criteria for authors. If the draft becomes an article, the mention of his cousins can be added (presuming you have a reliable source). Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 02:12, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Prof Mo Lill. It's probably OK to include such content, particularly if there are existing Wikipedia articles about these two cousins and the information can be reliably sourced. Going into too much detail, however, is probably not going to be a good thing, especially if you only do so because you think that the chances of the draft being approved are going to increase because the author has Wikipedia notable relatives. Many INFOBOXes for biography type articles (e.g. Template:Infobox person) have parameters for "relatives" and usually this means Wikipedia notable relatives; so, that can be a way to incorporate such information into an articles. The content of infoboxes, however, is really expected to summarize and reflect corresponding article content and not just really be the only place where something is mentioned; so, a corresponding sentence in the article body would probably be a good idea. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:18, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, Prof Mo Lill. Your question is an interesting one. Most commonly, Wikipedia biographies only mention parents and notable siblings and children. But some articles about royal figures mention many relatives for many generations. Every rule has its exceptions. Maybe this is because the whole concept of royalty is tied up with ancestry and genealogy. So, in your specific case, the question should be whether or not these cousin relationships are commonly discussed by reliable sources that devote significant coverage to this author, or if the connection to the author is rarely mentioned. That sort of analysis should guide your decision about whether or not to include these relationships. Not everything that might be included in a book length independently written biography should be included in an encyclopedia article, which should be a summary of the most relevant information, rather than an exhaustive overview. I hope that this helps. Cullen328 (talk) 02:30, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you all so much. Extremely helpful!

Prof Mo Lill (talk) 23:51, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Content dispute at Carl von Bismarck

Courtesy link: Carl von Bismarck

Editors Equord and C Fred have been constantly edititing a page with a false "source" which is a planked source and the editing is transmitting false information and translation. How to avoid that the page keep being constantly vandalised? Otto-Christian von Bismarck (talk) 05:20, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@Otto-Christian von Bismarck Well, can you tell which page they are editing. The editors that you said, are quite experienced, so it is unlikely that they will make a mistakes. Though sometimes, it can be possible too. So, it would be of great help if could specify the page that they are editing. Thanks.

PS: (Courtesy pinging Equord and C.Fred so that they can address the problem) Itcouldbepossible^Talk 05:41, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@Otto-Christian von Bismarck Well, the problem you are creating is that, you are removing sourced content from this page? But why are you doing so? Removing properly sourced content is not allowed on Wikipedia. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 05:46, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Alerting HaeB to this discussion as they removed the material in the latest edit. HaeB appears to be fluent in German and deems these German-language sources to be unreliable.

As an aside, Otto-Christian von Bismarck is also removing this material from the articles on German (de:Carl-Eduard von Bismarck) and Portuguese (pt:Carl-Eduard von Bismarck) Wikipedias. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 05:51, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, I encountered this article on recent changes patrol, and happened to notice that the two sources cited in support of the contested paragraph were Bunte and a blog post that relied on Bild am Sonntag. Both Bunte and Bild am Sonntag have a less than stellar journalistic reputation, to put it mildly.

That doesn't rule out the possibility that some of this information could be re-added if better sources are found. But the now removed version looked like a serious WP:BLP problem.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 09:42, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@HaeB The first edit he made from an IP, and removed the sourced content. And then he continued removing the content, every time some added them. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 09:54, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, and? (I'm aware of that, see also my own initial revert [1].) Regards, HaeB (talk) 10:05, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Drm310, User:Itcouldbepossiblefor your courtesy to respond and for your help. The page has been vandalised several times with unreliable sources with harmful editing, intentional or due maybe to the lack of the editors being familiar with foreign language "german" and unreliable "german" sources. Thank you HaeB. Editors have replicated the English edition version also on the German and Portuguese pages Otto-Christian von Bismarck — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otto-Christian von Bismarck (talk • contribs) 6:18, 11 January 2022 (edit) (UTC)

I want to question the use of the word “vandalised” which implies bad faith edits. Can you demonstrate that? From my perspective patrolling recent/pending changes, one editor was repeatedly removing cited text and everyone else involved was just asking “why?” and restoring it. Nick Levine (talk) 08:35, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOTVAND may be worth a read. Regards, HaeB (talk) 09:42, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@Nick Levine Yes, I also cannot understand that. He is saying "vandalized the page". But adding cited text back is not vandalism. He wants the content to be removed for some reason. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 09:51, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Just pointing out the obvious here, that User:Otto-Christian von Bismarck has a conflict of interest over Carl von Bismarck. Nick Levine (talk) 07:53, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Nick Levine what makes you make such statement? If my name would ne John Smith you wouldn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otto-Christian von Bismarck (talk • contribs) 08:11, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Well I fell into that one didn’t I. But when a WP:COI notice was put on your talk page you didn’t protest it then, so I assumed you weren’t arguing the facts. Nick Levine (talk) 08:25, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

This is a bit of a mess. To summarise: (1) we have a conflict over a piece of very negative information about Carl von B, which Otto von B wants removed. The information is supported by truly atrocious sources (HaeB's assessment is quite right; Bild is roughly equivalent to Daily Mail). Therefore it would normally be a no-brainer to remove the content. However, (2) the editor who wants it removed shares a very unusual surname with the subject, and has countered a COI claim with a shadow-boxing counter-claim of name-prejudice rather than simply declaring no COI, so we're left with a strong suspicion that the removal is COI editing, which is also normally a no-brainer revert. My "vote" is that the correct thing to do is ignore Otto-von-B's opinion as potentially biased until such times as they state clearly that they are unrelated to the subject, but nevertheless remove the information whose support traces back to Bild, as per HaeB, unless someone can find a better source. Elemimele (talk) 11:43, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@Elemimele: This is a case study in why COI editors should not cry "vandalism" when they remove negative material. The immediate reaction by experienced editors is to view the edit as whitewashing and restore the material. It is certainly easier to do that first and then vet the sources. In a perfect world, Otto-Christian von Bismarck would have requested removal of the offending lines on the talk page on the grounds that they were supported by a blog and a tabloid, sources too weak to support such claims. Thank you to HaeB for digging into the source chain for the material, determining it's weak, and removing it based on policy.

@Otto-Christian von Bismarck: to be clear, we did not remove the material because it's negative; we removed it because the sources are not reliable journalism per Wikipedia's standards. —C.Fred (talk) 12:41, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@Elemimele: Thanks for your summary. Nick Levine (talk) 12:54, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@Otto-Christian von Bismarck: in answer to your question: I suspect you are a family relative because, on your user page, you said so yourself. Nick Levine (talk) 12:58, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

It was me who initially edited the disputed facts. I'm very sorry that the sources I added are not regarded reliable. However, I'm convinced the negative information they contain is largely correct. Furthermore I suspect that User:Otto-Christian von Bismarck is Carl vB himself, as his only topic is Carl and the dispute, as is for User:Friedrichsruh-Aumuhle [2]. Just today his edits under the same name User:Otto-Christian von Bismarck have been reverted in the German WP article de:Carl-Eduard von Bismarck and the reverted version has been saved, with User:Otto-Christian von Bismarck being accused of edit-war [3]. The underlying story, covered by numerous German newspapers (inevitably primarily tabloids and yellow press, but also serious daily press) is going on for many, many years. Just a few examples: Fierce dispute over the inheritance: The Bismarcks are flying tatters (in: Lübecker Nachrichten, a regional daily newspaper, of 9 Dec 2013). Or: Is this the decline of the German nobility? (in: Die Welt, one of the largest and best-known German daily newspapers, of 14 Dec 2013). Both report sharp arguments between Carl and his brother Gregor and their parents. Furthermore the Die Welt article reports the following: "Carl-Eduard von Bismarck, known as Calle, also has problems. But unlike his late brother Gottfried, the 52-year-old decided to take an incomprehensible step in his circles: He spoke about it in public. In an interview with “Bild am Sonntag” he told of alcohol problems, debts and the fact that his third marriage would also be in crisis.". Here it is: [4] It may be a little ironic that the source classified here as dubious (Bild) at the time served as the mouthpiece of the person concerned. The sources revised here essentially addressed three negative facts: marital problems, alcohol problems, and disinheritance. All three facts were made known or confirmed personally by the person concerned in the quoted Bild interview of 2013. Regarding alcoholism: „Unfortunately, alcoholism is a disease that comes and goes. And unfortunately there were relapses through the whole trouble. I tried to get my alcohol problems under control in New York with my father's approval. That worked well too. I made money with my company, I didn't want to be on my family's pocket forever. But then there were always situations like last Christmas...“ Regarding marital problems: The third marriage, which he described as troubled in his 2013 interview, was divorced in 2014. Regarding disinheritance: „My brother had my father dragged to the notary without legal assistance in order to secure the property for himself. My father tried to change these agreements out of a bad conscience and even sued my brother. Without success. The fact is that my brother already owns 51 percent of the forestry, which I have no problem with. From his 50th birthday, next August, Gregor will also have the say in the castle. But only after my father died.“ To quote a somewhat more recent (and undisputedly reputable) source, the local daily Hamburger Abendblatt from July 25, 2019: „In 2014 Ferdinand von Bismarck handed over the administration of the Sachsenwald to his son Gregor. Since then, he has been taking care of the Bismarck family. He is also considered a prudent and resourceful entrepreneur.“ [5] Regarding debts: Focus (German magazine) headlined on December 16, 2013: The luxury life of Carl Eduard − Bismarck heir squandered six million dollars. [6] - So all in all it's a well-known, classic and tragic family dispute. It is not clear why WP should not name these facts. Facts that have preoccupied the German press for years. And the person concerned seems to want to polish up his image not only through interviews, but also through Wikipedia. My revised edit here read like this: Due to his marriage and alcohol problems as well as over-indebtedness, which his father often had to settle, he was disinherited by his father in 2002 and placed on the compulsory portion. After the latter's death in 2019, the family estate, including the manor house at Friedrichsruh and large parts of the Sachsenwald forest, fell to his youngest brother, Count Gregor von Bismarck-Schönhausen (born 1964). One can argue about the exact choice of words, but hardly about the facts. At most, one could create a certain balance here by depicting the motives for disinheritance from Carl's point of view, namely driven by a greedy brother and a vengeful mother, under the manipulation of the father. One could write, for example: He himself accused his brother in interviews... - However, there is no need to speak of other, more temporary facts here in WP, such as the presence of the police at Friedrichsruh Manor, which he himself confirmed in an interview with the Bild newspaper on October 1, 2019, due to violence: [7]. Or the arrest warrant that his ex-wife obtained from the Reinbeck District Court on October 8, 2020, because Carl did not meet his maintenance payments for his children and on subpoenas had not appeared to submit an affidavit about his financial circumstances, as reported in Hamburger Morgenpost of 22 Oct 2020: [8]. All in all, it cannot be seen why at least some basic facts that he himself had made known in interviews (a kind of press war) should not be mentioned here. Equord (talk) 15:21, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello. I'm from pt.wiki, and would like to thank all of you for the analysis and discussion around the content, its sources and the COI. Otto-Christian von Bismarck has been blocked at pt.wiki, initially for 3 days because of edit warring, removal of content and COI; but the block has been extended to 1 week due to the use of a sock puppet to evade the block (Amber22200 was the sock). Otto's edits removing content have been reverted, and the article pt:Carl-Eduard von Bismarck is temporarily protected. I would like to invite the other two editors involved in the situation at pt.wiki, @M.a.salgado11 and 79a:, to read the topic here (and specially Equord's comment above mine) so that the content in dispute can be edited there according to the sources considered more reliable. Thanks. Solon ^26.125 21:36, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@Nick Levine I would like to...Otto-Christian, the grand son of Otto von Bismarck was born 1897 and passed away in 1975. Thank you for your summary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otto-Christian von Bismarck (talk • contribs) 13:46, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

• @Otto-Christian von Bismarck: You should change your username.

Per WP:REALNAME, Do not edit under a name that is likely to imply that you are (or are related to) a specific, identifiable person. Sure, a dead person is not likely to edit Wikipedia, and a couple of editors use usernames that technically impersonate historical characters (I could find Winston Churchill). However, the above discussion shows that some people were confused. I would also note that your note on your userpage seems like an assertion that you are OCvB rather than a general biographical notice. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 16:45, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Equord you've provided good background and a lot of support from far more reliable sources than Bild. I'd say anything that's made it into reputable newspapers, even local ones, is fair to use. I have nothing against including the information, I just think it needs to be supported by something solid. I think you're right that where necessary we can quote what he said himself, in an interview with the tabloid press, but I do think we utterly need to specify "in an interview with Bild, Carl von B said..." because this is a double-unreliable-source: a newspaper that we expect to take a biased position reporting the words of someone who we expect to be biased by their personal involvement; our readers need to be aware, and take it as his words about himself, not necessarily a fact. We should do this when we actually want to present what he's said about it, as a relevant feature of the overall argument, as opposed to presenting the facts. For that, I really like your better sources. Thank you for listing them, and for your work. Elemimele (talk) 19:16, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Now what? Nick Levine (talk) 17:22, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I made a note about all this on the article's talk page. I think we've run out of steam over here. Nick Levine (talk) 18:15, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

How do I edit the article title (for a minor grammatical issue)?

Hello! I've been working on the article for the battle of Grand-Reng, generally polishing it, clarifying sentence structures and explanations, and most importantly, adding in handmade battle maps to illustrate the action based on the article and the sources it references. Along the way, I realised that the place the battle is named for is Grand-Reng in two words. It says so all the way from contemporary maps of the period till the modern day on Google Maps. The article was previously written with "Grandreng" and I've replaced all the mentions I could with the correct two-word spelling, except for the title, which seems to be greyed out. How do I correct the title as well so it reflects the correct wording? Talamioros (talk) 08:58, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Theroadislong changed the title to Battle of Grand-Reng. David notMD (talk) 09:33, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

On a different issue, I see that you have been adding battle maps with your own additions of the presence of the contending forces and their movements to this and several other articles. I hazard a guess that your battle maps are designed to illuminate referenced text descriptions of the battles. Have you ever been challenged as to whether this represents original research? David notMD (talk) 09:33, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi David notMD, I'm not sure what you would consider original research, or why someone would need to challenge it? To answer the direct question, I have not been challenged. However, I THINK what I've done, as far as I'm doing it, is either original research or built on the existing research already in the existing articles, so I believe I have a valid answer in that event. Still, in case there may be an issue, here is my methodology and rationale for review, since your raising the issue seems to imply you're about to challenge it if someone hasn't, for whatever reason.

I'm doing this as a pet project because I really enjoy learning about the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars, but there's a great dearth of good, decently accurate maps that are free-use enough to give a good idea of the action in public domain, validate the accuracy/military sense of the action as reported by article writers, and illuminate the intentions of commanders. And yet, maps absolutely have to accompany battle articles, if only because these articles are sometimes next to impossible to reconstruct/visualise in the mind once they're filled with a high level of detail, because a casual reader's eyes will just glaze over. Even I, with many years of military history interest and mapreading experience, have gone a little lightheaded from trying to refer between an article and Google Maps trying to figure out who went where and did what. Thus the rationale. Next, my approach.

My methodology has been to make minimal changes to an existing article, if it already exists in form substantial and detailed enough for me to construct a battle map from it. In those cases, such as for the battle of Mouscron, Willems, Tourcoing, Courtrai, Grand-Reng, and the one I'm working on now, Erquelinnes, the map is purely based on what is already described in the article, and hence there should be no challenge unless the article content itself is challenged--which I imagine it shouldn't because it has been accepted. All I'm doing in these cases is to represent what is already in the article in a visual form.

In the case of substantial articles that give the idea of the general battle but are nevertheless not consistently detailed enough to illuminate specific actions (such as what this brigade or that division was doing), but which I am unable myself to locate better sources to fill those gaps to my own satisfaction, such as the battle of Tournai, I have simply done what I could and either left out the parts I could not factually say (such as not naming unit commanders when I did not have their names), or stated it was conjecture (such as placing question marks next to brigade commanders because while it is known this division had these brigade commanders, it is not known in what order they were arrayed except that the one mentioned commander likely had to be nearer to the place he was said to have attacked). If I come across an article in the future where there simply isn't enough to go on, I'll simply not illustrate that one. But so far, not yet--I'm only a few battles in.

Where articles have already been written, I try not to touch any content within the article itself, except insofar that I found, along the course of trying to understand the action FROM the article, that a section is inadequately clearly explained, or that the content could be better structured/headed using the same content, to provide a better schema for the reader to follow the action, or that a commander's intentions, which are clearly shown by the movements on the map, have not been explained adequately to provide a plan of intention for the battle, because the writer likely did not have a map and/or the military understanding to parse the various movements beyond just reporting them. Or in some cases, that the action has been misunderstood/confused from sources, in many cases which I have either read myself along the way, or which I tried to seek out to clarify puzzling assertions.

In cases where an article has not existed before, or does not exist in sufficient detail to illustrate, such as the battles of Gosselies and Lambusart (only one-para stubs before), or Fleurus (incredibly detailed right up to the actual battle itself, which is then passed over in 1-2 vague and incredibly general paragraphs when it needed the most detail of all), I have sought for sources and researched and written/fleshed out the article myself, prior to then appending the maps based on my research, last.

In all these cases, in terms of the drawing, I have tried my best to adopt a middle course between super-detailed cartography (e.g. placement of precise regiments etc, specific formations, etc, because that may not always be possible) and really vague blocks. I've tried to stick to division-level action and approximations of the frontage of the units, based on the descriptions stated in the article, which actually provide a very clear idea of where each unit was and how wide precisely its frontage would be, based on my own training as a history graduate and a former soldier, and my knowledge of the conventions of popular military history cartography.

Nevertheless, whatever the cartographic style, the placements are firmly rooted in factual mentions, either in my own source where I did the research myself, or in the already-existent article as stated by someone else, which I take to be accurate since unchallenged. The movements are also broadly correct, though no one should take it that my arrows reflect the precise path a division takes, for example, only that that is broadly the direction it would have gone, passing through specific landmarks where those are mentioned. Often, these routes make immediate sense not from the facts stated alone, but from looking at them either on modern maps, or from the contemporary map. Hence while there is some measure of extrapolation, in that someone may not have LITERALLY said it word for word in a source that this was precisely the route, it is clear from circumstantial facts, decriptions and evidence, once plotted onto a map. Say, from the topography overlap of Google Maps, an understanding of military practice, and the positions of the units as described in the article or the source, it may be clear that a movement was intended to be a covered flanking manoeuvre, hidden from the sight of the enemy, for example. My point is that if "original research" is supposed to mean "precision" (not sure what your definition is), few if any military maps, even academic ones, are truly precise, unless they were created for a professional military level of usage that would then be too technical for the common or casual reader just wanting to get an overview of the action. Of course if that is not the point of contention then this paragraph can be safely ignored.

With regards to the locations I've marked on the maps, I've validated every single one of the points and places I've marked out against contemporary maps of the period, at this moment the contemporary 18th-century Ferraris map since I'm dealing with battles in Belgium, and Google maps for modern equivalents. This is especially important if the names or places have changed, or the places no longer exist (e.g forests that have since been cut down), because on a military map, of course, the precise location of crucial points are utterly crucial to a correct understanding of a battle. I have applied the techniques of landscape archaeology and historical research to identifying and reconstructing locations. This surely is original research. Only a couple of locations have been placed by inference and logic, based on circumstantial facts, because I could not find the exact location literally recorded. But those are very, very few indeed because I have largely been able to pursue and pin down locations with success.

So yes, that's my rationale behind what and how I've done what I've done. I'm not sure if someone can see fault to find in my methodology such as it stands, with the means I have to hand, but if they do, I am more than happy to correct my facts or approach, or publish the necessary caveats, acknowledgements, or whatever other technicalities are needed to make it acceptable to Wikipedia. I'm even thinking of posting the Google Drive links to the working files for each map on each article's Talk page so someone else could come along and improve the maps based on better or new research findings down the road, and will probably do it at some symbolic point (e.g. when I finish all the maps for a particular theatre, or a particular year's campaigns).

If you see something to be challenged in here, please let me know what the issue is so that I can fix it and ensure that my published writing and maps will be acceptable, because the objective here is to provide better understanding and higher-quality maps (or even any maps at all) that can be given to the public, and that requires that whatever I create can stay published for the next beneficiary.

Talamioros (talk) 13:21, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I'll answer your first question. Original research, is basically your own knowledge on a subject. THe reason someone would challenge it is they don't know where that information came from or if it's true. That is why most things in a Wikipedia article require references to reliable sources. If reliable sources weren't required and you could just add your original research, you could add something like, "Steam is going to shut down in the year 3021" and people would have to take your word for it and possibly be mislead by false information. BUt they wouldn't know since there wasn't anything proving it and they couldn't fact check it to see if it was true. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:54, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Blaze Wolf for the explanation! Well in that case I think my conscience is clear, since as I've explained above, all the dots I'm joining are provided by factual data points from sources either already found and referenced by me in my own article, or found and referenced by someone else in an existing article. I'm not claiming any substantive knowledge of events from my "own knowledge" as the point in why I am doing this is because I had no own knowledge of these battles, but wanted to gain it and understand it better from these articles. Hence I am much reliant on the work others have already done where possible. I had initially wondered why someone would penalise original research since that's kind of what we need to do to justify our assertions with references, but I see now that it doesn't mean so much "original academic research" as it does a quasi-anti-vaxxer sort of "I did my research". Whew. Talamioros (talk) 00:59, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Follow-up to Corporate notability / COI: What should I do?

Hi, I wanted to continue the discussion about the Corporate notability/COI but did not find how to add a public comment (maybe someone can tell me how, by the way?), and eventually found that the thread has been archived. So I'm creating a new one. Could you please tell me how do I declare a COI? Con3butor (talk) 14:09, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

You'll find advice at WP:COI#How to disclose a COI. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:14, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@David Biddulph Hi David, Thank you for the link! Con3butor (talk) 14:21, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@Con3butor Welcome back to the Teahouse. I'm really sorry that your first question was answered without anyone giving you a link to the guidance on how to make that Conflict of Interest declaration. You can find guidance at WP:COI (and possibly also at WP:PAID if you are an employee or otherwise being remunerated for your efforts here). Usually you would add a COI template to your userpage which links to the article you are connected with. Often, it's simply better to post an WP:EDITREQUEST on the relevant article's talk page. It does also help to mention your COI in any WP:EDITSUMMARY you make to an article, too. I hope this helps. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:18, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes Hi Nick, thank you for helping me. I'll try one of these, hope it helps. Con3butor (talk) 14:21, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Simple Visual Editor question: removing image and caption

I can't believe I'm having to ask this, but using only Visual Editor, how do I completely remove an image and its caption from a page in one simple mouse-click? This should be an easy task, but I've failed to find a user-friendly button to let me do it without having to resort to Source Editor. What obvious thing am I missing? Nick Moyes (talk) 14:12, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, happy to help you Nick. To remove an image and its caption from a page, you can just click on that image and press delete on your keyboard. Thats it.

PS: I am really embarrassed, that I, who once did not have the faintest idea about Visual Editor or about using it, is now helping you; the person, who was like my father of my Wikipedia career; the person who taught me how to use Visual Editor. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 14:22, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

At least some help, to the extensive help you provided. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 14:24, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@Itcouldbepossible Well, blow me down with a feather! - I didn't even think to try that!! Works perfectly, of course. Thank you. I have often said that I am still learning here, and this is no truer than today! Just for context, as part of an online 'train the trainers' course I'm about to attend, I'm trying to familiarise myself with using only VE as a beginner might (hence my blind spot). I've also discovered to my delight how much easier it is with VE to insert an extra field once you have a citation already in place, simply by switching over to VE and editing it there, rather than have to use source editor on the full template text. So, I'm gradually becoming a VE convert. Old dogs, new tricks, eh? Nick Moyes (talk) 14:36, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@Itcouldbepossible I thought you might like to know that I've just added this important addition to the VE Guide, which was surprisingly absent until now (Oh, and thank you for those lovely words earlier - I was a bit preoccupied to properly respond. It's the fact that I have been able to help others like yourself that gives me such satisfaction here. And now you're able to do the same for me. What more can one hope for!) Nick Moyes (talk) 22:39, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes And, now I am seeking you a help. I've also discovered to my delight how much easier it is with VE to insert an extra field once you have a citation already in place, simply by switching over to VE and editing it there, rather than have to use source editor on the full template text. Can you please explain me this feature? I did not quite understand what you said. Thanks. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 05:47, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@Itcouldbepossible In Source Editor, I enter all my reference information via a template, preview it and, if it's looks right, I click insert. The 'source code' now appears in the page, and I don't get a second chance to go back and re-use that template to add an overlooked field - say, the date on which I found a url, for example. Instead, I have to go away and find the correct name to use for that field and manually add somewhere within the reference so it looks roughly like this: "|access-date=12 January 2022|". Of course, if I've missed off more than one field, I have even more work to do to manually edit the source code of the citation.

However, if I switch to edit that same page in VE, I discovered yesterday that all I need to do now is to click the inline reference number [in brackets] within the article, and the template window appears again. Now, all I need do is click 'Edit' to either add data to an existing field, or insert a new field from the 'add more information' button at the bottom of the template window. I select the field I want to use, enter my data, and 'Apply changes'. It's so much easier to re-edit a citation - something I wish I'd appreciate before now. I hope this explanation is clear enough. Give it a try and you'll see what I mean. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:52, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes You bet, I am learning half as well. You know what...after editors complained about my edits couple of weeks back (all evidences are on my talk page, I did not remove the complaints, so that people can see them in future and analyze me), and specifically told me to see how Wikipedia and the community works...I really sort of just stopped myself. Even Claudine once said to slow down and learn instead of trying to be a hero all the time. And, I did the same. I sat and read all the policies, that are currently on the English Wikipedia, but did not quite understand all of them, but still just got a overall knowledge. I read what Wikipedia is not, and specifically WP:AGF, and WP:Categorization, because it was because of few of my categorizing edits that the problems started. I also read some start class and stub class articles, and found out the content quality that is accepted at Wikipedia. I made anti - vandalism edits carefully, though problems still arised. I specifically learnt to use the tools properly, and that was when I learnt the more proper and superb uses of the Visual Editor tool. And, I gave the trick out. And thanks for adding it to the VE help page. I thought of adding it myself, but could not be bold enough. Now, I am giving you an open proposal. Whenever, you encounter any problems with VE, you can ask me if you like. Sounds a little funny though, but I can try and help you, and I would really love to do so. Thanks and regards. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 03:52, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Itcouldbepossible have you ever considered becoming a Teahouse host? The information you provide to everyone is spectacular, and you have all the qualities needed to become a well-received host! Although you might need to stay on Wikipedia a little longer, because you've only been on Wikipedia for 3 months and 13 days. I don't remember, but I think the bare minimum for becoming a host is like five months or something. Anyways, just suggesting something you might want to check out. Sincerely, CertifiedAmazing (talk) 23:05, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@CertifiedAmazing Woa, not really, actually I am too young at Wikipedia to think of those things. Actually, I am learning fast and making mistakes too, but from those mistakes I am learning, and I am giving out my knowledge to help newcomers, and for the first time an administrator. I might as well as think of being a host after I have gained some more knowledge about Wikipedia's policies, and have created a good amount of articles, and also when I don't encounter with too many problems. Maybe that would take a whole year, but I am ready for it. And thanks a lot for giving me this offer. I had never thought of it before. If you ever encounter any problem, the Teahouse as well as my talk page is there for you. Seek help if you want. Thanks and happy editing. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 05:31, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@Itcouldbepossible okay, and you're welcome! Also, thanks for telling me this. ;) Sincerely, CertifiedAmazing (talk) 22:55, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Luting Agent (dentistry) v. Luting (boatbuilding)

Hi

I am interested in traditional boat building. I have contributed the Spiling (boat building) page. I was just curious to see if Wikipedia had an entry for Luting Compound, placed between timbers in a boat. I didn't find that but I did find Luting Agent (dentistry). I could simply create a separate page, but would then miss the rather interesting etymological commonality between the two very different substances. Any suggestions as to what would be the best way to create a record for Luting (boatbuilding)?

Granby GranbyPatrick (talk) 14:53, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@GranbyPatrick: First, check Lute (material) and see if that covers the use you have in mind. Perhaps your material could go into that article? I know nothing about the subject, so I can't say - but you can.

If that isn't suitable and you need a separate article, the name you propose, "Luting (boatbuilding)", looks perfect to me.

Then you can add a hatnote at the top of each article so that the reader can easily be sure they are on the right article - something like {{distinguish|Luting Agent (dentistry)}} will put a hatnote that says "Not to be confused with Luting Agent (dentistry)."

And if you think the etymology is worth putting in the article, it can go in the body.--Gronk Oz (talk) 15:17, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

The article Caulk is presumably of some relevance. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.208.90.210 (talk) 16:38, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Euclids

There are two 'Euclid' pages, Euclid and Euclid of Megara. The first Euclid page seems to be talking about Euclid of Megara, while the Euclid of Megara page seems to be referring to Euclid of Alexandria (the first one). It is evident from the title page of the 'Elements' book, which is credit to both men.

I don't know enough about either of the men to properly edit those pages. I'm also not very proficient at editing Wikipedia's pages.

How can I find the authors of those pages? Is it hidden somewhere within the article?

I would appreciate it if someone could look into both pages and fix the issue or help me find someone who could do that. Theluvdov (talk) 15:39, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

There will be hundreds of authors across these two articles. Your best bet is to pass this message onto one of the relevant Wikiprojects (groups of editors who come together to edit a specific topic area). I recommend you start with one of the following: Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy, Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography, or Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome. If you post this onto the talk page of one of those projects, the users there will be able to help you. — Czello 15:49, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Also, for future reference, you can see the edit history of an article by clicking "view history" at the top of the page. This will be the authors of the article, but again, it'll be hundreds or thousands of editors long. — Czello 15:51, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@Theluvdov: The articles clearly make the distinction between the two philosophers. At Euclid, which is supposed to be Euclid of Alexandria, there is what is called a hatnote to say "Not to be confused with Euclid of Megara." and at Euclid of Megara it says "Not to be confused with Euclid." Now, it may be that some of the authors of these articles have mixed up their sourcing and it would be great if you could disentange any such confusion. The Talk Pages of the relevant articles (Talk:Euclid and Talk:Euclid of Megara) would be the place to put comments, as there are literally hundreds of editors who have these pages on their watchlists. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:50, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) @Theluvdov: The page Euclid, in its current state (permalink), does talk about Euclid of Alexandria. The lead says: Euclid (...), sometimes called Euclid of Alexandria[1] to distinguish him from Euclid of Megara, was a Greek mathematician (...) His Elements is one of the most influential works in the history of mathematics (...). It does discuss a speculative connection to Euclid of Megara but clearly separates the two characters.

I am not sure what you read that seemed wrong? Can you quote the exact text that you object to? Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 16:55, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@Tigraan: The article about Euclid of Alexandria is crediting him with 'Elements.' Meanwhile, according to the title page of the book, it was written by Euclid of Megara.Theluvdov (talk) 20:10, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@Theluvdov: Euclid's Elements starts with The Elements (...) is a mathematical treatise (...) attributed to the ancient Greek mathematician Euclid in Alexandria. I see no inconsistency either there or in the Euclid article.

Please give the exact name of the page, and the exact quote (if text) or image URL (if an image) where the problem is present. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 20:47, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@Tigraan: If you look at the first picture on the page of Euclid's Elements (which illustrates the title page of Elements' translation), you will see that it has Euclid of Megara's name right on it.

If one of the Euclids was a philosopher and the other a mathematician, it is highly unlikely that they both wrote a book with the same title. However, if they did, then the wrong picture is being used for Euclid of Alexandria's page and the Euclid's Elements page.Theluvdov (talk) 22:02, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@Theluvdov: Henry Billingsley#Translation of Euclid says that Billingsley (among others at the time) was confused between the two. --David Biddulph (talk) 22:39, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@David Biddulph: That's nice. Now, please tell me what your comment has to do with the FIRST PAGE OF THE BOOK THAT WAS POSTED, ON THE COVER OF WHICH IS EUCLID'S OF MEGARA NAME.

If the author of the book was confused, as you say, how can WE know anything for sure?

Either way, Henry Billingsley's translation is that of Euclid's of Megara book, and the picture of its first page doesn't belong on Euclid's of Alexandria page.

Am I using a foreign language that no one else understands??? Theluvdov (talk) 23:46, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@Theluvdov:: Please try to maintain civility. Take a breath and keep it collaborative, not antagonastic. We're all working on the same goal. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 23:49, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@Theluvdov:: Yes, you are presumably having difficulty with what is perhaps not your own language? Henry Billingsley#Translation of Euclid (which perhaps you haven't read?) says that his translation was of Elements by Euclid of Alexandria, but that Billingsley (along with many of his contemporaries) was confused between the two, hence the error on the title page of his translation. If you read the Oxford DNB biography of Billingsley it says "Billingsley's own volume of Euclid, now in Princeton College Library, comprised a Greek text and a copy of Proclus on book 1, both published in 1533, bound with a Latin text which had come through the Arabic, translated by Adelard of Bath, then by Campanus, 1558, and the first Greek to Latin translation by Zamberti, published in Venice in 1505. Campanus was responsible for confusing the mathematician Euclid of Alexandria with a later Euclid, a philosopher of Megara, an error which Billingsley perpetuated." --David Biddulph (talk) 08:22, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

• Hopefully this edit is enough to resolve any concerns. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 09:55, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

how

how to send a message in talk Mohidahmed777 (talk) 16:19, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

You can send a message by clicking new section and adding your title in-between the two = signs and the message below the two = signs to the user talk page. I hope that answered your query, Zippy (talk) 16:23, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@Mohidahmed777: Hello Mohida! When viewing a talk page (such as mine for example, at the top there will be a button that says "Edit Source" (although there may also be a button that says "New Section", in which case all you have to do is press that button, and then add your title of your talk page message, and then what you want to say). You'll want to press that button, and then scroll to the bottom of the talk page and add 2 equal signs before and after your title == like this ==, and then press enter and type what you want to say. Finally, before you press "Publish" (which is sort of Wikipedia's equivalent to "save), add 4 tildes (this character: ~) after your message and then press publish. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:23, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Mohid! I see you successfully started a section on another user's talk page, congrats. They reverted your post, but nevermind, there is a discusssion at Talk:TAI/AgustaWestland T129 ATAK#Operators where you can engage with them. You might like to visit Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-betafeatures and enable Discussion Tools. It's very convenient for replying in conversations. If you're not using DT, then edit the section and add your text after what the others have written (and sign with ~~~~). ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 00:23, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Part of English article, written in French

Hi, at Miguel Pacios biography, it starts out in English, then switches to French. I really don't know what Notice tag to use, so asking for help here. Or anyone to translate please. JoeNMLC (talk) 20:41, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

• Some of the French is tongue-in-cheek and was added back in 2016 (!). Regardless, I will nominate the article for deletion in a short time, because it appears they do not meet WP:NFOOTY. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 21:09, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

  Even if the french did have a reliable source and was translated, some of it would still be removed because some of it is a positive opinion (or at least, from what Google Translate translated some of it to). ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 21:15, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

"Il est toujours affuté comme on dit dans le milieu!" is probably too idiomatic for Google Translate to do a good job, my best attempt at a translation would be "he’s still sharp, as they say!". (So, inappropriate, yes.) Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 21:30, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

No that was pretty much what Google Translate translated it to. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:46, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

There's a French-language article here (from La Dépêche du Midi, a regional daily newspaper) that's basically a "where is he now" article. Whether that's enough to push him over the notability line, I'm not sure. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 21:23, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

That "article" is basically an interview (so: worthless). However, they played for AS Cannes in the 2000 and 2001 seasons, during which AS Cannes was in the professional league, so that meets WP:NFOOTY (and I will therefore not nominate for deletion). (It was a bit tough for a non-footy to investigate that because they played in lots of clubs that once were in the professional league but not when he played in them.) Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 21:30, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I also found this (different paper, same publisher) that might have some content about him, but it's behind a paywall. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 21:34, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done - Thankyou, JoeNMLC (talk) 14:55, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Why are unregistered users identified by IP address?

There is something that is wrong with Wikipedia. Unregistered users are identified by a IP address, the reason why it’s bad because it has the information where you live, you can get robbed by hackers and other unknown people, they can also track you down too. Why are unregistered users identified by IP address? Please help. 2603:8000:F400:FCEA:24BA:3F27:B661:8DEE (talk) 00:11, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Fairly soon IPs will be concealed from the public(though not retroactively), once it is ready to be implemented. You can hide your IP now by creating an account. 331dot (talk) 00:14, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

There's some more info about this at Wikipedia:IP users. 331dot - can you link to the IP concealing discussion? 01:00, 12 January 2022 (UTC)TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)}

User talk:331dot#How we will see unregistered users 331dot (talk) 01:21, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

• it has the information where you live, you can get robbed by hackers and other unknown people, they can also track you down too IP addresses only give a fairly vague indication of geography (never down to a residential address). Knowing an IP address does not really help "hackers" to do nefarious deeds either (unless you have associated intel - if you know that the person is using such-and-such browser/network configuration, that they are a valuable target because they are the CEO of a big company, etc.). Finally, IP is a fairly poor tracking mechanism (most ISP attribute IPs from a rotating pool), which is why lazy advertisement websites run a ton of cookies and third-party analytical scripts, and the crafty ones use device fingerprinting.

Under the threat model of a naughty hack3r trying to steal stuff, revealing your IP is fairly innocuous. However, under the threat model of a state actor - for instance, a Chinese censor trying to identify who edited that image, with access to ISP records - it can cause problems. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 11:06, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Many years ago, I was taking part in some online groups where we all used User Names; foolishly, I was doing it from my work computer. Someone boasted about what he could tell about us from the information associated with our posts. So I challenged him to it. Not only did he tell me where I worked (which I would never have revealed in that forum), he told me the number of my own work station there. Uporządnicki (talk) 01:16, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Didwho Welleh Twe (2)

FYI

 – Renamed heading to differentiate from above discussion. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:55, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Previous discussion : #Didwho Welleh Twe

I uploaded the photo of Didwho Welleh Twe to be inserted into my article. The image falls under the public domain category, deceased person but I am having a problem inserting it. Can anyone help?

Dagbayonoh (talk) 00:20, 12 January 2022 (UTC) Dagbayonoh (talk) 00:20, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Didwho Welleh Twe TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 00:55, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

This also looks like it was already asked above. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 00:57, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello again, Dagbayonoh. You uploaded File:Twe-e4853.jpg, but you did not give any copyright information, so it will be deleted next week unless you remedy that: you say it is public domain, but you need to explain why it is public domain - see WP:File copyright tags. If it is indeed public domain, then it should be transferred to Commons, so that it can be used on other Wikimedia projects (such as other language Wikipedias). If it is not in fact public domain (and pictures of people who died fifty years ago are usually not), then it may still be possible to use it under our non-free content criteria; but you will need to make a specific justification, showing how it meets those criteria (again, see the page I linked above).

As to how to use it in an article, you can use something like [[File:Twe-e4853.jpg|thumb|right]] to make it appear at the right hand side of the page. See WP:Picture tutorial. --ColinFine (talk) 11:26, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, ColinFine. I will follow your suggestion.

Dagbayonoh (talk) 11:49, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Moving Tekle Hawaryat old redirect to another article

Hello i want to move Tekle Hawaryat to his full name Tekle Wolde Hawaryat, but i want his old redirect > Tekle Hawaryat to go to another more prominent historical figure >> Tekle Hawariat Tekle Mariyam (other variations in sources : Tekle-Hawaryat, Tekle Hawariat, Tekle-Hawariat last name: Tekle Mariam, Tekle Mariyam). Tekle Hawaryat is his first name. Question how do i give the redirect to the other article? Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 01:10, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

 2806:104E:15:60A9:FC35:4E0E:859D:C07 (talk) 01:23, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello IP?? Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 09:28, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@Dawit S Gondaria: Welcome to the Teahouse! If you go to Tekle Hawaryat, it automatically redirects you to Tekle Wolde Hawaryat. In that article, it will say "Redirected from Tekle Hawaryat". Click on that link and you will see the redirect page. Then click "Edit source" and change the wikilink to Tekle Hawariat Tekle Mariyam (and remove the Redirect category shell). Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 15:11, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: Thank you that was helpful! Just to be sure i removed (Redirect category shell) but left ((R from move)) whatever that is. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 21:25, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@Dawit S Gondaria: Sorry - I meant remove {{Redirect category shell}} including {{R from move}}, since the redirect is no longer related to a moved article. GoingBatty (talk) 21:38, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: Oke removed that too, thanks again, good day! Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 21:50, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Copying references

If you are adding something to an article, and you copy-paste some text and a reference and edit the text a bit, do you have to edit the retrievement date on the reference to today's date? InterstateFive (talk) - just another highway lover 01:57, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

If you're pasting in text, be sure to use quotation marks. That important matter aside, InterstateFive, I don't think you're compelled to change the retrieval date. But doing so would be a good idea. Of course, check that material claimed earlier to have been sourced from it still can be sourced from it. In certain kinds of web pages, material found previously in it will no longer be found in it, and an additional reference will be needed: not just the older one, but instead one to a copy made earlier by/at the Wayback Machine, and one to the page as it now is. -- Hoary (talk) 04:51, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

The two basic rules are that (1) you should only change the retrieved date if you retrieved it on the date you said; and (2) you shouldn't be inserting unreferenced material. This means that if you're adding information from a different source, but as a result you have to shuffle some sentences and reword things, but you are not claiming anything new of the original source (and therefore you aren't checking it or changing its referencing), then you should not change the retrieval date; you should merely add your second source. If you are adding information or changing something, basing this on the original source, you should retrieve it, check it supports everything that's now in the WP article, and change the retrieval date. By so doing, you are asserting that on the retrieval date, it said everything it's being used to support. If you are merely rewriting a clumsily-written sentence without changing its meaning (and therefore you are neither checking nor adding references), you shouldn't update the retrieval date. Elemimele (talk) 16:07, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

A user 'Sumanuil' Disappointed me by reverting my all night's effort

I am new here on Wikipedia, and tried to contribute by adding precious information regarding my home Tehsil, Arifwala. But Mr. Sumanuil erased all the information I added, even without pointing any mistake. In case, as a new member, I have made any mistake, he should have polish me and ask me to correct the mistake, else wasting my all night's effort. I am a Doctor by profession and gave my preciuos time to add some valuable information here at Wikipedia. But now, I am much disappointed. And I dont know how lodge a complaint against that person and on which forum? Please guide. Mubashirwell (talk) 04:07, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

You don't lodge a complaint about Sumanuil anywhere, Mubashirwell, until you have tried and failed to discuss the matter at Talk:Arif Wala Tehsil. That talk page currently has no discussion. Please discuss the matter, there. -- Hoary (talk) 04:40, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, the problem here was that the information that you added was completely unreferenced. Any information you add to a Wikipedia article has to be supported by reliable sources, like newspaper articles or books. You can add references to the article when editing it by sing the Cite button in the toolbar at the top. AryKun (talk) 06:32, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Their "all night's effort" was to put an external link in the infobox image section and put in a in-line link to IMDB. They didn't fix any of the existing problems (pre-existing vandalism, nonsensical infobox parameters, etc.) They already asked about this on my talk page, and would have scrolled past the giant red notice there to do it. Sumanuil 05:16, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Mubashirwell is now indefinitely blocked for disruptive editing, with the usual option to appeal the block. In addition to asking Sumanuil on Sumanuil's Talk page - a valid reaction - Mubashirwell posted similarly worded complaints about being reverted at Requests for undeletion, Talk:Wikipedia, Wikipedia Talk:Dispute resolution and Wikipedia Talk:Administrators' noticeboard. All that over-reaction (all reverted) led to the block. David notMD (talk) 07:31, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Nevertheless, they had also added some Notable residents and one of those checked out. So I have added back Yumna Zaidi (with reference).--Gronk Oz (talk) 07:59, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Obviously, the spam-posting was inappropriate. However, as far as I can tell there was no warning of any kind before Bbb23 applied an indef block. Straight to indef seems way overboard to me - after all, some of their article edits were useful, and all were attempts to be constructive - but maybe I am missing some context? Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 10:03, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Mubashirwell can appeal the block, stating that now know the only proper place for an initial discussion of a content dispute is the Talk page of the article. David notMD (talk) 00:15, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I've unblocked the editor. They're new, we need to cut them some slack. I've directed them to ask what went wrong in more detail here, if necessary; I assume people who are unable to treat a new editor like a new editor will let others reply. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:18, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I need help

I'm having problems trying to make a wiki page for thatcher Shultz he's a well know business owner in nyc and has a lot of press but nothing seems to work can someone please help 2601:2C5:C300:7940:C803:736C:36BE:945D (talk) 04:15, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

You're asking about Draft:Shultz Thatcher. This has six references. Which three among the six would you say are the best? Also, you were (or Deivilooney was) pointed to WP:REFB. Though you say "nothing seems to work", you don't seem to have tried to make any change since the second decline, and no substantive change since the first. If you have a question about what WP:REFB says, feel free to ask here. -- Hoary (talk) 04:32, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Deivilooney has replied on my talk page: I have some good sources I think the Forbes , Gotham mag and nyc post most definitely best ones. So, here are one Gotham mag source, another Gotham mag source, and a Forbes source. The second of these is very minor; I don't know how to evaluate the first or third. (Perhaps someone else will step in.) I don't know what you, Deivilooney, mean here by "nyc post". -- Hoary (talk) 06:32, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

NY Post is probably this one [[9]]. It would probably also help the article if his first and last names were in the correct order. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:03, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh, we learn from this that TS thinks it's important to, you know, "come from a good family". -- Hoary (talk) 08:01, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, his name is Thatcher Shultz. Refs are better if using a standard ref format rather than just URLs, and inserted into the text of the article rather than all at the end. Of paramount importance are having refs that are about Shultz at length rather than just a name-mention of him in articles that are about the businesses he co-founded or partnered. David notMD (talk) 07:53, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

To help you out, I have filled out those bare URL references. Note that one of them was a dead link.--Gronk Oz (talk) 08:31, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

The Forbes fails WP:FORBESCON. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:25, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Can I?

Can I edit List of cantons of France to be more like List of districts in India, providing an actual list of cantons instead of a list of departments (that's what it looks like)? There are over 2,054 cantons in France but 748 districts in India, so that list will be too long, but the current list doesn't help much. See fr:Liste des cantons français avant 2015 ;Excellenc1 (talk) 04:29, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

You're proposing to create a list that, in your words, would be "too long". Then why create it? And would the (probably small) number of people who'd be interested be unable to find, or to understand, Liste des cantons français avant 2015? -- Hoary (talk) 04:44, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

The list as it is seems fine to me – it is actually providing lists of cantons by department (for eg, a list of cantons in the department of Eure). AryKun (talk) 06:38, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Agree to above, but you can be bold and create it if you feel that will be helpful; you don't need to ask to anyone. If you're unsure, may be you can prepare it the way you feel like it should be in a draft first, and, then, propose the changes to the talk page of the list. Hope that helps. Lightbluerain❄ (Talk | contribs) 09:40, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@Hoary: Liste des cantons français avant 2015 is the complete list of cantons in French, and I was proposing to make something like this, maybe with area and population. That way it gives the list of all the cantons in France, with some info in just one article. Excellenc1 (talk) 10:00, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@Excellenc1: You're definitely welcome to experiment in your sandbox first and evaluate if it's an improvement after you finish. It's also a good idea to go to the talk page and see if there's consensus for such a change, so that you don't waste time working on something that ultimately won't get used. Do note that lists that are too long are hard to navigate and are generally discouraged; 2,054 does sound like a lot. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 12:56, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@Ganbaruby: What about List of United States counties and county equivalents? 3000 something counties. Excellenc1 (talk) 05:35, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

@Excellenc1: That is a grossly humongous list, more than six times the suggested threshold at WP:SIZESPLIT, and definitely an accessibility issue. It's been kinda discussed (here and here). But really, the "what about x" argument should generally be avoided; consider the pros and cons of your specific scenario instead. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 13:54, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

With how big that list is, I'd suggest splitting it so each state has it's own article. That might already exist even! ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:01, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Tiktok reliable source?

Context: Bonnie McKee, one of the biggest songwriters of the 2010s, recently revealed some information about some of the 2010s biggest pop songs that definitely would be good information to have in their articles, such as:

• The story about how she wrote the "Hold it Against Me" (Britney Spears song) lyrics
• The confirmation that Wide Awake (Katy Perry song) is said to be the "continuation" of Teenage Dream
• Some lyrics from Last Friday Night being inspired by some shocking true stories

Would this be okay to include in the articles of the respective songs? This looks like some nice info to me but if it's really not allowed then I understand. Thank you! shanghai.^{talk to me} 06:10, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Hey, TikTok definitely doesn't qualify as a reliable source as anybody could publish something in it, making it essentially user-generated and unusable as a source of reliable information. AryKun (talk) 06:36, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@AryKun: Hey, please reread what I said. The person who wrote the songs herself said this information on her own Tiktok. The "anybody" here is coming from the songwriter's own Tiktok itself in question. Thank you. shanghai.^{talk to me} 09:59, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I guess it would be fine then, but I don't write on music articles, so maybe wait for another opinion. I couldn't look at the TikTok in question since it's banned where I live. AryKun (talk) 10:15, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@RogueShanghai, per WP:SPS you could argue that she is a "subject-matter expert" (or close enough). Others may or may not agree. The Tiktok has the blue checkmark, so it seems safe to assume she is who she says she is. Depending on what you intend to include, be aware of WP:BLPSPS. Hope this helps. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:21, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@RogueShanghai: For first-party claims, I would incline towards in-text attribution, something like "In a self-published video, songwriter Bonnie McKee said that she wrote Wide Awake as a continuation of Teenage Dream. ...". I'd also consider transcribing a supporting quote from the video in the citation, in case it goes offline in future. ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 22:56, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@RogueShanghai: I see that Hold It Against Me#Background already mentions the Katy Perry inspiration, and references a Hollywood Reporter interview where McKee tells the same story (reference #4), so I don't see how adding the TikTok video would be an improvement. (I didn't check the other two.) GoingBatty (talk) 15:26, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@RogueShanghai: If you were to use the second video, I suggest you not put "continuation" in quotes, as McKee doesn't seem to use the word "continuation". I also wondered if McKee's use of Perry's videos constitutes fair use. GoingBatty (talk) 23:23, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@RogueShanghai: The third video is alternative lyrics. Comparing the actual lyrics with the video, McKee confirms that they went "Skinny dipping in the dark". If you think that's valuable enough to add to Last Friday Night (T.G.I.F.)#Background and artwork, I suggest you use language that's more neutral than "shocking". GoingBatty (talk) 23:32, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Justiție dreaptă

 Croitoru Cornel (talk) 07:45, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Croitoru Cornel, do you have a question about editing English-language Wikipedia? -- Hoary (talk) 08:05, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Bon zia Croitoru Cornel. You might be looking for the Romanian Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 11:37, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I want to draw the attention of the contributor

I recently created a page of a musician (Arfius Al-din). Please take a look into it. Thank you. Dadu1212 (talk) 08:34, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

If you want your draft reviewing, you need to submit it for review. You can use the blue "Submit" button which you deleted in this edit. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:43, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

We read that this person is "a Bangladeshi Influencer, Singer, Composer and Entrepreneur". You might specify the spheres of influence and the area of business in which they exercise entrepreneurship (citing reliable sources, of course); if you don't, it's rather meaningless. -- Hoary (talk) 09:14, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

It seems like the content has been created in the mainspace (Arfius Al-din). Draft is still at Draft:Arfius Al-din. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 09:51, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I left a comment at the draft to not submit it, because the article exists. David notMD (talk) 11:58, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Asking for a 3rd opinion about the relevance of adding something in an article

The article in question is this one - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gelou

The edit in question is this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gelou&diff=1062479851&oldid=1062477853

The talk is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gelou (under "King Peter and Gelou")

We asked for a 3rd opinion 13 days ago but nobody came - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AThird_opinion&action=historysubmit&type=revision&diff=1062479770&oldid=1062345421

I would appreciate if anyone can come and offer their opinion. It's a question of whether adding a mention of King Peter's coins is relevant to the article or not. The arguments of both sides are present on the talk page. Thank you. TheGoldAge (talk) 10:12, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@TheGoldAge: Welcome to the Teahouse! If you want other knowledgeable editors to weigh in, you might want to ask Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Romania or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hungary. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 15:54, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Suitability of sources

I have been looking for sources to expand the history on the page about Amberfield_School. In my research I came across the Old Girls facebook group, and there has been posted a picture from a 1997 school magazine that fills in the final pieces of the Headmistresses puzzle I was trying to solve (I now believe I have a full timeline of headmistresses) The referencing guidelines state that links to facebook are unacceptable, which is completely understandable, but I do not believe I could find a better source.

What would be the most appropriate way to reference this information? I cannot find a digitised version of this magazine anywhere else. DownTheLongPath (talk) 11:23, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Further investigating this source, it is a special feature in the June 3rd 1997 edition of the Ipswich Evening Star, for which I cannot find an archive entry. DownTheLongPath (talk) 11:35, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps similar, but not quite the same is the record of School House names from a Sports Day pamphlet from 1998, similarly posted to facebook. This I would be less inclined to use as a source, as it is not independently verified, but if anyone could think of a way I could include it I would be very grateful. DownTheLongPath (talk) 11:55, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

DownTheLongPath Hello. A source does not need to be avaliable online to be used on Wikipedia, as long as it is available to the public(such as a copy in a public library) and you have the information needed to cite it(publisher, date of publication, page numbers, etc.) 331dot (talk) 11:58, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

331dot Thank you! I have added the information from my source.DownTheLongPath (talk) 12:31, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

M C Haywood

 Mchaywood (talk) 11:39, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Mchaywood The content you added to Millard Haywood was reverted because you did not include a reference and because you 'broke' the formating. David notMD (talk) 12:04, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Keep having my edits removed even though I'm using neutral language and valid references - I don't understand

Hello, I'm interested in the retail and logistics sphere, so I read a lot about this and use what I learn to make edits here on Wikipedia to contribute to the overall knowledge basis here. Unfortunately, the edits I make keep getting reversed e.g. I wanted to make it clear that Ocado Group now has a new chairman to the one listed on its page and that the company has moved away from being just an online grocer as it says in its current topline (it now licences its tech to other retail businesses around the world and owns a 50:50 stake in the online grocery business Ocado.com). I made a note of this on the Ocado Group talk page, and how it could be improved for accuracy with up-to-date references, but no one commented. So I made the update myself and it has since been reversed. This is just one example of edits to a page I have made that have been reversed - is there something I am doing wrong? Please can someone help? Cat lover 6lp (talk) 12:11, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Cat lover 6lp I have looked over the edits that have been reversed. The discussion of the increase in order numbers is unsuitable for a wikipedia entry, I think. Your language is perhaps too specialist for a wikipedia article, for instance:

Ocado Group is a UK-based online grocery solutions and logistics business that licenses its technology to grocery retailers around the world.

This reads like a corporate promotional byline.

Some of your edits were good, such as the additions to the history section, though I'm not the most experienced at editing. I would parse through what has been reverted and see what you can salvage. DownTheLongPath (talk) 12:41, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Cat lover 6lp If you read WP:Solutions you'll see why some editors object to language that in contexts other than Wikipedia are often OK. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:55, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

DownTheLongPath :: Michael D. Turnbull Thank you both for your help - I will make the edits again using amended language and keep what you've told me in mind going forward. Cat lover 6lp (talk) 15:17, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Cat lover 6lp A good deal of the time, unless they have saved the page for notification, some editors do not even know there is a discussion on the Talk Page. My advice would be to personally invite any editor that reverts without proper discussion or a viable summary comment. If you believe your edits are an improvement to the article, make the argument and back your claim. On the other hand, there are those editors that are not as community-minded to partake in a Talk Page solution and simply revert without productive discussion. Good luck! Maineartists (talk) 15:33, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Reverting

Hi, a user, Snackmurat, reverted some BLP edits of mine, which says that the person was tested COVID-19. He reverted these edits by saying not encyclopedic unless they die. But he didn't say any proof! What can I do now? Thanks. Troyol (talk) 12:50, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Given the number of people around the world who have contracted COVID-19, it could be considered that including this in each person's article would be out of proportion. What you should do now is to revert your edit-warring on this point. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:08, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I and other editors have reverted all of Troyol's reverts, thus removing mention of COVID positive test results. David notMD (talk) 13:14, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

e/c @Troyol: Can I assume you are talking about Arijit Singh? If so, the information about testing positive may be correct and come from a good source - but that does not mean it belongs in the article. It has nothing to do with the reasons he is notable, it is not particularly unusual (unfortunately!). Wikipedia tries to just have "encyclopaedic" information, but that is not clearly defined anywhere I know. If you want to discuss the pros and cons of having it there, the best place to do that is on the article's Talk page, Talk:Arijit Singh. Do not continue with the edit warring you have been doing up to now; discuss it on the Talk page and come to a consensus with the other editors.--Gronk Oz (talk) 13:15, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

David Biddulph, David notMD and Gronk Oz, will I be punished for it? I apologize. Troyol (talk) 13:26, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@Troyol: Providing that you don't do it again, you are unlikely to be punished. I see that many of the pages where you had edit-warred had been reverted by another editor, and that you self-reverted in another case so thank you for that. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:30, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@Troyol: Goodness, I hope they don't start punishing editors for making mistakes - I'll be in big trouble if that ever happens! Just learn from it, and don't keep repeating the same problems. I probably should have mentioned before that Wikipedia has a normal process called "BRD" for "be Bold - Revert - Discuss". You can read all about it at the link WP:BRD, but in a nutshell it means that you should be bold and make a change if you think it is good (as you did when you first added this information). Then if somebody disagrees, they revert that edit. If you still think it should be there, then you go to the Talk page for that article, discuss with all the interested editors, and come to a joint decision about how to proceed.--Gronk Oz (talk) 13:40, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Gronk Oz, thank you! Troyol (talk) 13:49, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

We've all - including me, here 15 years - been reverted for good faith edits, with no 'bad marks' put next to our names. Carry on. David notMD (talk) 14:11, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Scholarly sources

Do everything that appears in google scholar search are reliable sources? Is google scholar search, the only way to find academic sources?

Are google books, which have scanned books printed 100 years ago, also scholarly sources?

Prescribed books in universities are also scholarly sources?

Is there any way to disagree with a scholarly source, If I find it to be biased, fake, cherry-picking?

Example- In a riot, 200 people died from community A and 120 people died from community B. Some scholar writes that the entire riot was against community A, as they have more casualty, whitewashing the deaths of 120 people from community B. Wikipedians might say, even though the media reported 120 dead from community B, still, we consider scholarly sources as better sources. --Knight Skywalker (talk) 13:24, 12 January 2022 (UTC) Knight Skywalker (talk) 13:24, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

In brief, any independently-published book is likely to be a reliable source. Self-published books generally are not, because only the author decided whether to publish them. The assumption is that a book published by a publisher independent of the author has been quality-checked by the publisher, at least to the extent that the publisher deemed the author competent to write the work. So you are fairly safe to use any genuine book. It doesn't matter how you got it: scanned-in, written in electronic form, or printed by old-fashioned means, and located in some library. Yes, all books and authors have bias, but it is not our job to refine the contents of books. If a scholar has cherry-picked and is presenting a biased viewpoint, then some other scholar will have said so, in another book, and it is our job to find both books and summarise the situation in as neutral a manner as possible. If you think a published scholar is wrong, and you can't find any source to say so, then unfortunately you need to go and become that second scholar, and get your viewpoint independently published somewhere else! Then someone else can produce a neutral Wikipedia article based on your work and the existing work. Wikipedia isn't the place to do the actual original research. Elemimele (talk) 13:52, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh, and we have no particular bias towards books found in Google scholar compared to any other sources. For example, if a book says A and the Guardian newspaper says B, both are valid views. Each source is judged on its merits. Elemimele (talk) 13:54, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Knight Skywalker Note that Google Scholar is a database, although a clever one that restricts itself to academic-type publications. As WP:Scholarship mentions, there can still be predatory publishers out there, so editors here need to be careful, especially for medical articles, where we try to use guidelines in WP:MEDRS. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:51, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@Knight Skywalker: While some books scanned into Google Books are scholarly sources, some are not (e.g. Batman: Nightwalker). GoingBatty (talk) 16:23, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

If two seemingly reliable sources contradict each other, the solution is to mention them both. X says 200 people died, but Y said 300 people. DS (talk) 23:46, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Also note that there are some books available on Google Books which were copied from Wikipedia articles (which is permissible under our copyright license); see Introduction to Insects for an example. But we can't cite those books as sources; that would be circular referencing. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:58, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Special Link to Log

How can I generate a [[Special:Log/xxxx]] type link. It can be any type of log? Say page move log, user creation log, or drafify log, or whatever? I just want to know how I can create a special link to a log. I tried creating by using the number that comes after logid=, but it did not work. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 15:36, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't think you can, Itcouldbepossible as there is no actual page, just an entry as a row in a database. The best that can be done is to use the URL of the log, so while this works to logid 126248838, Special:Log&logid=126248838 this doesn't. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:50, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@Itcouldbepossible and Michael D. Turnbull: you can use Special:redirect/logid to link to a specific log entry. Example:Special:redirect/logid/126248838. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 18:11, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@Victor Schmidt mobil Ooh, thanks, now I can generate a special link for logids. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 05:06, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanking you Michael, because you have atleast tried helping me out. You have helped me previously also. So thanks for that too. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 05:05, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Stanmore College wiki page.

 194.82.83.2 (talk) 16:01, 12 January 2022 (UTC) Sorry for changing the wiki page. Also I'am amazed at how quick you found the problem lmao.

Vandalism is often caught quickly by bots but in this case it just happened that Garnarblarnar was watching the page and noticed the nonsense you had added. Please don't continue making that type of edit as it wastes everyone's time. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:57, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Everybody wiki

Hello -- an article I wrote that was rejected has been uploaded onto Everybody Wiki. I want it to be taken down. How can I do this? DJC12345 (talk) 16:47, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

DJC12345 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You would have to speak to Everybody Wiki, which is completely separate and independent of Wikipedia. When you edit Wikipedia, a notice above the publish changes button reads "By publishing changes, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license." This is how Everybody Wiki publishes things, so I don't think there is too much you can do about it. They aren't the only site that takes Wikipedia content, either. 331dot (talk) 16:53, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Possible editting dispute

I'm new to edit warring and believe I accidentally may have started something. I was hoping someone else could take a look at Lex Fridman in case I've done anything wrong or to help resolve the dispute and provide a different POV. TipsyElephant (talk) 17:34, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@TipsyElephant Hello, If you are in a dispute or edit war or something similar to that I would recommend seeking dispute resolution/mediation, you can find this at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. While I am answering this I will quickly look to see if you have made any mistakes. Hopefully this helps you, Zippy (talk) 19:10, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@TipsyElephant Hi again, it appears that you may be in a content dispute so until it all cools down I would just stay away from that article and those types of edits, I would recommend focusing on copyedits or something similar. If you have any more questions please feel free to ask them on my talk page, Thanks, Zippy (talk) 19:13, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@TipsyElephant Hi, it actually appears that you just removed content without any real reason, just avoid that unless it is incorrect information. Zippy (talk) 19:15, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Actually Zippy, I don't think TipsyElephant did anything wrong here that I can see. It looks like they followed WP:BRD by taking the edit to the Talk Page after the user reverted it. Neither party did anything wrong that I can see (other than the other editor (not Tipsy) being a bit rude in the edit summary). I added my thoughts on the content dispute to the Talk Page discussion. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 20:37, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

delete article

Is there any way to speed up the process of article deletion?

This is the article -- it was rejected as a draft and is now marked for deletion which I think means it is waiting to be deleted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Paul_Chiy

Thank you DJC12345 (talk) 17:35, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@DJC12345: Hello DJC! Could you have possibly gotten it confused for another draft? This one has only been declined (which means it can be improved and then submitted again) and is not marked for deletion. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:37, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I also do not see it as tagged for deletion. If you, as the creator, want it to be gone, then put Db-author at the top inside double curly brackets {{ }}. This will notify an Administrator to deleted it quickly. David notMD (talk) 21:43, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Moving images and tables within the page

I would like to knw how to manipulate image placement with the page and around the text. I am specifically asking in reference to the pineapple article their are two images which probably should be moved down in order for the Pineapple production-2019 table to sit flush along the right side of the page. Or is it possible the arrangement will appear differently in another browser? Regardless I am curious how to manipulate the placement of images and tables within the page specifically in regards to forcing them to adhere to the right side of the page. Thank you for your help. Godspeed18 (talk) 18:09, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@Godspeed18: Welcome to the Teahouse! You are correct that the arrangement may appear differently in another browser, depending on the screen resolution and size of the browser window. To me, it appears that the {{nutritional value}} table is causing the "Pineapple production – 2019" table to be indented. I see that you posted the same question on Talk:Pineapple, which is the best place to collaborate with other editors on how the article should be laid out. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 20:14, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the article Christoforos Krokidis

FYI

 – Created section header. GoingBatty (talk) 20:10, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

"Your submission at Articles for creation: Christoforos Krokidis (January 12)" . Chtistoforos Krokidis has references in wikipedia in Ibanez where his name is pronounced as Christoforos Krokidis and in the article about Vassilis Papakonstantinou , where his name is pronounced Christophoros Krokides. I would like to ask your help 1: should I change the Article Mame as Christophoros Krokides 2: should I continue editing the article as it is using the above 2 references as external links 3: There are several articles and interviews in Greek radio stations and websites but in Greek language. Looking forward for your help regarding the article Geo1953 (talk) 20:07, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@Geo1953: Welcome to the Teahouse! Thank you for your questions about Draft:Christoforos Krokidis.

1. The spelling of his name in the draft should match the spelling in the reliable sources you need to use in the draft.
2. When creating a draft, you should first gather your reliable sources and then summarize what they say in your own words. See Help:Your first article for more information.
3. You may use reliable sources that are published in Greek. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 20:18, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Talk page redirects

Recently, I split my talk page into separate pages to make it more readable, and the current split is User talk:Philosophy2/2022. To ensure that people leave messages there, I have made User talk:Philosophy2 redirect to it. However, any talk page message I get is never on the 2022 page, and always on the redirect page, even though I have specifically put a message on the latter to leave messages on the proper page. I have been on Wikipedia for 3 years, and this is not my first time redirecting my talk page to something else for convenience. Whenever I do so, I always find that the same thing happens: all messages are seen on the redirect page rather than the redirect target. The only reason for this I can think of is that leaving messages on the redirect page will give me a notification, while doing so on the redirect target will not, but this should not be a problem since the watchlist exists, and also because you should assume that anyone who redirects their talk page to something else should have the decency to check the redirect target often for new messages. So why does this happen? Are they using an automated process to leave messages? Philosophy2 (talk) 01:44, 13 January 2022 (UTC) Philosophy2 (talk) 01:44, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Philosophy2. I suggest that you set up standard archiving of your talk page instead of relying on unusual technical solutions. Please see Help:Archiving (plain and simple) for complete instructions. Cullen328 (talk) 02:35, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Although I appreciate the suggestion, you did not actually answer my question. Philosophy2 (talk) 02:56, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@Philosophy2: Ok, to answer your question: those messages are automated like what you suspect, probably through WP:AFCH. Apparently the tool doesn't follow the redirect. Please don't redirect your talk page; it creates more problems than it solves. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 10:53, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Although some such messages are automated, many are not. If a user leaves a message that they wrote themselves without a template, is that still automated? Philosophy2 (talk) 10:56, 13 January 2022 (UTC)\

When I asked about automation, I was not asking about AfC templates such as those you mentioned (I already know that those are automated), but whether they are using a tool that lets them leave the message without actively pressing the edit button on the talk page. If they are, then that would explain things, but if they are not, then that means the users know that they are leaving messages on a redirect, which is what I am confused about. Philosophy2 (talk) 10:58, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

There are lots of tools that leave messages on user talk-pages that get triggered from pages other than that page, either as their main function or as a courtesy note about some other action being performed. DMacks (talk) 13:48, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Writing an Article for the Company I work for

HI. I'm new here. I suspect that writing an article for the company i work for would be against wikipedia guidelines (a conflict of interest), so I'm here to ask how could I get someone ELSE to write the article for the company? Thank you. DahliaSells (talk) 02:12, 13 January 2022 (UTC) DahliaSells (talk) 02:12, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, DahliaSells. Your very first step is to comply with the Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure, which is mandatory and non-negotiable. Then, familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). If, after studying that, you think your company is notable, then you can use the Articles for Creation process to write a draft for review by experienced uninvolved editors. You should also study Your first article. It is very difficult although not impossible for an editor in your position to create an article. Unless you are highly confident that your company meets the notability guideline that I linked to, do not even try. The effort will be a waste of your time. Cullen328 (talk) 02:24, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@DahliaSells: Welcome to the Teahouse! The only formal mechanism Wikipedia has to ask someone ELSE to write the article is Wikipedia:Requested articles. However, there is no guarantee that anyone would ever choose to respond to your request. GoingBatty (talk) 02:34, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Attempt only if you are first certain that there are multiple references that are reliable sources and secondary. You cannot have content based solely on what you know, or what the company says about itself on a webpage or press releases. Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) should help with understanding. David notMD (talk) 04:11, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

on "Requested articles": yes, things languish there for years. You can improve the chances by including a few really good sources to get the potential author going (people are lazy. Finding sources is often harder than writing articles). But there's a depressingly-high chance nothing will ever get written. Elemimele (talk) 18:15, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

On the one hand, I think one of these days we really should have a drive to try to create requested articles. On the other hand, I feel like that would create a perverse incentive for editors to create articles on subjects with very iffy notability. For my part, I think I'm going to look through there and create at least one article tonight. Anyone else feel like joining in? TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 01:18, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

yearbook as a source

Can a picture of a yearbook be used as a source, if the yearbook is not online? 73.167.238.120 (talk) 03:00, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! You might be interested in the discussions at:

• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_99#Can_a_High_School_Yearbook_be_used_as_a_"Reference"?
• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_142#High_school_yearbook_as_a_reliable_source
• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_196#Is_a_yearbook_a_reliable_source_to_confirm_attendance_at_a_school
• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_248#Can_a_high_school_yearbook_be_used_as_a_reliable_source_to_verify_a_notable_person's_attendance_there?

Hope this helps! GoingBatty (talk) 04:04, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

OK, thanks! 73.167.238.120 (talk) 04:39, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

About baseball-related templates

I’m sorry to bother you. I’d like to start a baseball player, but I don’t know the template for introducing the player (e.g.,here). I’m sorry that my English is very simple because I am active in Japan. If possible it would be helpful if you could write it on the Japanese version of the Qbwr8296 conversation page. Thank you very much. Qbwr8296 (talk) 04:26, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't think asking here would work. You may be better off working on this on the Japanese-language Wikipedia. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 04:32, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@Qbwr8296: Welcome to the Teahouse. If you're asking about templates on Japanese Wikipedia, you should ask at their help desk. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:14, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

　　I apologize for the ambiguity of my question. I thought I was asking about the template about baseball players used here, not the template used in the Japanese Wikipedia...Qbwr8296 (talk) 13:14, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@Qbwr8296: Welcome to the Teahouse! I suggest you follow the instructions at Help:Your first article with {{Infobox NPB player}}. You might also find Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Player style advice/Sample biography helpful. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 20:03, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind guidance. I will use it again if I have any questions.User:Qbwr8296 (talk) 00:37, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Diagram dilemma

There exists a diagram of the composition of the departmental council of Nord in this article in French. Not the diagram, but the exact data is also used in fr:Conseil départemental du Nord, which I am translating to form Draft:Departmental Council of Nord.
Here's the problem:
I can't find any citation to show that this political composition is correct, and rather got 2 sites(1 and 2) which showed me a different composition than what was in the diagram. I had no option other than creating another diagram by the parliament diagram tool.

• But since a diagram already exists, do I need to replace it or can I make a new one?
• If I make a new one, wouldn't it be weird that the same page in two different languages have different information?
• The majority party, according to the sites, is UD (30 seats). But the president of the Council, Christian Poiret, is from DVD (10 seats). The fact that this president is from DVD is based on what I read in the French wikipedia page of the council and didn't find any source that said C Poiret was from UD. Also, I assume that they won't choose a president from a party which got 10 seats.
  

What is it that I shall be doing for I never came across such perplexity. Excellenc1 (talk) 04:35, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Screw it, I made File:France Nord Departmental Council 2021.svg, y'all sleeping. Excellenc1 (talk) 14:03, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@Excellenc1: I'm scrolling through past discussions to see if we missed any (yes, I guess we are sleeping). When in doubt, follow the reliable sources, so good job. I do not speak French nor am I familiar with French politics; however, be bold is still a thing on the French Wikipedia! If you're comfortable with it, why not edit over there as well? Also, I'd leave a message on the old image's talk page about what you noticed. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 14:03, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

How to become admin in one of the wikipedia page?

 Justthat23 (talk) 05:29, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

By getting a few years of trouble-free experience in editing Wikipedia, and understanding what is meant by becoming an admin. You'll find some advice at Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship. --David Biddulph (talk) 05:34, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

One thing to note: Wikipedia administration is not page-level. It's all or nothing. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 05:57, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

And another point is that it gives you no special rights over the article (or any article). Admins get no right of veto, and have to follow consensus just like the rest of us. In fact they're at a definite disadvantage, because if they take action in an administrator role (for example by blocking someone who's been editing badly) then they are involved, and generally have to step back from the actual content dispute. Stay as you are, edit free, edit wild, and enjoy minionhood! Elemimele (talk) 18:09, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Being an editor here is the highest position anyone can hold on the project. Every other position is a support function designed to aid editors and the community on the project. Anyone acting is good faith (editor) is a part of the community. Everything is below the community so, congrats, you've arrived at the top! :) --ARoseWolf 18:17, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Removed from search engine indexes

I see many pages that says "Blanked for courtesy", and also says "This page has been removed from search engines' indexes." What is it, and how is it done? Why is it done? I had once seen a user page where it was written the same - "This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.". So why is it done anyway? Itcouldbepossible^Talk 05:49, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

It's done primarily to protect people's privacy or limit off-wiki harassment of people due to their on-wiki actions. See WP:Controlling search engine indexing. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 05:55, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

It is also done for articles in Draft and User space, because they are not ready for the big wide world yet.--Gronk Oz (talk) 07:31, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@Gronk Oz Yes, but editors can go and manually ask web.archive.com to add it to their indexes. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 08:11, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@Jéské Couriano Thanks for the information page, but editors can go and manually ask web.archive.com to add it to their indexes, isn't it? Itcouldbepossible^Talk 08:11, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Music videos as references

Hi. I found that the discography section in Suppasit Jongcheveevat uses Youtube links as sources but the links lead to his music videos rather than secondary sources. Are those links considered acceptable sources in this context?  Just Sayori OK? (have a chat) 08:12, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Generally no, as without a secondary source it's hard to see the music as being WP:DUE. That article is a general disaster with fans/PR people stuffing as much junk as possible in it. It gets cleaned up once in awhile but they are persistent.Slywriter (talk) 12:26, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Ive removed some of the unsourced and will do more later if no else gets to it. I took this article off my watchlist a year ago because months of whack-a-mole got tiring.Slywriter (talk) 12:35, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@Slywriter: Thank you for clarification and cleanup. The same thing also happens in THwiki. Cleaning these stuffs requires a lot of time and patience... -- Just Sayori OK? (have a chat) 12:54, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Image

Please check whether image from the following two links can be uploaded through Common Wizards.

https://www.cricwindow.com/players/india/shami_ahmed.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANiXrucmC6U

Thank you --Michri michri (talk) 09:45, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

The situation is certainly "no" for cricwindow, as at the bottom of the webpage you linked it says "© cricwindow.com All Rights Reserved". The CricketNext Youtube channel is owned by the Network 18 Group and in the absence of a specific license release (which I don't see) you must assume it is their property. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:26, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Michri michri. Generally its better to ask questions related to uploading images to Commons over at Commons. Although there is lots of overlapping between Wikipedia and Commons, there are some important differences; so, questions about uploading files to Commons are usually best asked at c:COM:VPC or c:COM:HD. Having posted that, the content on cricwindow.com appears to be copyrighted (scroll down to the very bottom of the page to see the notice) which means that any images found on it most likely can't be uploaded to Commons without the c:COM:CONSENT of the copyright holder. The YouTube video, on the other hand, actually might be OK because it has been licensed under a Creative Commons license by whomever controls that YouTube channel. Things could be tricky depending upon whether the YouTube channel is only hosting original content or whether it's also hosting content created by others; so, you defintely might want to ask about this at COM:VPC. You have to be careful because if the channel is using content created by third-parties (e.g. in-game video footage, photos) as part of its reports, then that content probably can't be uploaded to Commons without the consent of the original copyright holders who created it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:33, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@Michri michri: I would also suggest looking for photos on Flickr.com ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 13:46, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Kaleeb18, thanks for your suggestion. If you find any image of the player we are speaking of in Flickr except those already used in the article, then please inform me or add to the article. Gracias. Also, kindly tell whether screenshot from the YouTube video can be used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michri michri (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia Library

Not a question, just a comment regarding the Wikipedia Library: awesome!!!! Absolutely awesome! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:46, 13 January 2022 (UTC) Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:46, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

You won't hear any argument from me! I have no idea how it works behind the scenes, but it's an absolute marvel. Now if we could just get Britannica on there. *thonk* TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 01:09, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

How can I create a biography page in Wikipedia for a living being

How can I create a biography page of living being? 103.118.34.30 (talk) 10:59, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Before you start, the first thing is to determine whether your subject meets the criteria for being notable. In particular, are there multiple reliable sources that discuss the subject in depth? The material you put in this entry does not give any indication of the person being notable at all. So start by collecting your sources: books written about this person, national and international media where extensive articles were written about them, television shows about them in detail, etc. Then evaluate them against the criteria at WP:GNG to see whether the article can even be accepted. If so, follow the instructions at Your first article.--Gronk Oz (talk) 11:36, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Register for an account (not required, but useful). If you have a conflict of interest, as in a personal connection to the person, declare a WP:COI on your User page. As advised above, use WP:YFA to initiate a draft. Identify your reliable source references first! Refs that mention a person's accomplishments are not sufficient; need refs with content at length ABOUT the person. If there are not qualifying references, you will be wasting your time and that of Reviewers when your draft gets Declined or Rejected.

Company industry type

When assigning a company "industry", is there a list of possible industries it is possible to use, or can this be used to show when the company is engaged in multiple industries, like Virgin or Google? Occasionalpedestrian (talk) 12:14, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@Occasionalpedestrian, can you please explain it a little bit more? Lightbluerain❄ (Talk | contribs) 18:02, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@Occasionalpedestrian: Are you referring to the |industry= parameter in {{Infobox company}}? There is no list of possible industries to use. You can use multiple industries - see Template:Infobox company#Parameters. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 20:13, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes this explains, thanks @GoingBatty Occasionalpedestrian (talk) 09:50, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

first page instantly deleted

Hi all, I'm new here and still learning how to work on Wikipedia. Plastometrex is a company that invented a novel way of mechanical testing of metals that didn't exist before. Ultimately, I want to make a page on the testing technique itself, though for practice it seemed reasonable to start with the company page. Though it got instantly marked for deletion. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastometer) Note that I work for this company as well, which I specified in my user profile. I thought I followed the guidelines, though if this is not the case I apologise and will try to improve in the future. In this case, why is the company page deemed not important enough? Since there are other company pages of all types of companies, small and big, active and foreclosed. Just so I can understand and not make the same mistake twice. At this point, I don't dare to start working on the page on the new technology since I'm unsure why the company page got deleted. Thank you and keep up the great work! Vilnix (talk) 14:11, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Firstly, you can contest the speedy deletion. There are instructions on the template for how to do this (look in the box at the top of the article, and do this quick-like before it gets deleted). For the article to have any long-term chance of survival, you will need to demonstrate that the company is notable in Wikipedia terms. Basically, you will have to find sources that write about it independent of the company itself. Press-releases and managed publicity won't do much good, but if you can find someone writing about Plastometrex and its products who wasn't paid to do so, and has no connection with the company, there is hope! Secondly, thank you for declaring your relationship to the company; do make sure you continue to conform to WP:COI and WP:PAID. Many editors are extremely sceptical about the work of paid and conflicted editors, so do expect resistance. The best thing to do is provide really good sources, stay calm and polite, and use the article's talk page rather than making edits directly, now that the article exists. Elemimele (talk) 14:19, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Hey Elemimele, Thanks for the info. By now I also started to understand a lot of things about my ignorance and how to do things better. The company page will be a long time before it's notable so won't happen. But I would like to make a page on the technology that was developed. Though I will take way more time for this and try to do it following the Wiki-ethics as much as possible! :) Thanks for the great work and good luck there! --Vilnix (talk) 15:21, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Courtesy: Draft now at Draft:Plastometrex, and this may be WP:TOOSOON to be noteworthy. Given it is still a draft, you may continue to work on it directly (if you REALLY think there are valid references). Only after it is an article are paid editors advised to avoid direct edits. David notMD (talk) 16:06, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

You've a problem, in that there is an existing article Plastometer with same name but different function from what Plastometrex has named its device. David notMD (talk) 16:08, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

That article needs a rewrite or a deletion. Actually looks like deletion as its copyvio.Slywriter (talk)

To explain the copyright situation: WP has a very generous copyright (anyone can use text from here, even for-profit, provided they acknowledge the source), but a very strict attitude to enforcing others' copyrights. Even if you work for Plastometrex, even if you're the managing director and own the copyright for its brochures and publicity information, it will be extremely difficult to use it here. The best thing is to summarise sources in your own, new words. David notMD is probably right about WP:TOOSOON; it's better to wait until a good amount of stuff has been written about a subject before trying to write the article. Failure to get an article now does not mean there will never be an article. The same applies to the technique. For example, if the technique is new now, but next year someone unrelated to the company writes a technical review article where they compare this new method with existing methods, then that article constitutes an independent secondary source that demonstrates the technique has made an impression on the professional community. At that stage, you have a reference to work with. A couple of sources like that, and an article becomes a real possibility. There is no shame in admitting it's too-soon and deciding to wait. Elemimele (talk) 18:04, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@Vilnix: Also see WP:YOURFIRSTARTICLE. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:59, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you all for the help and clarifications! I learned so much in the last 12 hours since Wiki has such a great community (always thought so but nice to see it in action myself). As a first note, I think you're all correct that it is too soon for the company itself to be notable, hopefully at some point we'll get there but for now, it's not in the cards. Thanks as well to @David notMD: for the clarification between a paid editor editing a draft vs a live article, I will definitely keep that in mind! As for the Plastometer page, this is indeed something I noticed and was going to ask for advice on how to approach that. Though The technique itself is called "Profilomitry based Indentation plastometry", while the device is called a Plastometer. So if an article is made it will be on the technique, not on the device. Lastly @TimTempleton:, Thanks as well for this coherent clarification. I will for sure keep it in mind if/when I work on the article on the technique. But I wanted to ask, just so I know. We have quite some published articles done by academics linked to our company, which I get is not useful as a reference. But what about publications our scientists did in collaboration with independent researchers who are linked to universities leading in the field? Since those articles have both an independent party as well as dependant ones linked to them, I'm unsure if that would be acceptable. Again, thank you all for the help! --Vilnix (talk) 10:55, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Having a section of a list of a few sci journal articles in which the device was used as a method could be valid information, but would not be considered as contributing to notability. Referencing an article comparing methods would be better. David notMD (talk) 11:10, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH And Sources

Does WP:SYNTH forbid the use of sources that don't mention the article's exact keyword, but are still very clearly about the same topic? For example: let's say I'm editing Mulled Wine and my source only refers to them as "hot spiced alcoholic beverages" - is that acceptable? Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 14:24, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

For context, please be aware that this request comes after numerous editors have warned this single-purpose account about WP:OR and WP:SYNTH (as well as WP:IDHT) over and over again at gender-related articles such as Talk:Male privilege and Talk:Gynocentrism#Reversion_of_edits. We are not at all dealing with cases that equate to "mulled wine" versus "hot spiced alcoholic beverages". Generalrelative (talk) 14:56, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for poisoning the well. I was establishing a baseline using neutral examples before asking about the spesifics because I wanted an unbiased response on general policies. Why are you following me from article to article and inviting your friends along? I don't think there's any rule about having interests. if there were, we would not have wiki projects. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 15:17, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@TiggyTheTerrible We work by consensus here. So, if you tried to use a source that only ever spoke about "hot spiced alcoholic beverages", you could be in danger of trying to use a source that is actually about Hot toddy in an article about Mulled wine, whilst not realising your error. If the source doesn't refer explicitly to the subject, then drawing conclusions about it (see WP:SYNTH) so that you can use it would be folly. That edit would soon be removed as you would have applied the wrong conclusions about the wrong topic, and it would appear that you are failing to realise this, whilst drawing a lot of editor time to point this out to you. Maybe go slower and more carefully, please, to avoid too much disruption. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:22, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Nick. Thank you for helping me. That is a good illustration, and I trust you on it. My spesific question is about the Gynocentrism article. They keep telling me I'm breaking SYNTH rules by giving examples such as this one on the page, or by citing studies showing a pattern of systemic favouritism towards women in the courts. Do you think either of those are valid examples, or do they fall under your hot toddy example? I would value a second opinion on this. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 15:39, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@TiggyTheTerrible Unfortunately, I have to agree that this edit of yours is indeed WP:SYNTH and I would have removed it. Now, I don't want to get drawn into a content dispute here, but your edit stated "Several studies show that special leniency is given to women over men in the justice system[ref], and that criminal acts are judged less harshly when committed by a women[ref]. In the UK Judges have been instructed to "be more lenient to woman criminals"."[ref]]

• The first ref's abstract said Several research studies have found that gender affects the sentencing process in ways that are advantageous to female offenders,, but the same abstract stated Contrary to existing literature, results found gender did not have an effect on the decision to incarcerate, the sentence length, or the fine amount. So you've cherry picked words to support what you want to say without balancing it with other studies (the one you've actually cited which shows the opposite.) Did you spend time tracing the actual article or just work from an abstract?
• The second ref seems so way off topic that it doesn't in any shape or form support the statement you added. That isn't SYNTH, it's just plain wrong.
• The third statement is only indirectly supported by the ref. You cited and quoted the Telegraph's headline as to what judges were told, (often designed to draw the eye, but not be factually accurate). You did not use the actual quotation given within the newspaper which I interpret as being the words given to the judges, namely: "bear these matters in mind".

Thinking off the top of my head, and bearing in mind it could even be off-topic for the whole article, it might have been OK for the third part of your edit to have stated something along the lines of "In 2010, UK judges were given official guidance when sentencing women which highlighted that they often have extra burdens such as parenting responsibilities, educational or mental health handicaps to contend with. They were advised to ""bear these matters in mind".[ref] It may be that such guidance was rescinded in the next update - did you do any research to see if it is still there?

Reading only abstracts and interpreting newspaper headlines has to be done with extreme care, especially when there could be just as many other such sources which someone could use to present the opposite idea. Never quote a newspaper headline without looking at what was said in the article. Time taken to consider the implications of complex sources on complex issues is time well spent here. Rushing in to present a POV view from a handful of selected or inappropriate sources just tends to waste a lot of people's time. Do you think you can be more careful and balanced in this regard?

(Final Caveat: I've not read the article nor am familiar with the issues involved. If necessary, my responses can be linked to or copied (without timestamps) to any talk page if its helpful elsewhere to further any discussions). Nick Moyes (talk) 16:24, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry about any mistakes @Nick Moyes:. Since they revert everything I try to do, I may have been getting sloppy. I have looked into the prisons thing, and everything I have found suggests that they are pushing to keep as many women out of prison as possible. Regarding the rural study, I was only citing the part that states that there are many studies showing the bias exists. I didn't think it was relevant what the study itself found as I was quoting broader statistics. Should I try to add your suggested edit? Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 21:12, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Your recent additions to Gynocentrism have been reverted by two editors, and the three of you have entered into a discussion on the Talk page of the article. You and same editors and others also verging on edit warring at Male privilege, where there are also lengthy discussions at the Talk page. Not clear if the discussions have reached the futility level. David notMD (talk) 16:19, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@David notMD: I've mostly given up on the Male Privilege article, but I would be very interested to know what you guys think of their vote to remove words like "theory" from the page in order to reclassify it as a "phenomena" - which is a very, very odd choice considering that more or less all of the sources are sociological theory. Indeed, when I tried to cite sources that explicitly call it a theory they shot me down. I realise consensus is powerful on here, but can it really take a page filled with nothing but sociological theory and rebrand it like that - even in the face of new citations? Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 21:12, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@TiggyTheTerrible Forgive me - I'm afraid I simply do not have sufficient spare time to delve deeper into this specific issue. All I can do is offer the advice not to be confrontational in any discussions, but to be cooperative and collaborative. Everyone wants to see articles improved here, so it's about discussion and gentle persuasion. If you genuinely feel you have a more encyclopaedic 'neutral' point of view to offer (and aren't simply pushing something you know goes against general common knowledge), then Wikipedia:Dispute resolution may offer further advice. But working with, not against, other editors is the way to go. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:45, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: I don't think anyone is unbiased, but I have read through the theory behind that page and I do think it is a very one-sided take that does not hold up well. I will have a think about the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. I was trying very hard not to go that route, and - as much as others would likely disagree - I have tried to work with them. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 21:49, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Why does Wikipedia beg for donations?

I mean, i usually just click the "I already donated" button (if there is one) and just tell it to leave me alone. I do believe college students just ignore it cause their student loan is probably in shambles. If i would donate money, it would all go to here: https://www.patreon.com/vress 151.188.213.248 (talk) 14:41, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Are you implying that you are still seeing the donation banners? Because last I've been told they have been removed and IPs should no longer be seeing them. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:48, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

• To answer the question in the title: the Wikimedia Foundation (that runs Wikipedia in many languages and a few sister projects like Commons etc., does not run ads, and they need some money to keep the websites running. However, they raise much more money than they need for that basic need, and many in the community think that (1) they spend too much on fluff and (2) the fundraising is unnecessarily aggressive. See for instance this article.

You are welcome to donate to whatever cause you may think proper. Korean cartoons of shark-like creatures may be one such cause. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 16:49, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Undoing edits

I have seen unconstructive edits that take a while to "backspace out", is there a quick way to get rid of them? UsernameAbUuser (talk) 14:48, 13 January 2022 (UTC) UsernameAbUuser (talk) 14:48, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@UsernameAbUuser Welcome to the Teahouse. I have no idea what you mean by the idiom "backspace out" - do you simply mean "removed" or "reverted"? If so, yes, there is a quick way. If a bad edit is the latest to be made to an article (that perhaps you have been alerted to via your Watchlist), in desktop mode, simply go to the View History tab and look at the rows of individual edits. The most recent is on the top. You can choose to view the particular change that was made and click 'Undo' against it if it was a bad one. Just make sure you undo the right edit!

In the same way I have just reverted one of your edits to Conker the squirrel because we don't go around simply making changes to articles to match our local/national preference to spelling. Both the ones you 'copyedited' were quite valid spellings - especially as its the product of a UK company, so UK spelling would be better than US spelling. You can read more about this at WP:ENGVAR. I hope you enjoy coming to grips with editing Wikipedia - just ask if you need further advice or information. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 15:05, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I think they do mean removing unconstructive edits. Based on what they say it appears they do it manually and remove each bit of vandalism (or unconstructive editing) by hand. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:09, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

How to get my Wikipedia page published

I'm unsure how to get my Wikipedia page published and please need some help and guidance EmilyEmergo (talk) 15:28, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

EmilyEmergo Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You have already submitted it once and it was declined. I gather that you work for the company that you wrote about, please read your user talk page for information on required formal disclosures you must make. I think that, like many in your position, you have a common misunderstanding as to what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia is not a place for companies to tell the world about themselves and what they do. This is an encyclopedia, where an article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, and not based on any primary source materials, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable company. Your draft is exclusively sourced to your company website. We want to know what others say about the company, not what it says about itself. If you can set aside everything you know about the company, you are welcome to rewrite it to summarize independent sources. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 15:38, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

You have not yet responded to the request that you clarify the paid-or-not-paid connection to the company in question. As noted above, in the Declined draft, all of the references are to the company website, meaning that none of them estabishing notability in the Wikipedia sense of the word. David notMD (talk) 16:34, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

New draft article

Hallo, I just published an article on AEquacy in the User:Giovanna D'Alessio page. How can I have it reviewed so that the article can (if appropriate) be published on wikipedia? Thanks! Giovanna D'Alessio (talk) 17:09, 13 January 2022 (UTC) Giovanna D'Alessio (talk) 17:09, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@Giovanna D'Alessio: Welcome to the Teahouse. Before thinking about getting it reviewed by an AfC reviewer, you're going to need to address the speedy deletion criterion, which is that it is only done to promote the subject. Doing a quick skim I agree with such an assessment; ad copy has no place on Wikipedia as a part of prose. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:22, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Note: The page has been deleated per WP:G11. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:15, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Guggenheim Astor and macy

What was factually incorrect and not constructive about my edit? All 3 men are on the record of opposing the creation of the Federal Reserve along with multiple Presidents and all 3 died on the Titanic, coincidentally. 45yellowb (talk) 17:58, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@45yellowb: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse, the reason your edits were reverted and considered unconstructive edits is because the information you put in was not backed by reliable sources and that is considered original research. Hope this helps you understand and happy editing! ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 18:03, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Brand new editor has done this on several articles and the edits have all been reverted. Editor has been warned on his/her talk page. WP:NOTHERE and close to a block. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:30, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

So far, every one of your edits has been reverted. Learn why. David notMD (talk) 23:35, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I know what the correct information is, but I don’t know how to attach sources

Please help me, I was not making edits in good faith it’s just that I simply am unaware of how to, you know, attach information. I am barely using wikieditor from my iPad. Shreemantsaurabhpant (talk) 18:27, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@Shreemantsaurabhpant: Please have a look at Referencing for beginners. If you'd like, you can provide links/titles to the sources on the article talk page, and other editors can add them if they are appropriate. That way you'll also be able to see how it's done by looking at their edits. ––FormalDude talk 18:35, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

To add to above, Shreemantsaurabhpant, in the area you've chosen to edit, the idea that you "know the correct information" and by extension, the wikipedia articles are wrong, isn't going to make your editing experience pleasant. As you can see from the references there, intelligent people have read through scholarly resources and authored those articles. Before you go about "correcting" that, do please take some time to examine the validity of both your information and that present in the articles. hemantha (brief) 04:58, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

A list in Draftspace

Hello! In August 2021 an article consisting of a list that I have created following the models of others on Wikipedia, have been moved to Draftspace because references would be missing. Here is the article-list: Draft:State Public Libraries (Spain). Today I have been warned that if I do not make changes to the list it will be deleted, but the problem is that it is a simple list and when I created it I already added some references to the Spanish government agencies where they can be consulted (it is a list of the 53 state libraries that exist in Spain managed by the Ministry of Culture). What can I do to return it to the main space? I don't know what other references to put for a list of 53 items. Thanks in advance for your help.--MJSB73MP (talk) 18:53, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi @MJSB73MP (and courtesy ping Hatchens, who moved it to draftspace)! The list appears to be on a valid topic, so that's a good start. Some of the columns should be adjusted, though. Remove the Wikidata item column, as it's not acceptable on English Wikipedia to link to Wikidata from an article. Also change the header of the "Tag" column to "Name", remove the :es prefix in the address column and translate as needed, combine the postal code/address/location columns, remove the see also section if it's not going to link anywhere, and fix the weird punctuation at the end of the lead.

If you do those things, this should be ready to move back to article space. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:31, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Final approval

Hi friends, I made a draft for an Iranian actress, but how can I get the final release? Zahra meygoli Karestoonegoli (talk) 19:28, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@Karestoonegoli, Draft:Zahra_meygoli does not currently have any references that establish the subject's notability. Please read WP:NACTRESS and add suitable references (it's okay if they're in Persian), or the draft will be declined. If no such references exist, then the subject is not yet ready to have a Wikipedia article.

Once you've done that, then add {{subst:submit}} to the page and it will be reviewed. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:36, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Isizulu

isizulu 41.115.22.68 (talk) 19:34, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome to the Teahouse! Do you have a question? If so, please be clear what your question is so that we can help you. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:37, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Don’t think this helps but isizulu is a Southern Bantu language of the Nguni branch spoken in Southern Africa according to Zulu language. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 20:21, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

You are perhaps looking for zu:Ikhasi_Elikhulu? --ColinFine (talk) 21:08, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

article declined

FYI

 – Turned heading into actual heading. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:55, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Roadrunner Pizza

hi my article was decline because it was "promoting a business or person" despite it just being me writing an article for a business that my grandfather established can anyone help me undo this? Gykiwyl (talk) 20:53, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@Gykiwyl: Welcome to the Teahouse. Your article has been rejected and is marked for speedy deletion due to its promotional nature, which isn't what Wikipedia is for. I suggest you find another site, like Instagram or Facebook to advertise. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:58, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@Gykiwyl: In order for a Wikipedia article to be created about a business, the editor would need to demonstrate that the business meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion - see Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). The primary criteria is that a company "is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Your draft does not contain any sources. Hope this helps! GoingBatty (talk) 21:04, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Gykiwyl, please understand that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. --ColinFine (talk) 21:09, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Am I allowed?

Hi, since this is a public IP, can I make an account, somebody was vandalizing or something in this IP. So answer please. 169.241.60.254 (talk) 21:06, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. Indeed, you may create an account, and if you use it you will not see messages aimed at other users (the warnings on User talk:169.241.60.254 are from 2016, so you don't need to worry about them). See Creating an account. --ColinFine (talk) 21:12, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

How to have a page created about myself

I am a public figure/influencer that has quickly grown over 2021. I am hoping to have a Wikipedia page created about me, In order to help verification on social medias. Dozens of scam accounts are created on every platform, trying to take advantage of my reputation to steal from people. https://YouTube.com/tomcrown https://twitter.com/Tomcrowncrypto Tom Crown (talk) 00:36, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Tom Crown, and thanks for stopping by the Teahouse. As other editors will note, we write articles, not pages. The distinction that comes with this is that the article's subject(s) must meet notability guidelines. These guidelines exist because Wikipedia's aim is to document subjects through reliable, independent sources, and we therefore generally use the presence of said sources as a litmus test for notability. In your case, that would include WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, and WP:ARTIST. We don't create articles for the sake of their subject(s), and any such benefit is entirely incidental. I would also recommend seeing WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY; we heavily discourage writing about oneself or about something which otherwise poses a conflict of interest. Based on a cursory glance, I highly doubt you will be able to have an article created about you without it being subsequently deleted. The issue that poses to you is that, should you become notable enough to warrant an article in the future, having a previous deletion brings that hypothetical new article under much greater scrutiny. I'll end this by noting that self-promotion is not allowed on your user page. Update: the concern about self-promotion seems to have been taken care of by Fastily. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 00:49, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

@Tom Crown: Welcome to the Teahouse. You may have misunderstood what Wikipedia is for: it is to summarise what reliable sources say about a subject, not a means of verification. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:49, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, my apologies for creating a page.. I thought it was my personal user profile I was editing. I suppose This means the answer is, I don’t.. I wait for someone to write about me? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom Crown (talk • contribs) 01:11, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

@Tom Crown: indeed, basically if people see you're notable, they would be able to work on the page themself and keep it neutral due to their lack of personal or professional connections to you. happy editing!  melecie  t - 01:18, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Sources

I've been submitting a draft for an article, and it has been rejected twice. Granted, it is my first ever article, but it has been rejected on the grounds that there are not enough secondary sources. After looking at the rules, I believe it was you needed three sources? And I can't tell if the citations are primary or not. Is a source recounting events that happened a secondary or primary source? For example, one of the articles details what happened at an event with the main focus of the article being the group that my article is about. Is that a primary source, or a secondary one? ThatNameWasAlreadyTaken (talk) 01:30, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

@ThatNameWasAlreadyTaken: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse, here is what a primary sorce is and here is what a secondary source is. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 01:33, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

ThatNameWasAlreadyTaken, do the references for Draft:Pigmice "show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about [Pigmice] in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of [Pigmice]"? If so, then perhaps you could (here, in the "Teahouse") specify the best three among them. -- Hoary (talk) 02:22, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

ThatNameWasAlreadyTaken, although what is done is done moving forward you should read WP:YFA before attempting an arduous feat such as article creation. On sources, which i pride myself in being very decent at, I’d explain how sources work in the simplest manner I can, First of all, WP:THREE isn’t a policy but is however generally accepted as an “unwritten constitution” to be the conventional “bare minimum”. To your other question, The real difference between a primary source and a secondary source is that in a primary source, it is usually too connected or can be influenced by the subject, an example would be a personal website, Facebook page, (all social media's) an IMDd entry, press releases, whereas a secondary source is a source that analyses primary sources, and the author gives their own unique interpretation. A quintessential example of a secondary sources can be a notable digital news media or a website that has a reputation for fact checking and a clear presence of editorial oversight of which the subject being discussed has no influence on the output published by the author. In summary, recognizing and optimizing reliable sources is not easily achievable i studied under Barkeep49 and read WP:RS daily for months is the reason I’m decent at analyzing it. Sourcing correctly is something you’d learn overtime and no one can teach you sourcing with just one reply. I wouldn’t want to bore you, so in your spare time you can take a look at WP:RS. if you have further questions please feel free to ask here or ask me directly here about anything sourcing and I’d be willing to answer or expatiate further on any questions you may have on sourcing. Celestina007 (talk) 02:43, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

• @ThatNameWasAlreadyTaken: To clarify: what is needed is not three sources, but three good sources, with a fairly complex definition of "good". Good sources are stuff like this one and that one: they are journalist pieces (i.e. "secondary" sources), where presumably the journalist chose the editorial angle and did some investigation that goes a bit beyond formatting an interview (= independent), for a journal with a presumably decent editorial process (= reliable), and they deal with the subject at length (= in-depth). The triple prong (independent, reliable, in-depth) is failed by that other piece which, although independent and reliable, is not in-depth (there, Pigmice is mentioned for a couple of paragraphs that only give a score result and quotes from a team member).

Even experienced editors may disagree about how exactly to apply those criteria in certain cases. Some people request a minimum of three sources of impeccable quality, while others are OK with two good sources plus a few mediocre ones. I would very much like to hear whether Slywriter, reviewer for the last decline, objects to the quality or to the number of sources in the current draft, because as it stands I think it has a decent chance to be accepted if it was resubmitted. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 14:05, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

21 sources. Of those 15 are not usable to establish notability as self sourced. East PDX news is a single author blog, which leads me to question his use again when published as part of Pamplin group. Public School review doesn't add to notability. Resolution of the Legislature is an interesting one, but also a primary document so no indication secondary sources considered it notable. After that I believe all that remains is local news coverage. Oh and Bloomberg is just a press release. As always WP:BOLD publishing is an option for any editor, but the draft does not show notability beyond local attention.Slywriter (talk) 14:28, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

@ThatNameWasAlreadyTaken: Welcome to the Teahouse! Phrases such as "still going strong today" and "The team is still thriving" seem to be promotional, and are not supported by sources or the "Team statistics" table. GoingBatty (talk) 16:03, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Wendy Choo WWE

Hey, so could you make an article about wwe superstar,Wendy Choo? Or help me make one? I've only made small changes to articles, but I looked, and I don't know how to make one. Thanks! Signed, Livvy 71.31.209.179 (talk) 03:12, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Try out Articles for Creation. wizzito | say hello! 03:16, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

See List of WWE Raw Women's Champions for connection to existing articles about women wrestlers. Use these as models. Essential - before you start - is to find similar references about Wendy Choo. Given that this is a brand new persona for her, previously appearing in the ring as Karen Q and Mei Ying, it may be too soon. David notMD (talk) 11:00, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi there! Creating a new article is one of the hardest things to do on Wikipedia, especially if you've never edited Wikipedia before. To learn how to edit, you could view Help:Introduction and The Wikipedia Adventure. I suggest then spending a significant amount of time editing existing articles to hone your skills. Once you're ready to create an article, you would gather independent reliable sources that have provided significant coverage of Choo, and determine whether she meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, called "notability". If so, you could follow the instructions at Help:Your first article, and be prepared for a process that may include months of waiting, rejections, and rewrites, before an article is created. Editors who are members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling may be able to provide assistance. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 16:05, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Establishing notability through obituaries

I noticed the creation of Carroll Timothy O'Meara because Conan the Barbarian is on my watch list. And this edit caught my eye. While O'Meara does indeed have dozens of credits according to IMDB, there seems scant news or other coverage. The biographical page about him is based entirely on obituaries. I am normally an inclusionist, but this doesn't quite sit right with me. Cheers, --SVTCobra 06:35, 14 January 2022 (UTC) SVTCobra 06:35, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, SVTCobra. There are two types of obituaries. The first type is written by family members or close friends, and is submitted to the newspaper with a payment. This type of obituary does not establish notability. The second type of obituary is written by a newspaper staffer with editorial control and is often 90% completed before the person dies, because this is a notable person who is "getting up in years". This type of obituary does contribute to notability. In this case, it is asserted that this person was nominated for an Academy Award and won a Primetime Emmy Award. Unless these claims are demonstrably false, I would assume that additional reliable sources could be found in the archives of Hollywood sources of that era. Cullen328 (talk) 08:01, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello SVTCobra & Cullen328! A quick check shows they definitely won an Emmy, for their work on The Thorn Birds. It's listed at the official Emmy site, so I've added it as a supporting reference to that bio page. Helps to diversify the references at least. Take care, LooksGreatInATurtleNeck (talk) 12:25, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Intermediate editing

There is a user that insists on using intermediate edits when editing an article, but is currently leaving unencyclopedic content, particularly blank tables, in order to do so. I have pointed out that this is disruptive editing and that this could be very easily resolved via Sandbox, but the person insists on not using it. I do not believe the person has bad intentions, and the blank tables will probably be filled before I get a response, but for future instances, how should I treat this situation? And what guidelines can I cite when addressing this, besides from the fact that it is unencyclopedic? Are there specific guidelines that addresses this issue? Or am I mistaken about this, and is an intermediate edit with nothing unencyclopedic except blank tables acceptable? TheGEICOgecko (talk) 07:08, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

What do you mean by "intermediate edit", TheGEICOgecko? -- Hoary (talk) 08:40, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Any examples of time gap between the editor creating an empty table and then filling it with content? David notMD (talk) 11:01, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Hoary I mean incremental edits that are in itself unencyclopedic or otherwise unacceptable, but in an attempt to make acceptable revisions to the article. In this example, the person added empty tables, and later filled them in

David notMD, this is an example of what I'm referring to. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 15:39, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Looking at the article, it appears that there are still blank tables, however, I can not fix this, to abide by the 3 revert policy. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 15:43, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

@TheGEICOgecko: Welcome to the Teahouse! It might be better for readers if the editor was to draft the tables in a sandbox and then copy them into the article. However, when an editor is using the {{in use}} template, I suggest temporarily giving them a few hours to fill the tables. If they leave the blank tables for hours, then another option would be to comment them out, so they're not visible to readers but the editor can quickly restore them when they resume editing. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 16:14, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Siberian nuthatch French article

Can someone take a look if the Siberian nuthatch french version article's sources are fine to use especially for GAN after translating all the content and cite it? Because some of it are Russian citations. 1.37.86.81 (talk) 07:28, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Are you asking somebody to check that the Russian sources cited within Sittelle de Sibérie say what they are presented in that article as saying (with an eye to englishing this French-language material)? If so, you'll first need to find somebody who is capable of reading ornithological material in both French and Russian, and then you'll have to persuade them to spend quite some time on the matter. The Teahouse is not the best place to ask. You might try Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds. But if I misinterpret your request, please rephrase it. -- Hoary (talk) 08:48, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I need help with completing my project: "Eghosa Anglican Grammar School"

 Courtesy link: Draft:Eghosa Anglican Grammar School
Hello, I am currently working on a project titled: "Eghosa Anglican Grammar School" I need help with completing it so that it can be approved for publication. Thanks

I got this notice from one of the Admins "This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject."

I look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience. Thank you. Sunnycash (talk) 07:48, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Sunnycash. In general, grammar schools are considered notable if reliable, independent sources describe them, in detail, as of unusual historic or architectural significance. Is that the case with this particular school? Cullen328 (talk) 08:11, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Despite the name, this appears to be equivalent to a high school, i.e., pre-college level. In many countries, "grammar school" is young children. David notMD (talk) 15:01, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

@Sunnycash: Note that the editor who declined your draft is not an admin. Editors do not have to be admins in order to be an Articles for Creation reviewer. I suggest you trim the list of "Notable alumni" to be only those with a Wikipedia article or an independent reliable source. I also suggest removing the "List of Principals" - interested readers can go to the school's website for these details. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 16:28, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Why is wikipedia so old school?

Not to like offend anyone but wikipedia is quite old school like it looks like it was made on a Windows 97 computer and they just never changed it? Logan5671111 (talk) 08:18, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I understand (and appreciate) your desire not to offend, Logan5671111, but I don't know what you do want to do here. Are you suggesting something, or asking a question? If the former, what do you suggest; and if the latter, what's the question? -- Hoary (talk) 08:50, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Logan5671111 Please understand that Wikipedia is a global website used by people around the world, including in places with less expensive(and less powerful) computers, as well as slower internet service. As such the website needs to be accessible to all from a technological standpoint. Furthermore, major changes to the layout and appearance of Wikipedia generally requires a consensus among editors. Because of this, it is difficult to change the layout of, for example, the Main Page. You could probably get agreement for the basic idea that it needs to be changed, but the disagreement is on what to change it to. All of this said, please offer any specific suggestions you have for improvements at the Village Pump. 331dot (talk) 08:57, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

@Logan5671111: 331dot’s considerations of accessibility are correct (see for instance that article from a website that purposefully uses no style sheet whatsoever). There is also the fact that bells-and-whistle libraries come with tracking software which we do not want.

I have however a strong hunch that the real reason for the old-school design is that unlike any other site in the list of most visited websites, there is a large subset of users (the Wikipedia editors) that have an unusually large say over questions of governance. Ultimately the Wikimedia Foundation decides everything, but they cannot alienate the community too much. A redesign would anger people; any change is fought when first introduced, especially one that will create concrete problems ("button X used to be here, I lost it!") and only solve fuzzy problems ("is it prettier / more functional now? meh, I dunno").

Consider, for instance, Wikipedia:Skin - a few customized CSS classes for logged-in users (so, already people who know a bit how to change the settings). Those skins are extremely similar to each other, and differences are minor. Yet a very large amount of electronic ink has been devoted to whether some skin or some other should become the default, whether dropping support for one of the skins is acceptable, etc. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 14:25, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia article publishing

 Hamish Gary (talk) 08:46, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello all, Can anyone help me out here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamish Gary (talk • contribs) 08:46, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Help you out where, Hamish Gary? -- Hoary (talk) 08:52, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Do you mean help with your draft Draft:Munir Mawari? David notMD (talk) 11:15, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

@Hamish Gary like David notMD said, do you need help with your draft? Zippy (talk) 16:18, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Mentoring

Hello there.

I'm looking for a mentor to help me perfect my article on 'Preston Likely'.

I would appreciate a little help, if that's okay.

Many thanks, Polly Kiersten. Polly Kiersten (talk) 10:22, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

You have created two very promotional articles, one about Preston Likely who I am not sure passes the criteria at WP:ARTIST and Yellow Day Hull which seems to be advertising a local event do you have a conflict of interest here I wonder? Theroadislong (talk) 10:55, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Polly Kiersten. You can try Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user/Adoptee's Area, but maybe another thing to do would be to spend sometime trying to improve existing articles instead of trying to create new ones. Then, when you’ve gained a better understanding of relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, you might find it easier to create new articles. The WP:GUILD can be a good way to learn how to edit. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:31, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Epecially because it is about a living person, all content needs referencing. Much about Lively is not referenced, and is at risk for being cut. David notMD (talk) 14:57, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

@Polly Kiersten: Welcome to the Teahouse! I see you uploaded File:Yellow_Day_badge.jpg as your "own work". Did you create this logo? If you have any conflict of interest with Likely or Yellow Day, you must declare it on your user page. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 16:45, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Dirty attack on Wikipedia

Can you please revert all changes made in 2021 on the following page https://ro.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ioan_Rus_(senator) It looks like somebody, maybe the owner himself change the page in order to accuse me and ask me for more money after I was scammed in 2021 by his friends/clients. :( Please help and revert that page at original Jan 2021 form Princessl87 (talk) 10:38, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Princessl87 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. We can only help you with issues on the English Wikipedia; you will need to use whatever forum that language version of Wikipedia has to request assistance. Each language version is a separate project. 331dot (talk) 10:43, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

This is the help desk for the English language Wikipedia. If there are problems on the Romanian Wikipedia, you'll need to ask there. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:44, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

_{But this isn't the help desk... it's the Teahouse. The help desk is over there.} ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:25, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

But the closest equivalent of the Teahouse on ro-wiki appears to be ro:Wikipedia:Cafenea (though it is actually linked to WP:Village pump). --ColinFine (talk) 17:08, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Film page got declined

Hello, just now my film page got declined because of reliable sources. It is an upcoming fIlm, there is no newspaper article published about it now. Which reliable source should I give ?  Pradnyeshparulekar (talk) 11:17, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

You have more--or-less answered your own question. Since "there is no newspaper article published about it" it dies ^{Think he means does ― Kaleeb18Talk_Caleb 14:19, 14 January 2022 (UTC)} not meet the notability criteria specified at WP:FILM. There are thousands of films produced each year across the globe and thus Wikipedia has to be selective in what it covers with an article. For upcoming films, it is very likely to be WP:TOOSOON for a worthwhile article to be made. You can keep your draft and see whether this particular film becomes WP:notable later after people have had the chance to see it and publish their reviews. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:34, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

This is old news but...

Why did Asher revert this edit of mine, on an old IP? It was anything but vandalism, why did he even call it that? 2A01:36D:1200:4D41:D9E6:E7D4:9D38:6C3C (talk) 11:29, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately some editors have itchy mouse fingers and can be quick to judge any edits made by an IP as WP:VANDAL. Often this is because they are using automated tools that allow them to make lots of edits quickly and these tools only generate commonly used boilerplate types of edit summaries. Perhaps that’s what happened in your case. Anyway, I wouldn’t worry about it too much because any experienced editor familiar with WP:VANDNOT would’t try and seek sanction against you for such an edit.

Now, I’m going to add that your subsequents edits on that same article probably weren’t the wisest way to try and implement the change you wanted to make and could’ve been seen as edit warring. You probably should avoid that in the future no matter how correct you believe you are. Editors can be blocked for edit warring just as easily as they can be blocked for vandalism. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:42, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It certainly wasn't vandalism but it was an example of WP:OVERLINK. Just because there is an article on the United States, not every instance of the word "American" needs to link to it. Readers about Miller Brewing can see from the sentence that it is in in Milwaukee, Wisconsin (both linked as specific places); they are unlikely to find a link to the US helpful. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:46, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Ironically this IP has been blocked for disruptive editing. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:31, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Flickr image

Can I still upload the image on wikimedia, even thou the image's license wasnt change, but the author said that I can use it for wikipedia purpose? 2001:4455:1A9:E100:A5F2:D612:E584:F29B (talk) 13:05, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

No. Permission to use just for Wikipedia isn't enough. See WP:Donating copyrighted material for what the copyright holder needs to do. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:23, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Linking external images

What is the appropriate section within a WP page and the recommended methodology for displaying links to copyrighted images? DMBanks1 (talk) 16:11, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, DMBanks1. The use of external links is explained at WP:External links. With few exceptions, they should go in a section called "External links" - and you need to make sure that their use is justified according to that page. --ColinFine (talk) 17:12, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

ColinFine. After reading the guidelines, I am still somewhat confused. It appears some thoughtful contributors add into the respective section links to a few historic images, which represent the flavour of the page. However, other enthusiastic contributors later delete all such image links. Which of the contributors is correct? DMBanks1 (talk) 17:53, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Template software with wikidata

I found the template Infobox person/Wikidata that is a better alternative for Infobox person. I tried to find similar template for Infobox software but I couldn't. Does it exist? If it doesn't exist, it is very bad and my suggestion is to do it. DustDFG (talk) 17:16, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

It's not agreed upon that Wikidata infoboxes are better than ones stored here on English Wikipedia, not least because lots of Wikidata content isn't properly sourced (it's often just imported from another language Wikipedia, which isn't a reliable source). And there doesn't look to be one for Template:Infobox software/Wikidata, all the infoboxes using Wikidata (either wholly or in part) are listed here. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:24, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Facebook

Three weeks have passed and there is a still a problem with Facebook as I mentioned at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Computing/2021 December_24#Facebook Pages. So, I decided to report this to the Teahouse so that a larger audience gets attention about this issue. Neel.arunabh (talk) 17:28, 14 January 2022 (UTC) Neel.arunabh (talk) 17:28, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

@Neel.arunabh Hi, as mentioned on the reference desk Please take this to Facebook if there is an error. We do not work for or with facebook here, we are volunteers for Wikipedia. Thanks Zippy (talk) 17:30, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

@Zippy I had taken this issue to Facebook the first day itself. But, as time passed, I decided to come to Wikipedia. Neel.arunabh (talk) 17:38, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

@Neel.arunabh: You pretty much wasted your time coming to Wikipedia. Wikipedia can't do anything about Facebook. Have you tried asking Facebooks support team (if one exists)? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:00, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Neel.arunabh Please do not post non-Wikipedia related questions here. I would suggest communicating with Facebook about any issues related to Facebook. 331dot (talk) 17:32, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

No-one here works for Facebook, so no-one here is going to be able to fix anything wrong with Facebook. Please stop contacting people on Wikipedia about this issue. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:33, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

This Teahouse is a A friendly place where you can ask questions to get help with using and editing Wikipedia- the key word being Wikipedia. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:34, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

How can I have an article approved not too late?

Hi!

For sure en.wikipedia.org is a busy place!

First article and I'm sorry to say I'm in a hurry for this article, which is a translation of another article.
Wikipedia tells me I might have to way for 2 months to see my article published, and I didn't expect that...

I'd appreciate if you had a suggestion on how I could find a Wikipedia contributor that would be interested in reviewing my article?

The article is:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Clara_Egger

which is a translation of that article (in French):
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clara_Egger

Thanks in advance. CitoyenSolidaire (talk) 18:17, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

@CitoyenSolidaire welcome to Teahouse! Why are you in a hurry? WP:There is no deadline. Are you getting WP:PAID for this? The external links inside the article should be removed, and see Help:Referencing for beginners for correct referencing formats. Topic does appear to be notable, but Teahouse is not the place to jump the queue. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 18:25, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

If one edit Wikipedia while logged out is that sockpuppetry? Why does a login expire? Is creating a new account sockpuppetry? I'm just wondering. Cwater1 (talk) 18:26, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Why don't you make the edit while logged in? Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 18:28, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Nope. Editing while logged out (As long as it's constructive) is not considered sockpuppetry. Sockpuppetry is when you create an account to get around a block. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:28, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

@Blaze Wolf: I am afraid I can't agree 100% with you. @Cwater1: please see WP:BADSOCK for things that are considered inappropiate uses of alternate accounts (or IP adreesses). Login sessions are saved in a cookie, which by default (unless you tick the "keep me logged in for up to 365 days") is removed after 30 days if I am not mistaken, however, if your browser is configured to remove cookies on shutdown it might happen earlier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victor Schmidt (talk • contribs) 18:50, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I was just wondering. I'm not trying to cause trouble. I just wanted a better understanding and I do make sure I'm logged in. Cwater1 (talk) 18:53, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Manatees

How big can Hermit Crabs be KIT2012 (talk) 19:23, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi, KIT2012. The Teahouse is more for questions about how Wikipedia works, but I'll refer you to our article on Petrochirus diogenes, which to my understanding is the largest known species of hermit crab. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 19:27, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Question

I wanna know if I can add a file on a article about a streaming service. ItsJustdancefan (talk) 19:36, 14 January 2022 (UTC)