Wikipedia:Teahouse

Gråbergs Gråa Sång, 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

Strange blank area

Why do Wikipedia articles leave a large blank and textless area on the right side of the table of contents? I think it's stylistically weak. If it is a programmatic problem, then it could be solved in several ways: 1) possible local variables in the table of contents could be changed to global ones; 2) the width of the inner edge of the text frame on the right may be larger at the beginning; 3) the width of the text frame can be constant, so that the text of long lines continues to the next one, at the same time we would get rid of some very narrow tables of contents. 4) Lastly, the article text could flow free on the right side of the text frame like they flow beside other boxes. Please answer this question and not start changing the subject to vector 2022. Please do not redirect to the programmers' page. The last time I asked there, why does Wikidata give an error message if Finland uses the Finnish hyphens for ISBN numbers and not the American practice. I had 3 references for the hyphens. The answer was one word: "Invalid". Maybe not a war invalid. Jari Rauma (talk) 11:15, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Jari Rauma. Not addressing your main concerns, but in case your last sentence expresses genuine perplexity: there are two English words with the same spelling but different meanings – "in'valid" (emphasis on the first syllable) means "someone confined to bed while suffering or recovering from illness or injury", while "inval'id" means, "not valid, or "wrong format" etc. Doubtless the latter was meant, and would have been a completely automated response; I'm sure no human was trying to be brusque. {The poster formerly known as 87.18,230.195} 90.193.130.14 (talk) 16:06, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

@Jari Rauma The blank area is there because it's always been there, it's just the way the table of contents was implemented a decade ago when the vector skin was designed. I'm not sure what you're talking about with regards to "local and global variables" or why that would have anything to do with the display of the page, The display of the page is set using CSS. The look of the vector skin has been constant for over a decade and changing fundamentals with the display of the skin at this point would be extremely controversial, so it is extremely unlikely (in my opinion) that the developers would change the way the table of contents is displayed at this point. The new skin that is being worked on, vector 2022, does not embed the table of contents in the article at all, so that it doesn't interrupt the display of the text. 192.76.8.85 (talk) 12:19, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, sir.

You wrote: " I'm not sure what you're talking about with regards to "local and global variables" or why that would have anything to do with the display of the page,". – These variables are basic stuff in programming languages. If the dimension is defined as a local variable and after that static, the variable can only be changed locally. Or the text flow -function doesn't work with the context frame, because the context frame -function has forbidden it by placing a signal: we're are busy, don't write stuff on the right side. So the text flow -function has to wait for a global signal: now the text frame is ready and now the text flow -function can start.

I know that the error has continued for over 10 years. Here is one clarification to my question about the large empty area on the right side of the table of contents (if you didn't understand) and one example. The text: " The last time I asked there, why does Wikidata give an error message if Finland uses the Finnish hyphens for ISBN numbers and not the American practice." should be "The last time I asked there, why does Wikidata give an error message if Finland uses the Finnish practice of placing hyphens between ISBN numbers and not the American practice". Here is one example of a strangely large white area. How stupid! but maybe it's nice for some high-class people who never take notice of their mistakes. And what's your opinion or is it illegal, because in Wikipedia you must ask others what you see: Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration Look it carefully and honestly.

So, You still changed the subject although I forbade. You want to change the subject to Vector 2022. I have a question about that, too. Why does Vector 2022 shows always the index? It's cumbersome. I don't want always to see a book's index when I'm reading a book. But that's the primitive way to narrow the article text column. Maybe you began to understand that narrower columns are easier to read. I have always thought that 1-column articles are from the Stone age. Newspapers got rid of them a few hundred years ago. Jari Rauma (talk) 13:12, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Jari Rauma I've moved your comment to here- please edit this existing section for follow up comments, instead of creating a new section. 331dot (talk) 13:14, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

@Jari Rauma I still don't understand what you are talking about with "global or local variables"? I know what a global or local variable is, but I don't see how concepts from programming languages are relevant to a mark up language, where you think these variables are located or what relevance they have to how the page is displayed. Do you know how websites work, because a lot of the stuff you're saying about "text flow fuctions" and "context frame functions" and "signals" don't make any sense. Wikipedia is, for the most part, a relatively plain HTML document with a bit of CSS to make it look pretty.

Problems with ISBNs on wikidata and their integration with Finnish standards should be directed to the wikidata help forum, this help page is for issues with the English wikipedia and most people here will not have the knowledge to be able to help you with that problem.

I know exactly what you are talking about when you mention the white space next to the table of contents - the point is that it isn't a bug - it was intentionally designed to look that way. The current skin is essentially now being preserved for the sake of people who like the existing skin and who don't want to update - making huge changes to the appearance of pages doesn't make any sense at this point. The efforts to improve the table of content and make it less obstructive to the have gone into the new vector 2022 skin, if you don't want to use it that's fine, but if you're going to stick to a skin that was made a decade ago you aren't going to get new features and are going to be presented with a website that looks exactly like it did 10 years ago.

You might be able to hack something together with some custom CSS or JavaScript to do what you want but I'm not aware of any existing user scripts that do wat you describe. 192.76.8.85 (talk) 13:45, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

2022Sir, you can ask more questions about programming from Wikidata. I hope you get a better answer than "invalid". Wikidata shows a bug in two places. In the Finnish Wikipedia articles, the ISBN numbers are hyphenated the same way as book stores do in Finland. And one of the sources said: "The use of hyphens or spaces has no lexical significance and is purely to enhance readability." (ISBN manual, 2017 p. 11) [1]. So this is perhaps also "invalid" according the guys in Wikidata.

Sir, I prefer professional Wikiwanda to Vector 2022. New Vector has copied a little from modern Wikiwanda-style, but Vector 2022 comes far behind. The main problem is that Vector 2022 still has a big program bug with graphics. It has inherited it from vector 2010. But I write about it later here, because I'm not invalid. By the way, do you notice the big mistake? Perhaps you can figure it out by comparing Wikiwanda and Vector 2022. Jari Rauma (talk) 14:21, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

@Jari Rauma: Welcome to the Teahouse. If you're referring to the wide margins around the main content, that is intentional (though not necessarily well-received). See mw:Reading/Web/Desktop Improvements/Features/Limiting content width for more details. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:02, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses one column of text because it (like many digital works) follows the paradigm of the vertical scroll rather than the codex. Printed newspapers, like almost all modern printed books, are codices, in which columns are useful because the textual content is broken into individual chunks by pagination at the time of publishing. Each page is seen in its entirety at any given point in a work; therefore, columns are useful because the start of the next column is always immediately accessible simply by moving one's eyes or turning the page.

With a vertical scroll, however, the textual content is not broken up by the publisher; the whole scroll itself acts like a long page, successive sections of which are revealed and hidden when reading (in a way, the reader acts as the paginator, dynamically creating individual quasi-pages when moving along the scroll). If the text were broken into columns, in all likelihood the start of the next column would not always be easily accessible: a reader would probably have to inefficiently scroll back through already-read text to find it. This is why, for example, no major online news publisher (that I know of) breaks its text content into columns, even if it publishes a paper version which is columnated.

In this sense, though codices are admittedly newer than scrolls, the use of single-column text is in fact a rather new development, based on the modern adoption of an ancient method of text display. Shells-shells (talk) 23:47, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

@Jari Rauma: There is already a way {{TOC left}} to do this in individual pages and we could also do it sitewide if we wanted but I don't expect support for either. You can do it for yourself with code like this in your CSS:

#toc {
  float: left;
  clear: left;
  width: auto;
  margin: 0 1em 0.5em 0;
}

PrimeHunter (talk) 02:56, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

my article got speedy deletion

my first article got the speedy deletion although I have not promoted or advertised any company. Please review it PatrickSmith07 (talk) 11:27, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

PatrickSmith07 At the moment, Draft:Learnbay still exists, but is tagged for Speedy deletion. You responded on your Talk page, which will have no effect. You also replied properly on the Talk page of the article, which is the right place. David notMD (talk) 11:51, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Learnbay

@PatrickSmith07 The article hasn't been deleted yet, but it will meet the criteria for deletion as advertising or promotion (WP:G11). The entire thing is full of puffery, "inspirational"/promotional language and seems to exist purely to promote the company, text like Going out of the box, he dreamt of such a business that will shape the future of professionals. or Mrs. Nisha Kumari was already holding an outstanding level of people management skills, but her passion was searching for such a role, where she could drive job seekers to their best level of career growth and security. are completely inappropriate for an encyclopaedia.

Wikipedia articles are supposed to be written from a neutral point of view, avoiding promotion, and should summarise what independent, reliable sources say about the subject. Huge chunks of this draft are completely unsourced and it would need a 100% rewrite to stand any chance at all of being accepted. Start by finding a few pieces of independent, reliable, non-trivial coverage of this company, then base your draft around what those sources say.

Finally, if you are editing here as part of your job or you expect to receive compensation for your edits please follow the instructions at WP:PAID to make the required disclosures. 192.76.8.85 (talk) 11:59, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I am going to rewrite the article with more neutral PatrickSmith07 (talk) 12:05, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

If you are an employee or paid, declare that on your User page. If not paid or compensated or have a personal connection to the company, declare that on your Talk page. David notMD (talk) 12:07, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

I am not paid writer or employee of this compnay PatrickSmith07 (talk) 12:09, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Do you have a personal connection to the founders? Or unpaid connection to the company - for example, as a student? See WP:COI for how to declare. David notMD (talk) 12:12, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

@PatrickSmith07 David notMD said " If not paid or compensated or have a personal connection to the company, declare that on your Talk page". This page is not your Talk page. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 08:58, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

I am editing the draft content. I start research about this company after read the new on financial express https://www.financialexpress.com/education-2/learnbay-goes-offline-with-brick-and-mortar-centres-ends-fy22-with-a-net-profit-of-rs-3-2-crore/2590829/ PatrickSmith07 (talk) 12:19, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

The draft has been Speedy deleted, meaning all public record of creation and edits are no longer visible at your account. If you wish to recover content, you can ask the deleting administrator. Be aware that a draft on Learnbay had been created and deleted in June as promotional and copyright infringement. David notMD (talk) 15:04, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

I was the nominator of the CSD G11, and absolutely don't agree that a draft should be started again (Thanks for your help. I am going to rewrite the article with more neutral would be hard if you have a conflict of interest). Like what said before, some of the article is a blatant ad: see Mrs. Nisha Kumari was already holding an outstanding level of people management skills, but her passion was searching for such a role, where she could drive job seekers to their best level of career growth and security. Also, please declare a COI if possible. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 22:54, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

my experience with what I thought should be an undisputed minor editing

Hi! In the article of Hospitality Club I've run into an issue that I'd like to discuss and hope it is the right place here:

1. Sometimes companies, software products, etc. just run out of business. If they got unimportant over the time, there might be no media coverage anymore. Which means that there is no valid source we can use for mentioning that this product/club/company is not active anymore. The English Wikipedia seems to be very strict on that, but shouldn't we discuss if there is a better way how to deal with these things instead of having an article that sounds like everything still is in business?
2. I already tried 3O and RfC to discuss the matter in the mentioned article. The whole process of discussing and solving these issues is rather complicated and not welcoming at all. Also you run into experienced users who seem to know the rules by heart but are not willing to show a collaborative behaviour (even if they were told already to do so on their talk page). I'm not a native English speaker, so I just sporadically do minor edits here where things do not get too complicated. Usually I do a lot more work in the Wikipedia in my language. Still I was surprised that the English Wikipedia feels to be so much more stubborn and unwelcoming. Just wanted to mention that this does not seem to be the attitude you'll get new editors to stay involved.

There were the two points I'd like to mention after that experiece. Not an important article though, but maybe it's possible to find better ways how to deal with certain things. - Flexman (talk) 08:30, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

On your first point, a WP:ABOUTSELF source, if available, could work. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:23, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. If I understand, you mean things the company published about themselves? Well unfortuntately their last statment was promising some things followed by years of inactivity. They even didn't do a "we are closing" statement. Flexman (talk) 14:13, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Then per WP:OR etc, there's not much to do, I think. I'm unaware of any WP:RS that keeps public records on former companies. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:04, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Maybe one should discuss the rules. But where? Flexman (talk) 14:12, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

@Flexman, the policy in question is WP:Verifiability. Attempting to change that policy in order to allow original research would be a monumental task - if it's something you want to attempt, the place to start such a discussion would be: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:32, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Well, I wouldn't want to allow original research. Rules also make sense, but maybe there are other ways to find a solution. It's more the question which kind of sources obvious things need, or if an uptime monitor could be a source there, etc. Like someone mentioned in the discussion, we don't need to list sources to know that the Pope is Catholic or that the sky is blue. So there is not just one valid interpretation of WP:OR. In this case the RfC was rather useless, since also known things were discussed. Maybe it helps more if you can do a yes or no vote in this case. Flexman (talk) 12:25, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Help with page tittled Sam Ankrah

Dear all, I recently created an article about a development economist, Sam Ankrah and submitted but unfortunately it was rejected as it was not fit for wiki as at then. I have reshaped it and submitted for further review with link attached (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sam_Ankrah). Someone kindly assist to review it and see if its ok to feature on wikipedia now. Will appreciate any further suggestions to make it better. Thanks in advance Pagefour (talk) 16:17, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

FYI - Draft:Sam Ankrah was Declined, not Rejected (more severe). You have added content and resubmitted. David notMD (talk) 21:04, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

In my opinion, non-notable awards and speaking at a conference do not establish notability. WP:TOOSOON may apply here. David notMD (talk) 07:55, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback but what do you suggest I do to make it acceptable? Pagefour (talk) 15:08, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Pagefour I appears you have gathered all media mentions of Ankrah, and in my opinion, none of that establishes notability. I recommend deleting the draft by putting db-author at the top inside of double curly brackets {{ }} and coming back to the topic in a few years. David notMD (talk) 15:53, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Review Draft

Hello Wikipedia member, please review once Draft:Indian Predator and need to improve article so please add tags for improvement. Thank You. MereBabuji (talk) 13:19, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi MereBabuji - I am not an AFC reviewer anymore, but I looked over your article and made some changes to the grammar. I hope that helps. You have some good sources in the article. You may want to find a better source for the cast list. Since IMDb is user-generated content (like Wikipedia), it usually isn't the best reference to use in a WP article. See WP:IMDB and WP:Citing IMDb for more information. Don't forget to submit your draft for review when you are ready. Good luck to you. Larry Hockett (Talk) 14:06, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

MereBabuji Most of your references are bare URL which citation bot can't tidy up (I tried). You need to convert them to full citations, probably using {{cite news}}, giving credit to the authors of the newspaper articles and their publication dates etc. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:23, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

FYI

 – Combined repeated queries - 174.21.19.94 (talk) 13:23, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Hey,any drafts reviewers here.please review once our draft Draft:Indian Predator thank you MereBabuji (talk) 12:14, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

MereBabuji, you already asked this question and received several replies above. As the notice on your draft says, "Review waiting, please be patient. This may take 4 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order." 174.21.19.94 (talk) 13:23, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Article name already in use as redirect

Hello, I want to add an article Elisabeth of Hesse-Marburg, but this article name already is in use as a redirect to the article about her husband John V, Count of Nassau-Siegen.
Is it allowed to simply delete the redirect? Or should someone delete the page first before I can add the article? Thanks in advance for your reply. Regards, Roelof Hendrickx (talk) 17:10, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi Roelof Hendrickx, thanks for posting a message at the Teahouse. We had an article on the Elisabeth of Hesse-Marburg. In 2018, Aciram redirected it to what it currently is targeted to. Perhaps a discussion about should the article be re-created now? What sources do you have about the subject? Believe most of the concern previously was a lack of verifiable information. Justiyaya 17:25, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello Justiyaya, thanks for your reply. I understand the concern about verifiable information. For the article I wrote about her, I have used the same sources I have used to re-write the article about her husband. And of course, I have used references in the article. I hope this helps. Regards, Roelof Hendrickx (talk) 12:22, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

@Roelof Hendrickx: this is an old revision of the article. As you can see it is unsourced and provides no personal relevance. Per WP:NOTINHERITED subjects need to have independent notability. If you can demonstrate they are independently notable of their husband, then by all means be WP:BOLD and replace the redirect with your article. Polyamorph (talk) 12:29, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello Polyamorph, thanks for your reply. That old version of the article is indeed unsourced and provides no personal relevance. I think the article I wrote, does provide personal relevance, so I will be bold and replace the redirect. Regards, Roelof Hendrickx (talk) 13:26, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

@Roelof Hendrickx Can you post some sources you have here for us to determine notability? Starting a draft then requesting a move to the article space later is also an option if you want to do that instead. Justiyaya 13:40, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I just have been so bold to replace the redirect. Roelof Hendrickx (talk) 13:51, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Looks great. Polyamorph (talk) 16:15, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Roelof Hendrickx (talk) 20:57, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Indentation Plastometry

The development of indentation-based techniques to obtain stress-strain curves (for metals) is an important area, which has been the subject of extensive work over the past couple of decades. The origins lie in hardness testing, which dates back over a century. However, hardness numbers are only semi-quantitative indicators of the resistance to plastic deformation and cannot be used for quantitative purposes. Indentation plastometry is a term now used to describe the obtaining of stress-strain curves from indentation data. This concept is part of an overall activity in which nanoindentation - ie instrumented, very fine scale indentation - forms a part. However, such fine scale indentation, while useful for obtaining information about local regions, cannot be used to obtain the bulk (macroscopic) properties. It is now clear that relatively large volumes must be deformed, although they can still be small enough to allow mapping over the surface of samples and the procedure is still much easier and more convenient than conventional (tensile) testing. There are also several different ways in which the stress-strain curve can be obtained from experimental indentation outcomes. In view of the benefits that will follow from development and full optimisation of a methodology of this type, it would be timely to have an article summarising the main points that are relevant to such procedures. I'd appreciate hearing whether it would be worthwhile for me to draft out a first stab at this. I'd envisage something relatively short, although there are certainly many references that could be cited. BillClyne (talk) 21:27, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, BillClyne! Please read through the essays and policies WP:Five pillars and WP:Verifiability to give yourself an idea of what Wikipedia needs in the way of WP:Reliable sources on which articles need to be based. (I expect soon someone will add a welcoming message with various other useful links to your Talk page, whose link in your signature will then turn blue.) You might also want to read Help:Your first article, not necessarily because you are about to start one yourself, but to give you an idea of the article-writing process.

Once you grasp the outlines of what is required, come back here and give links to what you consider to be the three (or a few more, but not a dozen) best Reliable sources that the proposed article could be based on, and responders here will look at them and tell you what they think. Good luck! {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.199.169.177 (talk) 22:01, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello BillClyne. I see that you've been given some general advice about article creation. Given the specialist nature of your suggestion, you might be best to ask editors experienced in Engineering and Materials. You could post at one of the Project Talk Pages, namely WT:WikiProject_Engineering and/or WT:WikiProject_Materials. Mike Turnbull (talk) 22:06, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Many thanks for this. I appreciate that I need to become familiar with various aspects of the Wiki system before I can either edit or compose articles. I will try to do this, although it might take me a little while. In fact, I have made one attempt at editing (adding a small amount of text to an existing article), but without including references. I've been contacted about this and I'm now going to try this again, with the references included - it's simply a question of working out exactly how they need to be added. I do appreciate that there is a lot of helpful information available online. Once I've sorted this out, I'll think about the new article idea. I appreciate that some prior feedback from editors with experience in Materials Science would be helpful and I'll aim to post something as you suggest. Many thanks for your help and advice. BillClyne (talk) 18:05, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia in schools

Dear Wikipedia, how come you don’t really have that much of a good reputation when it comes to schooling and education, and research? From Maggie Kelsh. 2600:4040:278E:6000:BDCA:E056:4188:3D31 (talk) 23:15, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

@2600:4040:278E:6000:BDCA:E056:4188:3D31: Without hearing the specific criticism, it's hard to say. You can discuss this subject at Talk:Criticism of Wikipedia. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:53, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello Maggie. That's a very interesting question, and it really merits a detailed essay of a reply (but I won't force that on you!). I suspect you may have a very out-of-date schoolteacher or lecturer who has unfortunately given you their ideas from maybe 10 or 15 years ago which they've not yet shaken off. So, I'm sorry if you've been given the wrong idea about our huge project.

In its early days, yes, Wikipedia was raw and nothing like as accurate as it is today. We now have innumerable policies required Reliable Sources to enable you or anyone to Verify what published sources say, and those sources include academic books and publications. We even have extra requirements for higher reference standards on articles on medical topics (see WP:MEDRS), and absolutely nothing contentious about living or recently deceased people can be put into articles without proper, accurate and reliable sources supporting those statements. (See WP:BLP for our policies on that).

Quite a few studies were carried out some years ago (including one from 2012) which have shown that the number of errors in Wikipedia's 6.2 million English pages were equal to and often fewer than those that found their way into formal encyclopaedias written just by a panel of experts. (see List of academic studies about Wikipedia).

Most vandalism here gets fixed very quickly, and troublesome editors or trolls are eventually blocked, though some clever and very rare hoaxes have indeed slipped through from time to time (see WP:HOAXLIST, but see also Piltdown Man!).

Wikipedia now works with schools, universities and museums and art galleries to mobilise content, and Wikipedia editors are even employed within those museums in many parts of the world (see WP:GLAM for more details). In one example I personally know of, researchers at the Sanger Laboratories in Cambridge University have even shared their finding on all protein structures in the human genome so that the wider research community in poorer countries can have free access to data that they might not otherwise be able to reach.

To be honest, I think that for the majority of people, Wikipedia really has become their 'go to' place to get information or to find further detailed references to delve deeper into subjects. For many people, students included, Wikipedia has become the start of their information journey on most important topics. But, because all our pages are user-generated, and simply summarise other properly published sources, we never assert that Wikipedia should be relied upon as the basis of doing writing coursework or essays. For this reason, Wikipedia, like any encyclopedia, is a great starting place for research but not always a great ending place. So always use the 'References' list at the bottom of every article to do your own research. See Wikipedia:FAQ/Schools and maybe even Wikipedia:School and university projects for our formal advice on that.

Nowadays, even Google places Wikipedia content in its Knowledge Boxes in most search results, so there are even more 'eyes on' articles, and correction of mistakes, and filling-in of missing content than ever before. We have formal education programmes in place and many universities teach using Wikipedia and set editing challenges in collaboration with trained staff. Wikipedia itself is even the subject of many academic researchers. See Wikipedia:Research, Wikipedia:Researching Wikipedia and Wikipedia:Statistics for further information which I hope may help dispel your misunderstanding of Wikipedia, and any unfortunate view you might have been given.

Of course, it would be lovely to hear from you why you feel the way you do, or any examples you have found of errors here. We know we still have gaps and mistakes, but all of us here are committed in our own way to making this encyclopedia even better. I hope you might consider joining us in that, so if you need help, just ask. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:00, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Are you perhaps referring to teachers not allowing citation to Wikipedia articles in research papers? You really shouldn't be citing ANY encyclopedia in most research papers, not just Wikipedia. What you should be using Wikipedia for is to identify what source Wikipedia uses for a statement and then find that original source and use it in your paper. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 03:54, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Further information on how and when school children can cite Wikipedia can be found at Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:41, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Help with references

So I’m working on a massive addition to the Michiya haruhata page as recently discovered the oricon jp and i am going make a list of all his charting albums and songs firstly should I do this or is this bad should I just listed how many charting singles and albums he has along with his highest and longest charting song and album which is better? and two if I go for the first option is there any effective to shorten the amount of references should I just reference to the home page for him and then people can just find the song or album they want to check because I believe it may take upwards of 25 references which feels like a lot. As all ways Thanks Goldsoldier75 (talk) 00:43, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Goldsoldier75, if an assertion is worth adding, then a link to the specific source for that assertion is worth adding. And of course the reference should not be merely a "bare URL". You need author(s) (if specified), page title, website title, year/date of publication, date of access..... Articles that have had "massive additions" can easily have, and usually should have, hundreds of references. -- Hoary (talk) 00:54, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Goldsoldier75, Michiya Haruhata tells us for example: He is a Member of the Fender signature artist club and was added as the first Asian guitarist member, in fact he is one of few guitarists to receive multiple fender signature guitars of which he actually has three different signature guitars. Perhaps I'm unusual (others here may wish to chime in), but I have only the vaguest understanding of what that means. Before thinking of making any "massive addition", perhaps polish what's already there. -- Hoary (talk) 01:01, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks so I’ll go through my manual citations and try to make them better, and I did think while writing that part out that it was likely to informal and not clear enough or rather simple enough for non guitarists which I guess is kinda of the point of wiki, thanks for your input I will spend some time before I make my large addition to polish up the page and maybe read some stuff on formal bibliography writing (any thing you can recommend)?

Thanks Goldsoldier75 (talk) 01:18, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Also if I may be so bold can you please explain to me roughly what the problem with bare url citations is.

Thanks Goldsoldier75 (talk) 01:23, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Goldsoldier75, thank you for asking. Please see Wikipedia:References dos and don'ts and the pages to which it links, and Wikipedia:Bare URLs. -- Hoary (talk) 01:41, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

There are good semi-automatic tools for adding citations/references, but often you have to add some info manually. See WP:TUTORIAL. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:26, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi Goldsoldier75. Reliable sources are required to be published and accessible, but they're not required to be available online. Let's suppose someone wanted to cite a reliable source which was not available online. How would they do such a thing? If it was a book, for example, they might follow the guidance given in WP:CITEHOW and add as much information as they could about the book to make it easier for others to find it if they wanted to take a closer look at it. The same can be said about a WP:Bare URLs. If the link works, then clicking on it will take the reader to the source; in lots of cases, however, links end up being broken in some way or even "dying" which means clicking on them no longer works as intended. For such reasons, it's considered quite helpful and really good practice to provide as much information about the source as possible even when it's still available online because this makes it easier for others to track it down if for some reason the same source should subsequently become no longer available. It might be accessible at some other location online or in some offline way that makes assessing it still possible. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:16, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Cladogram arrangement

I'm making a cladogram for Nasidytes, taken from the describing paper. In the paper's cladogram, the Petralca + crown group Gaviiformes clade has the latter placed above the former, but most cladograms I've seen put crown-groups at the bottom in cases like this. Should I swap their places, or keep the paper's arrangement? Swapping them would not affect the actual relationships portrayed. Zach Varmitech (talk) 01:20, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Zach Varmitech, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds is the best place to ask your question.--Quisqualis (talk) 06:01, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Following the usual arrangement seems better to me. It also has the incidental advantage of helping avoid a "breach of copyright" claim by the papers' authors. Maproom (talk) 08:03, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

My first time experimenting here it gave me a biography template for a baker woman. Does anybody know how I can access it?

The title says it all 184.58.146.65 (talk) 02:28, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately it does not. What gave you the template? Which template? In what sense did it give it to you, despite denying you access to it? Anyway, before starting a draft on a female baker (if that's what you hope to do), you'd be wise to get experience improving existing articles. -- Hoary (talk) 02:37, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Is it possible you were logged in at the time? If you made any edits while logged in earlier, log back in and click "Contributions" (upper right on desktop version of website) and you'll see every change you published. That might help you retrace your steps. -- asilvering (talk) 03:28, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

We only have specific templates for certain professions. So Template:Infobox person would suffice for most people - bakers included. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:44, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

We have Template:Infobox culinary career and Template:Infobox chef but I don't know whether they are used for bakers. If you mean a woman named Baker then Baker (surname) has many. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:11, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

I suspect that when you say "template", you don't mean what Wikipedia calls a Template, but I'm not sure. ColinFine (talk) 21:39, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

@ColinFine I think they must mean something like how WP:NOVELS has [2]. But if there's something like that for biographies, I don't know what it is. The closest I can think of is WP:MOSBIO. -- asilvering (talk) 22:41, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Alternative rows table

In List of presidents of departmental councils (France), the main table is in the Alternating rows table template, which makes it a bit difficult to edit for regular users. Like I wanted to add numbers 67 and 68 (not in the list), merge them, and add European Collectivity of Alsace instead. But I don't know how to merge in source editing. Any solutions?

One solution can be temporarily replacing the "{{alternating rows table|class=wikitable sortable}}|-" at the start of the template with "{| class="wikitable"|-" for the duration of editing, then after editing replacing it back with the original thing. But that might be a little inconvenient and this solution can't be suggested everytime.

(Sorry I don't know how to type wikicode in that white highlight, I think {{Code}}) Excellenc1 (talk) 16:59, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Help!!

i have been having issues with editing. Someone please revert my edit on Priah Nicole Ferguson page please. Recently I began seeing unwanted spacious edits I do not know the cause. Uricdivine (talk) 18:15, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

@Uricdivine  Done I've reverted all your edits to that page. I was unclear if you means all of them, or just your very last one. i did them all, but you can find them all at the View History tab and add or remove any content again quite easily. Nick Moyes (talk) 18:27, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Nick Moyes Thank you, but I meant the very last one. Am a mobile editor is view history tan where I can remove and add content available?. Cheers Uricdivine (talk) 18:39, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Uricdivine I've restored your last but one version. Polyamorph (talk) 18:52, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

@Polyamorph Thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:25, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Do I make smaller edits, specific to each section, or large edits over multiple sections?

So I was working on the Virgin Orbit article and had several contributions in several sections, updating the article to today's knowledge. I was generally curious on whether it is a better idea to do smaller edits focused on one section each, or a general overall edit to multiple sections. I went with smaller edits because in case of error I assumed it would be easier to revert, but for future reference which should I choose? Is there an editing policy I overlooked?

(These edits are from a few days ago) Legojrp (talk) 18:30, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Legojrp, section by section generally better so that if there is something that another editor takes issue with, they can revert (and then discuss) the specific section rather than being heavy-handed and reverting the one large edit. Slywriter (talk) 18:32, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Legojrp, I agree completely with Slywriter's comment. Smaller, more discrete edits allow other editors to evaluate the appropriateness of each change, instead of trying to evaluate a big bucket of changes. This approach is not required by policy, but I consider it a "best practice" that facilitates collaboration and reduces disputes among editors. Cullen328 (talk) 02:42, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Postmaster

JohnBravely1991 (talk) 18:46, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Do you have a question about editing Wikipedia, JohnBravely1991? Cullen328 (talk) 18:50, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Undefined Parameters. JohnBravely1991 (talk) 18:55, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

@JohnBravely1991: Please specify a specific thing you're trying to do at a specific page and specific problem you're encountering. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:59, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Undefined Parameters. JohnBravely1991 (talk) 19:04, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Are you a bot? Polyamorph (talk) 19:28, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

ooooh...five minute intervals. Interesting. valereee (talk) 19:31, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Undefined Paramters. JohnBravely1991 (talk) 19:33, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

So yes on the five minute intervals, but this one's got a typo. Someone block this joker. valereee (talk) 19:35, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Done. 331dot (talk) 19:36, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Flipped image from Wikimedia Commons

I'm relatively new at editing and have a question about best practices for making a simple correction to an image. The Nika riots page has a photo from Wikimedia Commons of the "Hippodrome of Constantinople" in Istanbul. When I was looking at details of the image, I discovered that the image was flipped (left/right) when I noticed that writing on a sign in the background was backwards.

I have downloaded the image and flipped it to the correct orientation. As far as I can tell there are two possible ways to fix this: 1) upload the corrected photo (with proper attribution to the original creator) to the Wikipedia Nika riots page or 2) upload the the corrected photo to a new Wikimedia Commons page (with proper attribution to the original creator) and then link to that photo.

Which of these options would be best practice or is there a different way to fix this?

Thanks!

Hermit Pole (talk) 20:28, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

I might be wrong, but if it has the wrong orientation, I think you can hit "request rotation" on the file description page to request a rotation, if that's what you want. Otherwise, press 'upload a new version of this file', which preserves the attribution of previous versions. weeklyd3 (block | talk | contributions) 20:30, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

The "request rotation" option only does rotations, not reflections.

I would upload the unflipped image over the current one. That has the advantage that all pages using the image will automatically get the correct version. The wrongly flipped image will be preserved in the image history. I see no benefit in preserving it as a separate image at Commons. Maproom (talk) 21:14, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

@Hermit Pole: The image is not flipped. It looks like your "sign" is the back of a partially transparent banner. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:23, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Google Street View confirming the image is right. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:32, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Wow - you're right! Sorry I didn't check this more carefully. Thank you all for your help. Good learning experience. I'll just leave it alone. Hermit Pole (talk) 21:43, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi Protected Pages

Good Evening!

I am a long time user of Wikipedia, and have edited a few articles etc over the years. I do have one question though. When I went to add the name of the new Mister Supranational 2022, Luis Daniel Gálvez of Cuba, the page said that it was semi protected. I looked up what that meant and, as far as I can see, you have to edit 10 or more articles nd have had an account for at least 4 days. I’ve been on Wikipedia for a fair number of years, so not sure why I dont’t need the requirements in order to be allowed to edit a semi protected page. Thank you in advance for any clarity you can offer. Heidi bradshaw (talk) 03:30, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

@Heidi bradshaw: When I edit protected pages, I see editnotices that they're protected all the time. That's normal. You should be able to type in the edit box if you are autoconfirmed and the page is semi protected. You can see your user groups here to confirm that you are in the group 'autoconfirmed users'. weeklyd3 (block | talk | contributions) 03:32, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Many thanks for your reply. I’ve gone back and see I can edit and publish. It just caught me off guard with that ‘warning’ at the top. Have a good night! Heidi bradshaw (talk) 04:17, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

@Heidi bradshaw: Welcome to the Teahouse. Autoconfirmed users (defined as users who have made 10 edits and have had their accounts for at least 4 days) can edit semiprotected articles without trouble. I don't think edit notices can be configured to only show for affected users, and sometimes editors want to know when and why protection was given. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:58, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Henrietta Müller is she a Chilean suffragist, Chilean expatriate in England, Chilean editor, Chilean women journalist, Chilean people of German descent ???

Hello, I strongly disagree over categories re-added by @Bedivere on Henrietta Müller. Henrietta Müller was born in Valparaiso in an English-German Family of expats. The family settled back in England and she went to college at Girton, then spent her entire life in England as did her family. There is no evidence that as an adult, she kept any links of any sort with Chile, no references, no sources, etc. I consider that she cannot be "categorized" as, I quote, "Chilean suffragist, Chilean expatriate in England, Chilean editor, Chilean women journalist, Chilean people of German descent". Any opinions ? (English is not my native language) Best regards, Pierrette13 (talk) 05:12, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

I think this talk should be continued where it is due: at the article's talk page. Having said that, we have no certainty and no possible answer to your consideration ("There is no evidence that as an adult, she kept any links of any sort with Chile, no references, no sources, etc."). I just pointed out a fact: the Constitution of 1833 considers her a Chilean (born in Chile, jus soli applies), and it is unlikely she ever renounced to it. Bedivere (talk) 05:44, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

"One of these was Miss F. Henrietta Muller, a Chilean-British woman's rights activist and theosophist, then living in London.", "Clara Colby: The International Suffragist"

Guru to the World: The Life and Legacy of Vivekananda, by Ruth Harris: "Henrietta Müller - of Chilean German origin, but active in London [...]"

Bikes and Bloomers: Victorian Women Inventors and their Extraordinary Cycle Wear, "The Müller family left Chile when Henrietta was nine, and travelled to Boston, and then onto London, where they lived for two years. They moved back to Chile briefly before returning to London where they then stayed".

That's some great sources proving both she was a Chilean and that she lived considerable time in that country (more than a decade for sure - nine years then some brief stay of two years). Bedivere (talk) 05:52, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Pierrette13. This is a matter that should be discussed at Talk:Henrietta Müller and I do not think that it is likely that you will find a Teahouse host willing to express a strong opinion about this. I am curious, though, why you so strongly disagree about this relatively innocuous categorization of a woman born in Chile who died in 1906? Why are you so passionate about the categorization of a woman who died 116 years ago? Cullen328 (talk) 06:06, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello Cullen328 Thank you for your answer, I translate pages from WP:en to WP:fr and especially suffragists, University women pages, etc. In my opinion, a Chilean Suffragist is a suffragist in Chile, not a suffragist in England there is no relevance with this category. I translated Henriette Muller, her sister Eva McLaren. I'm not too familiar with English WP help and so I thought I could find some help over here (I used Tea House once before), I 'll go somewhere else for relevant opinions ("she lived some times from 0 to 10 in Chile" doesn't have any sense for a statement abour "Chilean Suffragist" or "Chilean expat in England"! Best regards, --Pierrette13 (talk) 07:49, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

how to make a wikipedia page

can you pls tell me that how can I make a wikipedia profile for me. Thank you in advance Nitin Happy (talk) 07:26, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Nitin Happy Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia does not have "profiles", not a single one. Wikipedia has articles, typically written by independent editor wholly unconnnected with the topic. Those articles summarize what independent reliable sources say about the topic, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability; in this case, the definition of a notable person. It is not absolutely forbidden to attempt to write an article about one's self, but it is highly discouraged, please read the autobiography policy. It is discouraged in part because people naturally write favorably about themselves, and also because it is hard for people to set aside what they know about themselves and only write summarizing what others choose on their own to say about them. We usually recommend that new editors first gain experience by editing existing articles in areas that interest them before attempting to write any article, let alone one about themselves. However, if you wish to attempt to do so now, please first gather independent reliable sources that have chosen on their own to write about you(not interviews with you or press releases/announcements or brief mentions), read Your First Article, then visit Articles for Creation to create and submit a draft for review by an independent editor.

Either way, you may also want to use the new user tutorial. 331dot (talk) 07:33, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Can I Make an Article for myself with describing about myself Nitin Happy (talk) 07:45, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Nitin Happy I've answered this question above. Wikipedia is not social media for people to tell the world about themselves, it is for summarizing what others say about a person. If you have follow up questions, please edit this existing section, instead of creating additional sections. 331dot (talk) 07:48, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Your attempt to create a draft about yourself was nominated for speedy deletion, and then deleted by an Administrator. The reason given was "Unambiguous advertising or promotion: self-promotional, absolutely unviable draft." Not being an Administrator, I cannot see the draft, but as explained above, Wikipedia has referenced biographical articles about famous people. Unless people with no connection to you are writing about you and your acomplishements - not going to happen. The same thing will happen if you use your User page to compose a self-profile. David notMD (talk) 10:24, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Darius Bowie

Apparently, somebody created Draft:Darius Bowie and it wasn't accepted as it was for a largely unknown and non-notable stand-up comic. An anon who says they are said comedian, posts a plea on WP:RSN begging for publication. This is obviously the wrong venue and a futile effort. The first response is perfectly adequate in explaining why the draft cannot be published and other policies. But then another user started to unnecessarily comment on the comedy of Darius Bowie and even gaining applause from another. When I commented it wasn't appropriate, they defended the comment saying they linked to WP:RS; which they had except they had changed the display text to "missing heart". Another user even jumped in, saying it was "gentle joshing". I have had WP:RSN on my watch list for six years at least. I have never seen this level of uncouth behavior on this board. Meanwhile, other editors are going about their business, replying to older threads, etc. I am left scratching my head at what is happening here and I don't want to think the worst. The direct link is WP:RSN#Darius_Bowie. I hope someone has time to look at it. After all, it is the wrong noticeboard and it is a non-notable comedian but I don't think we should levy such insults at people and then cheer each other on like it is good fun. Well, good luck to whoever reads this. Cheers, SVTCobra 10:10, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

SVTCobra Hello. This board is a place for new or inexperienced users to ask questions about using Wikipedia. Issues regarding user conduct are best raised at WP:ANI or at least the associated talk page of the dispute. 331dot (talk) 10:56, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, 331dot, I had typed it all out on ANI. Then I cut and pasted it here as I felt ANI was an escalation of drama. (The talk page of the dispute is WP:RSN itself). So, can I at least ask, should it go to ANI? Or should I just abandon it? Cheers, SVTCobra 11:06, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @SVTCobra I think you may perhaps have misinterpreted and somewhat over-reacted to the comments at WP:RSN made by User:Jéské Couriano. Whilst I don't understand the phrase "missing the heart" (does it have some insulting meaning I ought to be aware of?), I have looked at Draft:Darius Bowie. It is a classic example of a single paragraph full of disconnected puffery and uncited biographical self-promotion - just like a naff social media profile. TBH: I might have made a similar comment myself, and I do try to be polite when dealing with new users. But sometimes one can be exasperated by the low quality of content people think we'll accept, and the odd comment, whilst maybe not the most supportive, is not anything I would ever expect to see coming to WP:ANI. You made your point there; I think that should suffice. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:58, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

The draft is obviously something that will not make it to mainspace anytime soon, if ever. That is not the point. I do not think Darius Bowie deserves an article, but Wikipedians ought not mock him either. The 'missing heart' bit is only about hiding the target of the page. How does help a user? But that's not my issue, my problem is why are we telling a stand-up comic You can't expect to get by with a stand-up routine that's all disconnected one-liners That was the wtf moment for me. Changing "reliable sources" to "missing heart" seemed minor after that, but that is what they chose to defend. The insult to the subject was irrelevant to them. Maybe after six or eight hours WP:RSN will address it. It is the weekend after all. SVTCobra 11:20, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

I removed all the promotional crap from the initial draft and created the usual sections for an article about a person. Left a note at the creator's Talk page that this may be too soon. Also that Wikipedia frowns on attempts at autobiography. David notMD (talk) 12:59, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Updating a Wikipedia entry

Earlier this year I spent some time editing an entry. I read up on how to articles, but in the end most of my edits were deleted. I am not familiar with Wikipedia's terminology, so I could not address the issues. It is obvious that I need some help with this. Would any of the host like to come and save the day?

Thanks in advance,

Peter PetrusHenricus (talk) 13:09, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

@PetrusHenricus: Welcome to the Teahouse. The reverting revision was concerned that your contribution was unsourced. Please read Easy referencing for beginners to learn how to cite, which is essential to all articles on Wikipedia. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:40, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi PetrusHenricus. (Edit conflict) I assume you are referring to your addition to Nana Araba Apt, which was (see the edit history) WP:REVERTed with the WP:EDITSUMMARY "WP:UNDUE, the addition is good but almost none of it is actually sourced." Although the subject of that article is deceased, we need additions to her biography to be correctly sourced (see WP:BLP for related requirements). So it looks to me that you should read about our basic guide for adding inline sources. After reading these links, see if you can include the source details you are using. Note that Wikipedia does not allow additions based on what you may know personally, perhaps because you were a colleague or student of this educator. We call this original research. Note also that Wikipedia is not a place to create a WP:MEMORIAL for someone. Do come back here if you need further advice. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:42, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Addicted to Wikipedia

i am becoming addicted to wikipedia. now i am wikipediaholic. how to get rid of this ? help me to be productive Baruahranuj 17:50, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Read thru the archives of WP:AN/I and WP:A/R/E. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 18:12, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

@Baruah ranuj In all seriousness, the solution is to log out of your account and get off the computer for at least a few days. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 18:42, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Finding my way around

Am new here and it takes me a little time to get going. So, be patient, please. Mama1Gal (talk) 19:55, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Wondering what recourse I have

What recourse do I have for someone who is misattributing statements in a talk page discussion to me, deliberately trolling me and personally attacking me by claiming I'm incompetent and need mentorship? OrgoneBox (talk) 20:07, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, OrgoneBox. You could file a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, but please be aware that your own behavior will come under scrutiny as well. Cullen328 (talk) 20:47, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Help with expediting article submitted for AFC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Omar_Veluz

Help with expediting article submitted for AFC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Omar_Veluz. Please let me know how to proceed Dvpo2 (talk) 20:27, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

@Dvpo2: As it says at the top, there are a large number of drafts waiting for review. Be patient. RudolfRed (talk) 20:34, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Dvpo2. The second sentence of your draft is unreferenced name dropping. That will be a red flag for reviewers. Cullen328 (talk) 20:44, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

The AfC backlog is not a queue, so Draft:Omar Veluz could be reviewed in days, weeks, or sadly, months. David notMD (talk) 00:59, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Page still in draft mode : any steps missing ?

Hi, I created a new Wiki page: Draft: Harinarayan Rajeev ,last month and its still in draft mode. Since I haven’t created a wiki page before, It would have been really helpful, if you could please let me know if there are any steps I am missing inorder to have the page published ? or I just need to wait for a reviewer to review and publish the same ? thanks a lot in advance :) 2604:3D08:527B:D500:845D:890E:7B56:6421 (talk) 21:20, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Harinarayan Rajeev 174.21.19.94 (talk) 21:22, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. Your draft lacked the information needed to formally submit it. I have now added it. 331dot (talk) 21:24, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

How can I access my account if I have changed my e-mail address?

I have a wikipedia a/c but I created it a long time ago and I haven't kept track of my password. I may have used a defunct e-mail address. There doesn't seem to be any way to recover access in this instance. 121.200.5.36 (talk) 21:54, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

If you don't remember your password, and can't access the email, then the account is lost since there is no way to get the password back. You will need to create a new account. You can add a note on your new user page that you previously edited under the old account name. RudolfRed (talk) 22:05, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Regarding Mayday Episode 63 - Target is Destroyed - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Mayday_episodes

This accident was blamed on the crew flying off course, but I read a book decades ago on the flight that made the case that, not only did the US have a spyplane flying near the flight over Soviet airspace as reported, but the author contended that flight was also monitoring the flight, AND in addition, the US also had a space shuttle overflying the area at the same time, allegedly also monitoring this overflight. Perhaps not so surprisingly then, US President Reagan confronted the Soviets within a couple of months after the incident claiming the US had hard evidence that the Krasnoyarsk radar station (allegedly a significant radar site in the area that could be used for detecting this overflight), was in fact used as part of the Soviet strategic air defence system and not for scientific(?) purposes as originally claimed, making it illegal in the context of existing strategic agreements with the US at the time. The allegation was that the US had promoted this overflight in an effort to make that case. I wasn't sure if anyone else was familiar with the book, or agreed these other statements, if verified, would be worth including in a revision or appended statement to that episode, possibly after the the producers investigated? 2604:3D09:C784:5600:C019:150C:9E19:A344 (talk) 23:40, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

The purpose of the page is to summarize the information displayed in the show. Information like you described regarding the incident would usually have a place on the page for the incident, however the book you've described doesn't seem to be a credible source. For instance, I don't see anything indicating the space shuttle was ever, in theory or in reality, capable of terrestrial reconnaissance, and the payload of the shuttle up at the time was not capable of reconnaissance either. WelpThatWorked (talk) 00:44, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Help me to construct my page

Hello lovely people,

I just need your help and expertise to build my bio page on Wikipedia, as I feel almost lost trying to use the template and the website.

I have a published draft already, containing plain text.

Any advice or suggestion is welcomed. Husseinhajj (talk) 00:05, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

@Husseinhajj You aren't going to find legitimate help to build your own biography here. It's that much of a bad idea. You might find someone who wants your money and will promise you an article, but that's a scam. Here's where you can start instead of trying to create articles. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 00:20, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello Husseinhajj. You may want to read Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. An encyclopedia article about you won't belong to you, and anyone can edit it, if they can find a good reliable published source for what they write. Perhaps the time will come when something happens that you'd rather not have the world know about. If the incident makes the local newspaper, then it's published in a reliable source, can end up in your "bio page," and you can't delete that part, for you aren't to be editing an article about yourself. You may want to write about yourself on social media, or perhaps start your own website. That way you can write almost anything you'd like about yourself, and you'd be free to update your biography as you see fit.

Best wishes on finding a better platform to publish a biography about yourself. Karenthewriter (talk) 00:39, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

What does everyone think of these articles

What does everyone think of these draft articles Draft:Les Coulisses de l'exploit, Draft:Voyage sans passeport, Draft:La Boîte à sel, Draft:Magazine féminin Dwanyewest (talk) 00:46, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

@Dwanyewest Why do you ask? I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 00:49, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

@I dream of horses (Contribs) I thought I have done enough to improve these articles with reliable third person sources. I am trying to figure what I have to do to not get these articles rejected or at the bare minimum improve my chances of not getting rejected. Dwanyewest (talk) 00:59, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Dwanyewest Wikipedia distinguishes between Declined and Rejected (more severe). David notMD (talk) 05:00, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Neutrality and Cleanup

Good evening. I am asking a question regarding the page of Andy Slater. There was no content within the talk page of the NPOV dispute and I went ahead and cleaned the page up to take away the multiple sub-headers. What else needs to be done? I went to delete the messages after the cleanup and it got reverted to an older version without the cleanup. Thanks for any help as I am trying to handle this the proper way. BlueMoon87 (talk) 01:03, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

@BlueMoon87: Looking at the history of the article, I see that the {{npov}} tag was added by Treybien2 and the {{Cleanup rewrite}} tag was added by Curbon7. I suggest you post your question on Talk:Andy Slater and ask these users to join the conversation. Thanks, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 02:17, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Your question now moot, as an editor has since removed 90% of the article. David notMD (talk) 05:14, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Help to save my account

Hello, I help to save my account. I think will not be blocked to editing. I haved a question: The removed has been restored, what should I do now? There are no current to protect in Cardei012597 because the removed has been fixed. I want to try another way and make sure not vandalism to get blocked for me, no matters how you can haved an account. I want to continue Wikipedia and haved an road to victory. Chris troutman let me don’t let vandalism that negatively for the experience for other edits. Anyway, thanks to the help me fixed and make sure to continue before blocked for users in all times. Welcomed. 2402:800:63A5:D160:31B6:B20B:267A:99A9 (talk) 03:20, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

This is word salad, likely caused by automated translation. Could you post this in your native language? A translation by a person will make more sense and be more accurate. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 05:01, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

A) Your entry here is from an IP address. If you have an account, comment after logging in, so that a Teahouse host can look at your past edits. B) Leave Cardei12597's Talk page alone. You deleted content (none of your business) and it was restored by Chris troutman. C) So far, your edits as the IP address 2402 would not lead to you being warned about being blocked, but again, have you been threatened with being blocked on your logged in account? D) I agree that your query was not proper English. Please compose with more care. David notMD (talk) 05:25, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I can't seem to refill these links

I can't seem to refill the links on Draft:Présence protestante does anyone else know how to do them? Dwanyewest (talk) 05:41, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

If Refill does not work, then the remaining URLs will need to be converted to ref format manually. David notMD (talk) 06:27, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Watch time

can i check how much time I used in wikipedia editing in a period of time? Baruahranuj 06:30, 18 July 2022 (UTC)