Wikipedia:Teahouse

Maproom, 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

Submission declined

Hi, Our company have relaunched an old fashion brand called ST-95 and I'm attempting to create a Wiki page about the brand at Draft:St95. I've carried out quite alot of research on the internet about the history of the brand but the submission declined message reads: should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. The references I've submitted are from independent sources should I remove these. The ST-95 brand was quite niche so there is little information available, do you have any advice on how we can do research to get the page published. We are going to have a go at rewriting the article to be more like an Encyclopedia entry.

Thanking you , kind regards, John Tulley RetailClothing (talk) 14:33, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

RetailClothing Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia has articles, not "wiki pages". Please read WP:COI and WP:PAID for information on required formal disclosures. If as you say, there is little information avaliable, this topic would not merit an article at this time. At least some of the sources you offered are interviews with company staff, which does not establish notability. 331dot (talk) 14:37, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, John Tulley, and welcome to the Teahouse. Note that Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only 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 such sources do not exist, then no article on the subject will be accepted, however it is written. ColinFine (talk) 14:49, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

RetailClothing None of the information about Osti is relevant to a company started 16 years after his death that uses the same name as what was his company before it ceased to exist. Delete all of that from Draft:St95. This leaves only the last ref as relevant, for a company that was launched last year. Not enough to be notable. David notMD (talk) 00:54, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I tagged the article also as "not neutral", as it reads moreso like a promotional praise. WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 09:36, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Update: Honestly, the article has a general issue with its subject and tone. It not only reads like a promotional praise (which I gave up editing almost halfway), but it also isn't notable enough. Unless reliable sources can convince us it's a topic worthy of a draft, for now, I've stopped editing there. WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 10:36, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Vandalism

I keep seeing vandalised pages on wikipedia??? 86.98.21.175 (talk) 06:48, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, most articles and other pages can be edited by anyone with an internet connection, so it happens. Various counter-measures are in place and generally works well, but they are not perfect. More at Wikipedia:Risk disclaimer. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:54, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

If editors keep the articles they've edited on their Watchlist (permanently), they should be able to see all changes, and be able to detect any vandalism immediately, right? Why would any other counter-measures be needed? -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 07:14, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Well, for example there are bots who do quite a bit. Also, en-WP has 6,548,783 articles and 116,809 active editors, so there is a non-zero possibility that people could miss stuff, and editors leave. "Be able to" =/= "do". I have reverted year-old vandalism. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:36, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Sadly, it ranges from unnecessary joke edits to people posting WP:MADEUP information. You can report some people only if they repeatedly vandalize articles. Unless it's really bad, like if someone repeatedly IP hops to vandalize pages, report to the WP:ANI. WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 09:46, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Forgot to link the page, it's Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Use it only if they're an active vandal. Otherwise, some random IPs just go and make Arthur a Xilam property or something (not joking), publish their edit, repeat, then just... leave.

People just don't check IPs in sockpuppet investigations as other people could potentially use the same IP. WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 09:49, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

And by "not joking", I mean... I've seen some IPs vandalize stuff like Lilybuds and Digby Dragon to say it's a slapstick cartoon by Xilam. Yeah, I don't even know either. WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 09:50, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

As much as you're not active, you may check out WP:VANDAL if you've IP-hopped elsewhere. Sorry I confused you with another IP user, by the way (see history) - I've removed my comment, but I'll give you a tip as compensation. WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 08:55, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

A user did a vandalism

User: DuncanHill

It undo my edits. I’m not something, Admin, you can respond? 2400:2410:C4C3:2000:3DAE:3925:B936:1C6D (talk) 11:17, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

What edits are you complaining about? Maproom (talk) 12:00, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

The ones on Gas Council. I did a partial RV. Sungodtemple (talk) 12:15, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

In the See also for Gas Council, you and DuncanHill are feuding over whether the Wikilink to Electricity Council should appear as that, or as The Electricity Council. The word "The is not part of the council's name. And as you are both editing in good faith, it is not vandalism. Stop. David notMD (talk) 17:17, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I think it may be best for this contributor to prevent any WP:COI. Unless you can verify what is correct... WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 10:45, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Oh, nevermind, the IP was blocked. WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 10:57, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

CVS

Why 67.42.70.22 (talk) 03:31, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! Do you have a question about editing Wikipedia? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:06, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Why what? Cullen328 (talk) 05:55, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Are you looking for the article on CVS Pharmacy, or Concurrent Versions System? If you're not looking for those, check out our disambiguation page on CVS, a list of everything called CVS that has been covered on Wikipedia. A diehard editor (talk | edits) 11:43, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Please do not post vague questions like this, unless it was a mistake. Next time, specify "why". WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 10:55, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Autofilling edit summaries

Hi, I just had a quick question about edit summaries. When typing out an edit summary, it will provide autofill suggestions based on all the past edit summaries that I have used. As you can imagine, this has gotten rather cluttered, and I was just wondering if there is any way to clear out those autofill suggestions on the Wikipedia side. Clearing my browser history/cache has proved ineffective, though it is always possible that this is just something that needs to be resolved in the technology on my end. Thanks in advance for any and all help. TNstingray (talk) 17:05, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

@TNstingray This is likely to be a feature of your browser, rather than Wikipedia. I use MS Edge and can delete individual summaries that are no longer relevant by hovering over them, when a trash icon appears. Or I can delete the lot by hovering over an "X" to the top right of the list. Other Chrome-based browsers should be similar. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:23, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeah I guess that means it's on my end. I'm not seeing that option for my browser, but thank you for weighing in anyway. TNstingray (talk) 19:41, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

@TNstingray. If it's any help, in FireFox (in Windows) you can simply highlight the relevant autofill suggestion and then hit the DEL key. I do this all the time. Mike Marchmont (talk) 17:20, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. I use Chrome so it must be something wrong with the autofill function because I don't see any of these highlight or delete options. Oh well, I guess it is just something I will have to live with. TNstingray (talk) 20:10, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

@TNstingray Chrome Settings lets you turn autofill on and off. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 09:07, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeah I don't know exactly what the problem is. I've turned it on and off, and I've entirely cleared the "Autofill form data" under Advanced "Clear browsing data". That signed me out of everything, so after getting all of that resolved I just did a minor edit and it hadn't changed anything. I sincerely appreciate everyone who has weighed in, but I don't know of anything else that can be done unless I completely switch browsers. TNstingray (talk) 13:16, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

How to handle an article that fails WP:HOWTRANS

Hello Teahouse, I have a moral conundrum to deal with and I ask for your help.

I saw an article translated from a non-English Wikipedia article. At first glance, it might seem like a spectacular, extremely well-edited, long, and detailed article on art and history. After an evaluation, however, it is clear that, by the standards of the English Wikipedia, the original article was full of problems, which were imported into the English version:

• Neutral tone is often absent: for the most part the article sounds like an essay. It contains many peacock terms.
• Unsubstantiated hypotheses abound: "maybe" and "probably" are frequent.
• Most statements and claims are unsourced. Almost all sources are not in English and some do not even support what it's written in the article.

Simply put, the article fails WP:HOWTRANS badly.

My moral conundrum is: it is clear that the editor has put his heart and blood into creating a long article that would be very difficult to "fix". The essay tone is so pervasive that extensive rewriting and research of good sources may be needed. Can you suggest a way to handle this situation without causing trauma to the poor editor? ► LowLevel73 ^(talk) 21:09, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

LowLevel73, a summary of what you just said: An inexperienced, good faith editor spent a lot of time making an article that does not comply with Wikipedia standards. I would just tell the editor what the right thing is to do, and help them write the article if needed. Sungodtemple (talk) 22:20, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

It is difficult. But really, the editor's position is no different from any of the hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of novice editors who put heart and soul into writing new drafts that have no chance of being accepted. They almost always unwittingly rely on OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, as does this editor. ColinFine (talk) 22:16, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply, @ColinFine. I think that the good information in the article might be recoverable, if written in an acceptable form. Would it be a good solution to explain to the author what the problems are and propose a move to Draft? ► LowLevel73 ^(talk) 23:18, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Is it in Article space? Immediately move it to draftspace, and then explain it. It would be helpful if you could provide a link to the article. Sungodtemple (talk) 01:12, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello @Sungodtemple, thanks for the answer, the article was in mainspace. After a thorough evaluation of the sources, needed to explain to the author the reason of the move, I have draftified it. ► LowLevel73 ^(talk) 12:32, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

@LowLevel73 Yes, that is a good-faith start, but it needs work. Along with the tone that you mention, I see weird word choices (and some non-words like "filiation") from this (most likely) non-native-English speaker. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 09:13, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I think the text and tone can be fixed without too much trouble, but I decided on draftifying mainly because of its sources or lack thereof. Most statements are unsourced and a large percentage of existing sources are generic ones that cover a topic but do not confirm what the article states, failing to WP:V. Even WP:RS is often absent, in a serious way, as in "self-published-blog-mixing-art-post-with-poker-and-gambling" serious. I'll try to help the editor. ► LowLevel73 ^(talk) 11:50, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

@LowLevel73 That would be great. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 04:03, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Can another editor just randomly remove editions so long as they're not articles from your own page

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

---

Sir Philip Sidney Peonydanvers (talk) 21:53, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

@Peonydanvers: Welcome to the Teahouse! Could you please elaborate on what you mean by "remove editions"? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 21:59, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Please read BRD, Peonydanvers. Any editor may remove material if they think it does not belong in an article. Any other editor may disagree, and revert their edit. If they still think it does not belong, it is then their duty to open a discussion, with the aim of developing a consensus on what should be in the article.

I have no idea what you mean by "as long as they're not articles from your own page" - unless you are referring to the fact that it is not consdered proper to edit another user's User page. ColinFine (talk) 22:20, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I mean things that the person has added to the page and edited themselves, hence editions but could be termed additions as well — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peonydanvers (talk • contribs)

If we're talking to a discussion, then as long as nobody has replied to or referenced it a person is free to remove it. (If it has been responded to, striking it with <s></s> is preferred).

If we're talking an article, self-reversion is always allowed.

If we're talking something on that user's own talk or user page, they can remove literally everything from the page barring declined unblock requests. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 22:23, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Peonydanvers. Back in 2020, you added a claim to Philip Sidney that he inspired the song Love Letters in the Sand, but did not provide a reference to a reliable source. The song article does not mention this, and another editor removed it as unreferenced. Cullen328 (talk) 22:58, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Note: reported userpage on ANI due to the fact it's just a dumb ass rant targeting the staff of Wikipedia. User had been suddenly getting angry at others for no reason. WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 12:34, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

The issue here appears to be unacceptable content you have put on your User page and other editors have removed. See WP:UP for what is permitted and what is not. This has been made clear to you on your Talk page, so no benefit in raising (however vaguely) the question here. P.S. Original research is forbidden. Ditto "having wisdom to offer." David notMD (talk) 00:28, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

See also the meaning of edition. Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:31, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

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

Wikinews!!

This question is related to wikinews and not wikipedia. We must all have seen sports articles from ESPN, Bleacher Report etc.. that analyse a situation rather than just write the daily match score. For eg: They wrote articles about the player ratings per match, analyse a player per season and so. I just wished to know if I could create similar articles in Wikinews or if it was just a daily news platform. Have a good day.

I've been away for a while now, and i can't figure out how put my sign in the new system. Apologies Atlantis77177 (talk) 03:05, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

hi @Atlantis77177 and welcome to the teahouse! I believe the best place to ask this would be somewhere around the Wikinews Water Cooler's assistance section, although I'm not sure if it is active at all given sections from july remain unanswered (plus I don't know how active the Wikinews community is at all, since I don't check it often). happy editing and newswriting! 💜  melecie  talk - 03:13, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

@Atlantis77177: Apart from Wikimedia, WikiNews has very little connection to Wikipedia, and very few people actually edit there. They have not even published an article on Queen Elizabeth's death yet, which speaks for itself honestly. TBH, they'll probably take anything at this point. —VersaceSpace 🌃 03:15, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Atlantis77177, in my frank opinion, Wikinews is an almost moribund project that really ought to be shut down and put out of its misery. Their lead article at the moment is a five paragraph piece about a roller coaster at an amusement park in Ohio shutting down. Other articles on their home page are four or five days old. Major stories are routinely ignored. Most articles are brief and sketchy. English Wikipedia does a vastly better job of summarizing the news than Wikinews, and I cannot imagine that any intelligent person would go to Wikinews for a summary of world news. Cullen328 (talk) 05:17, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

As per other users, @Atlantis77177 there's not much you can do at WikiNews. If a project is inactive and cannot catch up, you may want to seek an active one on Wikipedia.

Does anyone know? WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 12:06, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Notability criteria

What is the notability criteria of a Mentalist? കോട്ടയംകാരൻ (talk) 04:50, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, കോട്ടയംകാരൻ. Either WP:NPERSON or WP:NENTERTAINER. Cullen328 (talk) 04:58, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

We do not have a special notability criteria for mentalists. WP:NPERSON and WP:NENTERTAINER apply, as has been said by @Cullen328. A diehard editor (talk | edits) 06:26, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

@കോട്ടയംകാരൻ Having proved their talents under strictly controlled conditions with third-party observers? No, probably not. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 04:08, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Tomoharu Ushida

I'm new to Wikipedia article editor and would love to know how to write the appropriate biography article guidelines on Tomoharu Ushida that will be accepted Penpal777 (talk) 09:25, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

If the article is regarding a living person, read WP:BLP. To ensure the article passes the notability criteria. Please add a variety of reliable sources for verifiability. Feel free to come back here should you need any more assistance! Blanchey (talk) 09:38, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

hi @Penpal777 and welcome to the teahouse! for the notability guidelines for biographies, please check out Notability (biographies). you may also want to read Your first article. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 10:52, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

@Penpal777:

read the notability guidelines for people. does tomoharu ushida meet them? if not, don't create an article. but if the guidelines are met, then do create an article.

you should also read the guideance in help:your first article. lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみ, ping me when replying 10:51, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I suggest, Penpal777, that you work on improving existing articles for some time, and that only after you've got experience of that, work on creating a draft about the pianist (or some namesake of his). -- Hoary (talk) 12:22, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Advice on how can I leave Wikipedia

Hello! May I ask on how can I retire my wikipedia account permanently? Because after all, I wanted to retire as an editor or contributor in March 2020 but it was delayed due to the restrictions as a precaution as well as the depression I experienced due to the pandemic, that's why I'm asking you for a favor on how I can leave my account permanently and how can I get out of this website. I also apologize if I disturbed what you did. Thank you very much! RenRen070193 (talk) 11:33, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

@RenRen070193: simply put {{retired}} at the top of your user page, or if you wish to no longer be associated with this account, request courtesy vanishing. lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみ, ping me when replying 11:37, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

No, it's fine! This is what the Teahouse is for, some people step in at any time - you aren't interrupting anything. Also, refer to lettherebedarklight's reply. WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 12:33, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

@RenRen070193 Accounts cannot be deleted or closed. If you want to stop editing here you simply need to abandon your account - remove any email addresses from the preferences and scramble the password. If you are in good standing (i.e. no active sanctions) you can also request courtesy vanishing. Make sure that you definitely do not ever want to edit here again before removing your email and scrambling your password - it is not possible to reset it without an email. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 12:47, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Note: 192.76.8.74 probbably meant to link to WP:VANISH. Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:54, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

@Victor Schmidt I did indeed, fixed. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 16:01, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

@RenRen070193 If any of that seems daunting, simply walk away and don't log in to your account any more. But scrambling you password, at least, is safer. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 04:12, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

2 Questions on formatting

1. How do I create the elbow connector shape for when talk page discussions get too indented?

2. How do I create green Serif text to show a quote?

Rob3512 (Talk) 11:48, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

@Rob3512:

1. {{outdent}}

2. {{talk quote inline}} lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみ, ping me when replying 11:58, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Rob3512 (Talk) 12:35, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

@Rob3512 There's also {{talk quote block}}, which can be quite handy for if you need to quote a big chunk of text. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 12:43, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

celebrities or famous people born on 9/12/1947

I am looking for interesting people or interesting information about the number 75 and on those born in 9/12/1947 to use as part of a birthday card. Athletes, actors, historical individuals, events. I keep getting a message that my search request doesn't exist. 155.186.10.40 (talk) 15:23, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia doesn't have a specific page on every single topic one might have in mind, so you might need to broaden your search and then look for specific details in the results. For example, we have a page for the year [1974] and for the month September 1947, both organized by date, in which you might find some things that happened in that year or month at (or near) the right day. And we have an article for September 12, organized by year, that has things that happened that day of many years so you might find someone born the right year or someone from a previous year who has a milestone birthday in the year of interest.

We have an article about 75 (number) with various factoids that might relate to your birthday-friend's interests. DMacks (talk) 15:43, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

9/12/1947 is unclear, are you looking for September 12, 1947 or 12 9 December 1947? A diehard editor (talk | edits) 15:59, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Ooh good point. Today I was reading lots of content focused on US readers or topics:) DMacks (talk) 20:43, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Chopsquad DJ Page

Hello! I've been trying to get in contact with someone who can help me a with a deleted page and getting it back up due to a photo not owned by the original submitter and would like to get that page up again, please let me know if anyone can help me Tylercameron3271 (talk) 17:43, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Tylercameron3271. Draft:ChopSquad DJ still exists, and you are free to improve it. Cullen328 (talk) 17:50, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to provide copies of deleted articles A diehard editor (talk | edits) 17:51, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Princess Omowunmi Agunbiade

The article was moved back to draft and the draftifying reviewer asked that I incubate the article and then submit for a review. Suggestions on what to do next would be appreciated also contributions to the Draft:Princess Omowunmi Agunbiade Charlesvet88 (talk) 20:44, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Charlesvet88, you need to gather sources to establish notability. Since Agunbiade is living, there are higher standards for notability, see WP:BLP. Sungodtemple (talk) 20:52, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Note: Charlesvet was blocked for being someone's sockpuppet. As such, I have sent them the essays on unblocking and sockpuppetry. WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 14:27, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

If two sources have different opinionated POVs

I was looking to add information to Abraham a Sancta Clara from his Encyclopaedia Judaica entry. Sancta Clara's article is overwhelmingly positive and in praise of him, and links to the Catholic Encyclopedia (and also the Chambers Biographical Dictionary, which is probably a reliable source). On the other hand, the Judaica entry describes him as an "anti-Jewish propagandist." These two encyclopedias specifically serve two different religions, so, should I add the info from Judaica in or just leave it? — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 04:11, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

This is a great question. When reliable sources vary (and historic biographical sources frequently disagree), it's sometimes best to utilize the source's voice. It would be acceptable style for an editor to say something vaguely like this: "Nikolaus Scheid, in his article on the cleric in Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume 1 says X, Y, and Z,[cite] whereas the Encyclopaedia Judaica entry for the subject describes him as A, B, and C."[cite] Obviously a better construction can be created given specifics. Adding a differing viewpoint when most sources seem overwhelmingly positive is often a very important contribution to make, especially when all the sources seem to meet WP:RS. Local talk consensus may disagree with the insertion, but such addition certainly deserves appropriate consideration. BusterD (talk) 04:51, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Question about contributing to type of pages

Hello, I had a question about what kind of pages I can contribute to. I usually do topics like index, surveys, climate, country rankings in various reports, research reports, citizenship, passport etc.. Today, while editing a page OECD - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OECD, I navigated to Mathias Cormann - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathias_Cormann. I added the same citation on his page too as it was common for OECD and Mathias Cormann. Since, I don't usually do for people, I was in two minds if I should do add the citation on the page or not. But, as per what i had read in WP:BRD, when in doubt, edit the page. So, I made an edit on the page by adding the citation. My question is that am I only supposed to make edits to one type of page (like index etc..) or I can make to different kind of pages too? Thank you. ANLgrad (talk) 04:57, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

@ANLgrad I believe you can edit any page so long as you are not breaking any guidelines or polices and are verifying your edits with reliable sources. Blanchey (talk) 07:29, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't fully understand your question, ANLgrad. Yes, you can edit articles that are unlike articles you've previously edited. The edit you're asking about is this one. It appears to provide a reference for the assertion, already in the "infobox", that Cormann was born in Eupen, Liège, Belgium. Your reference is this SMH article, which does not say that he was born there (but merely that he was born in Belgium). So no, you may not make edits such as this: they're deceptive. -- Hoary (talk) 07:37, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

The text of the article also says he was born in Eupen. This is sourced to a page that currently is given over to something about Australia's late Queen. A version saying that Cormann was born in Eupen is available here. -- Hoary (talk) 10:21, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Removal of birth data

Hi, I'm not sure if I am in the right area but I have a question regarding a user routinely deleting birth details from biographies of living subjects and citing WP:DOB in the notes. As I discovered with their edit to Cliff Richard, that particular rule was completely irrelevant.

I started a discussion with the user to try and understand their reasoning and they subsequently cited WP:BLP and stated "If the DOB is widely known, then add it back with a WP:RS supporting it as a WP:CITE." Therefore, the basis for removing the birth details appears to be the lack of a citation instead of privacy concerns.

Are these types of edits warranted? TedRoach (talk) 05:03, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

@TedRoach, assuming we are talking about edits like [1], IMO that is fine, I do similar edits myself (actually I wondered if this was about me). WP:BLP states

"Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion."

Add WP:DOB to that and such dates should not be reinserted without a BLP-good source, which seems to have happened here. DOB:s are not mandatory in any way, we can do without. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:41, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I would argue that there is nothing contentious about Cliff Richard's DOB as it is widely referenced on the internet. Obviously, it is best practice to use a citation on Wikipedia. It seems petty to me to remove valid data and obfuscate the matter by quoting an irrelevant rule as justification. Maybe that's just me! Thanks for your reply. TedRoach (talk) 07:05, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that DoB often is a controversial claim itself due to outside pressures, especially in circmstances where someone's age is grounds to be denied work. It doesn't matter if it's "widely referenced on the internet"; if it doesn't have a source it should be removed. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 07:16, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

It's not uncommon for misinformation to be widely reproduced on the internet. Toddst1 removed the claimed birthdate (whether true or false), with the reason "WP:DOB again!" WB:DOB states "Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public." If you're saying that this date of birth has been widely published by reliable sources, then readd it, complete with a reliable source. (Or two or three, if you wish.) If you saying that the sources aren't reliable but that their unreliability doesn't matter, please explain here why it doesn't matter. (Expect a sceptical reaction.) And of course if I misunderstand your objection, please explain. -- Hoary (talk) 07:19, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång, @Jéské Couriano and @Hoary I appreciate your replies as I'm just trying to get my head around the Wikipedia rules. Although I have been a minor editor for a number of years, I've never deeply concerned myself with the guidelines; thankfully my handful of edits have never attracted any drama.

I only came upon the Cliff Richard edit as I wanted to know when he was born and was surprised that the information wasn't listed. A look at the edit history revealed that there had been a bit of argy-bargy with his DOB. TedRoach (talk) 07:57, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Transclusion across different Wikipedia domains

Hello expert Wikipedians! Very new here. I am trying to transclude across different Wikipedia domains to have the same userpage in Wikipedia, WikipediaOutreach, WIkimediaCommons, etc. Is that possible? Thank you! CorradoNai (talk) 06:05, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

@CorradoNai If you simply want to create a m:global user page, just go to m:User:CorradoNai and add some content; it will be displayed on any wiki where you haven't specified a user page. Interwiki transclusion itself is a whole nother ball game. If you're curious, take a look at mw:Manual:$wgEnableScaryTranscluding, T11890, or T121470 for a little more information. I'm not aware that it's officially supported on any Wikimedia wiki yet. Shells-shells (talk) 06:52, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

$wgEnableScaryTranscluding seems to be off for the english Wikipedia, if one can trust Special:Interwiki. Victor Schmidt (talk) 07:02, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

About my page's formal tone

Hello and hope you are doing great

My name is Khalid and i was creating a page as a draft and then submitted it and it was declined because of the Tone it was not formal

Then i edited the page and now i want to know if it is suitable or is it still not a formal tone

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Mohammed_S._Gaber_(actor) This is the page.

I would be glad if you can give me your opinions and advices on it if it is not formal and natural still... KH (talk) 09:59, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

FYI: here's an easier link for context (poster made this draft): Draft:Mohammed S. Gaber (actor). WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 11:08, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

We have a better template called {{Courtesy link}}, by the way. It looks like:  Courtesy link: Draft:Mohammed S. Gaber (actor) A diehard editor (talk | edits) 14:13, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

@A diehard editor Thank you for telling me! I'll keep note of that. WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 14:17, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

@Khalid Bin Abdulaziz Hello there, I am doing great thanks! Hope you are too. I looked at the page and it seems as though someone has since declined the request for creation (or this was the original decline). To improve the article, I would recommend backing content up with reliable sources and writing in a neutral tone. Perhaps the reviewer felt that your tone wasn’t neutral (maybe they thought you writing from a fans perspective etc)… I hope you are able to improve your article and it is successfully published! Feel free to ask more should you need too. :-) Blanchey (talk) 10:11, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind message, I would really be pleased and appreciate it if you can give it a 5 minutes read from your own time and actually see if ti not from a neutral point of view. Also thank you for the tip on the sources i will definitely add more reliable sources to it and will continue editing it.

Yes this is the original decline. KH (talk) 10:18, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Let's look at one paragraph of Draft:Mohammed S. Gaber (actor), KH. Before gaining fame, Samir Gaber was just a normal guy who wanted to diversify his income with stuff that he liked to do. This led to him becoming popular and well known across most of the cities of Saudi Arabia. Mohammed Samir Gaber loves what he does which is the main reason behind his creativity and success. He pursued those fields in which he had an interest which led him to become a successful person and excel at the things he does. This is sourced to

Hamdan, Ali (2018-06-21). "Quality Of Life After Dose Escalation in Palliative Radiotherapy In Brain Secondaries". South Valley University.

Call me lazy if you wish, but I'm not going to look at that reference, because I cannot believe that a master's thesis (for that's what it is!) so titled would confirm that anyone, before they gained fame, "was just a normal guy who wanted to diversify his income with stuff that he liked to do". Where are the actual sources for this paragraph? -- Hoary (talk) 10:31, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the word i really understood the point, i am glad i asked the question because you guys helped me understand and yes that citation was a mistake it should not be on that place. Thank you again. I will start reading more and getting more information about editing before actually creating an article thank you again. KH (talk) 10:41, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, KH, and welcome to the Teahouse, and to Wikipedia. I appreciate that you are keen to contribute to Wikipedia, but I always advise new editors to spent a few months making small improvements to some of our six million existing articles, and learning how Wikipedia works. before trying the very difficult task of creating a new article.

Draft:Mohammed S. Gaber (actor) does indeed have problems with tone (the first paragraph tells us that he is a Sudanese actor From Sudan ... He Is a Sudanese-Born Voice Actor ... Gaber is a Sudanese voice actor - there is other text in between that I have omitted, but do you see that this repetition does not make for easy reading?

But a far more serious problem is the sourcing. Looking at your first few sources: iMDB is not a reliable source (because much of it is user generated) and should almost never be cited in a Wikipedia article. "Google search" is unhelpful as a citation - which is the specific source you want to cite, and (importantly) who published it? Instagram and other social media should rarely be cited because they are in general not reliable sources. (That's as far as I got).

Please read and study NACTOR and WP:YFA. But I earnestly suggest that you put aside writing about Gaber for the moment, and get some experience in editing existing articles. ColinFine (talk) 10:32, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I really appreciate your advice and i will definitely start on that by learning more and gain more experience in editing existing articles. I do understand all your points and i thank you a lot for your words. KH (talk) 10:39, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not an expert (refer to what others have said), so I can give you these: WP:SOURCING and WP:Your first article (if it is your first article). Anyway, welcome to Wikipedia! WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 11:10, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Also, consider WP:NEUTRAL and fixing grammar and capitalization. Articles are Not Typed Out Like This in Wikipedia Necessarily, so I suggest getting something like Grammarly and/or getting someone to help - there's a lot of capitalization issues in the draft. WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 11:13, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I did some editing to bring it closer to Wikipedia style, but you need to address all the flawed references before resubmitting. David notMD (talk) 11:57, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Oh, good catch. Thank you, by the way! WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 14:15, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

@WannurSyafiqah74, @Khalid Bin Abdulaziz Grammarly can occasionally suggest erroneous "corrections", so it needs to be used carefully. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 04:17, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Grammarly is a waste of money anyway. A diehard editor (talk | edits) 07:09, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

@A diehard editor Didn't know that for years. Well, I might as well change my mind - removing mentions of those from my recent comments, too! WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 09:28, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I tried grammarly once, it was a bad experience. Yes they fixed grammar and spelling but they wanted me to pay for writing improvement suggestions and more features. No thanks, I'd rather donate to the Wikimedia Foundation because their website is a website I actually have a use for, and I edit it regularly anyway. Can't wait to see Criticism of Grammarly. A diehard editor (talk | edits) 10:10, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Is it a good idea to nominate a Start-class article to GA immedietely?

An article I submitted to AfC was assessed as Start-class, but I want to nominate for GA. I'm pretty sure I've used all of the sources on the subject available. — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 11:23, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I see that you have created three articles to date (two rated Start), and raised a different article to GA. Do you really believe that one of the Start articles is not only comprehensive, but also important enough and will have a viewing audience large enough to warrant your efforts and a reviewer's efforts to bring it to GA? Given that the Start articles were created on 28 August and 10 September of this year, I recommend you hold off on a GA consideration for at least six months - to see what other editors contribute - and then if no other significant addition, perhaps raise to C-class and stop there. David notMD (talk) 12:16, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Onof of the requirements at Wikipedia:Good article criteria is Stability. While your Start-rated articles may not be at risk for major changes or content disputes, I again suggest waiting at least a couple of months before nominating for GA. Both of the Start articles are quite short, but there does not appear to be a requirement for minimum length. David notMD (talk) 13:01, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I was talking about this specifically. — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 13:05, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I didn't understand the third sentence. Doug butler (talk) 13:11, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Do you mean, "I'm pretty sure I've used all of the sources on the subject available."? @Doug butler — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 13:18, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

No, I was wondering what a GA was like, as I've never started one, so started reading and found the structure of the sentence rather convoluted and beyond my understanding. Doug butler (talk) 13:29, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

@Vortex3427: I think Doug meant that he didn't understand (as I also do not) the third sentence of the article: "He was consulted by many, including most Madras trading companies by his close friend, Thomas Pitt, the Governor of Fort St. George." There seems to be some mix-up there. Should it be "He was consulted by most Madras trading companies, as well as by his close friend ..." or similar? Deor (talk) 15:17, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Article Review

Hi. I have created a draft which is waiting to be reviewed since 4-5 weeks. The article has got significant coverage in multiple channels like Gulf News and Khaleej Times which are top news channels in Gulf region. I will be very grateful if you can review the draft. I have already made changes and removed content which seems irrelevant. The draft link is attached Draft:Emirates Draw. Thanks Fifthapril (talk) 12:21, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Fifthapril Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. As noted on your draft, "This may take 4 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 2,337 pending submissions waiting for review." Please be patient. I have fixed your link, we don't need the whole url when linking to another article or draft on Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 12:47, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I am patient but just wanted to use this platform to get feedback on how to speed up the review process. Thanks again :) Fifthapril (talk) 20:37, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Fifthapril, the page is overly positive about the lottery. The short description calls it 'popular' and the Coral Reef Resoration Programme section says it is 'socially responsible' - both of which are not sourced. Sungodtemple (talk) 13:14, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I appreciate it. It might look overly positive about lottery because the article is about an organization who manages lotteries. Still I tried to create it in "neutral tone" with the help of references. Few more references has been added to the "Coral Reef Restoration Programme section" as per your feedback. Thanks again :) Fifthapril (talk) 20:41, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Just note that article is quite short and doesn't seem to have sufficient detail for a full article; at its current state, it probably won't pass AfC. Additionally, the article seems to have a Wikipedia:PROMOTIONAL tone and reads sorta like an ad e.g. prominently listing raffle prizes, phrases like "supports teams of experienced divers and passionate volunteers." — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 13:16, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

There are a lot of Wikipedia articles about lotteries (I am not comparing my article with them because every topic is different but still) which are too short with little information and almost zero references for example, Hrvatska Lutrija, Barbados Lottery, Magnum Berhad. I tried to keep my article short because adding information like "How to Play" or "Where to Watch" can sound promotional. And I have removed the phrase "supports teams of experienced divers and passionate volunteers" as per your feedback. Thanks again, I appreciate it :) Fifthapril (talk) 20:53, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Fifthapril, and welcome to the Teahouse. I've only looked at the first four references, but none of them is independent of the orgsnisers of the draw. Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only 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. Unless you can find some such independent sources, the lottery is not (at present) notable, and no Wikipedia article is possible.

I suspect that you are trying to get things moving because of the draw on 25 September. Please note that WP:there is no deadline. Wikipedia is not here to publicise the lottery. ColinFine (talk) 15:56, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. I really appreciate it:). There are plenty of independent references available [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] and many more.

And referring to your suspicion, I am not trying to influence anyone to publish the article ASAP. I just posted my query here because it was pending for review since last 4-5 weeks and just wanted to get feedback on how to improve the article and how to speed up the review process. Thanks again for your feedback. Fifthapril (talk) 21:54, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

@Fifthapril and hosts... Why would a reader consult an encyclopedia to find out information about a lottery? It seems like a weird subject for an encyclopedia. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 04:21, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

The article was rejected ?

Why was my article rejected at Article for creation? My article : Draft:Phusanu Wongsavanischakorn

I have correctly inserted the trusted data source. ( Website of Thailand ) Why was it rejected? What do I need to do in order for my article to be published? Do I have to refer only to English-language websites? Please ,guide me. Thanks you. BBOS Srpdwch (talk) 13:19, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

BBOS Srpdwch Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I can say that sources do not need to be in English. 331dot (talk) 13:26, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Phusanu Wongsavanischakorn A diehard editor (talk | edits) 13:29, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

BBOS Srpdwch, the draft is not adequately supported by reliable sources, as mentioned by the declining reviewer. If you can find reliable sources that meet the requirements of WP:NPERSON, the draft might be accepted. Sungodtemple (talk) 13:47, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

@BBOS Srpdwch Not only are there flaws with the references used, the article has multiple grammar errors. As such, I recommend consulting fluent English speakers. WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 14:19, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

The article has flawed formatting as well. Bold goes in the first paragraph, not in any other sections. Furthermore, Thai titles do not have English translations noted. WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 14:21, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Websites for sale as a reference

while repairing nbsp accidents(i.e. when "nbsp" is by accident displayed in the read view), i found some very confusing names of references: Names including "This website is for sale" in the articles Brace (singer), Piedmont Henry Hospital, List of museums in Ticino, and Terra Nova 1260HP diesel hydraulic locomotive. The same in French ("site web est à vendre") in Jupiter (factory), and the same in German ("Diese; Website steht zum Verkauf!") in List of South Korean festivals. I do not know how to behave in these cases, but i think that this is not the desired kind of references in Wikipedia. Can any experienced en Wikipedian adopt these cases? Thank you in advance. (I am de-N, en-2.) Himbeerbläuling (talk) 15:09, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

One guess is that the owner of the website at the time it was cited has since ceased payment - abandoned the website - and it is now available to be purchased. David notMD (talk) 15:49, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

At the moment,, there are 234 pages in article-space that have that English string. The first such I found was added by this edit, in which User:Ozzie10aaaa mentioned use of the WP:reFill tool. I'm not familiar with it, so maybe there's a bug in it? This seems like something to raise at a more central or advanced place than the teahouse since it's a general problem likely triggered accidentally by numerous editors, but not sure where to raise it. DMacks (talk) 16:11, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

@DMacks reFill uses mw:Citoid to automatically fill in various parameters in citation templates. Citoid relies on Zotero, which is a piece of software that can automatically collect certain data from a pages HTML structure, such as authors, dates and titles. This isn't a bug in reFill, it's operator error - someone has run this tool on a dead link and not checked the output before saving, so reFill has filled the citation template with the information from the "this website is gone and is now for sale" holding page. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 16:32, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the technical details! DMacks (talk) 16:49, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I just tried out the link from Piedmont Henry Hospital, it seems dangerous! My virus scanner was alarmed, it says the site is infected! --Himbeerbläuling (talk) 17:22, 11 September 2022 (UTC). I deleted the link there, if you want to check with a very secure computer environment, of course the edit history of the article has the link. --Himbeerbläuling (talk) 17:29, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

@Himbeerbläuling Rather than deleting the reference you can add |url-status=unfit to the cite web template, which tells the template that the site has been taken over and is unfit to link to. This lets you keep the citation intact while removing the potentially harmful link. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 19:07, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Though using those parameters does require you to track down an archive of the site to set as the |archive-url parameter. Archive.org should have archived all sites linked to by wikipedia. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 19:10, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I made/undertook several tries to build a correct reference, i am not sure now. --Himbeerbläuling (talk) 17:15, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Expanding article with poor sources

I’m looking to expand Muisca raft. I’m starting by reviewing existing references. There are currently 6, and in my opinion they’re not great. I’ve left a message on the talk page with my concerns. Could someone who is more experienced double check my assessment of those 6 references?

More generally, I often encounter situations like these when trying to get started on an article. Since I don’t yet have a clue, I’m a bit hesitant to do big sweeping things without first discussing it on the talk page. However, the talk page is empty so I’m not sure another human is going to look at it. In the future, is there a better way to get things jump started rather than bothering people at the Teahouse, perhaps somehow bring attention to the talk page? Do I ping other editors who have worked on the article (but maybe not for a long while)? Do I wait a few days to see if I get a response? Or should I just be bold and do it. Thank you in advance for your advice. GuineaPigC77 (talk) 20:21, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

You can simply go ahead and do your big sweeping things. In your place, I'd might well signal my intentions on the talk page and wait until I got a response, or for one week, whichever came sooner. But I might not. -- Hoary (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you @Hoary that's helpful guidance! GuineaPigC77 (talk) 22:19, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Another possibility is to see if there is a suitable WikiProject (eg WP:WikiProject South America, or you might find a more appropriate one) and ask on the talk page there - don't duplicate your discussion, just invite people to join the discussion you've already started. ColinFine (talk) 22:23, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, good idea. I'd have suggested the same thing myself, if I hadn't been operating on insufficient sleep, caffeine, or both. -- Hoary (talk) 22:38, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Ahhh perfect, that makes a lot of sense. I will do that first. GuineaPigC77 (talk) 22:39, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

On Extended confirmed protection

Hi, I noticed something that sparked a question in me: it seems that my own, personal edits on my .css for the Vector skin add up to the count of the edits I made overall on the site. Since the ECP requires at least 500, wouldn't it be just absurdly trivial to reach such a number just by editing compulsively one single page, most of all a user one? I must have misunderstood how the protection works... Farosullascogliera (talk) 21:12, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Short answer, yes. Long answer, yes, but gaming ECP is grounds to have the userright revoked or one's account blocked entirely. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 21:14, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Welp, please keep it in mind if somehow I reach that number of edits on my User space without meaning to, I have no intention to fool (game) the system! I tend to hit "save" compulsively without thinking about it, I should watch myself in the future... Farosullascogliera (talk) 13:26, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

@Farosullascogliera That is called gaming the system, see the section gaming of permissions. Getting extended confirmed in that manner will result in the right being revoked (any administrator can add or remove extended confirmed from an account). 192.76.8.74 (talk) 21:55, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for drawing people's attention to your history of "contributions". -- Hoary (talk) 22:33, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Citing news sources from a website that are not 'newspapers' like CNN or BBC

When adding a citation from a news source from a website that are not 'newspapers' like CNN or BBC does it make a difference whether I use the 'news' or 'web' citation? Is one preferred over the other? Absolutely Certainly (talk) 22:09, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Absolutely Certainly, and welcome to the Teahouse. The choice is simply in which template you are using: neither word appears in the finished article. They have slightly different arguments, tuned to their different primary purposes; but if both of them have the arguments you need, then take your pick. ColinFine (talk) 22:25, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

@Absolutely Certainly: I mostly just wanted to say Thank you so much for asking, because citations are the fundamental underpinning of WP, and yet, they're entered in what is essentially an ad hoc fashion. There are so many rules about WP pages, but in this one area of highly-structured data, it's entered every which way (and it's how it's entered that matters ... the way it should work is that the editor enters the appropriate data, leaving it to the template to figure out how it gets displayed!) Anyway, I'm going to stop now because otherwise, I would go into a multi-thousand word rant. Fabrickator (talk) 22:45, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

If I understand you, (and Colin) it doesn't matter which one I choose as long as I enter as much appropriate data in the template I choose. Absolutely Certainly (talk) 23:07, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

@Absolutely Certainly: The correct answer is that it mostly doesn't matter, but I would argue that it's good practice to use parameters that best describe the source. FWIW, I am using the form that comes up from within the source editor. This only offers a few of the {{cite}} templates, i.e. web, news, book, and journal. Then generally I will adjust the parameter names. For instance, if you use cite news, it might use the work parameter (I don't remember for sure, but this is amore generic term). But I might change it to newspaper (after doing insert) just to have it be more descriptive. In particular, if it's actually a press release, I'll change it from "cite web" to "cite press release" (which then adds "press release" following the title). As to your specific question about newspapers, if the source is a web site for a "traditional newspaper", then I'll use "cite news" and change "work=" to "newspaper=", if it's the online version of a "traditional magazine", then I will change it "cite magazine" and "magazine=". So in many cases, they only affect what somebody using the source editor sees and have no effect on what's displayed, it's the fairly exceptional case as with "press release" that it affects what's displayed when viewing the article rather than editing it, but the fact is that this is mostly just a matter of personal preference. Fabrickator (talk) 02:02, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! That was very helpful. FYI, in 'cite news' the parameter to change is 'type'. In 'cite web' the parameter to change is 'work'. Absolutely Certainly (talk) 04:45, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Citation in a foreign language

When using a citation in a foreign language, do I have to transliterate the name of the author to English and translate the title to English as well? I've tried looking up the rules for it but I could not find any concrete answers. Many thanks Jaguarnik (talk) 22:55, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Rules aside, it would be helpful if you provided the information in the original language and script, and also the author's name transliterated into roman script and an English translation of the title. If it's a book or journal, then also a roman transliteration of the title, because a library might have it catalogued in roman script alone. What I find particularly unhelpful and annoying are editors' English translations that give the impression that the actual title is in English, whereas it isn't. Template:Cite book and the others have over the years become well designed for the helpful presentation of necessarily complex bibliographical information. -- Hoary (talk) 23:08, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Is there a reference template for citing a song

I am trying to add a reference for a song. I found an image of the back of the album/CD cover with who wrote the lyrics and music, the publisher (record company), the producer, year, track number, etc. I cant find a reference template for this purpose. Any suggestions? Absolutely Certainly (talk) 23:56, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Absolutely Certainly. I believe you'll find what you need by using Template:Cite AV media. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:21, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I tried it out. Unfortunately it does not create a numbered citation that redirects to the references section. It adds a long list of all the information directly into the text of the article. It is also awkward to use as I had to add all the parameters myself. When I made a mistake adding a parameter, there was no way to undo that single mistake. I had to restart from from the beginning each time. Absolutely Certainly (talk) 02:27, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

@Absolutely Certainly: When using {{Cite AV media}}, were you also using the <ref>...</ref> tags? If you could provide a link to the article (or to your diff), we could provide better assistance for you. GoingBatty (talk) 02:41, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I was able to find better references to solve the problem Absolutely Certainly (talk) 04:13, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Accidentally created article as ARTICLE and not as Draft

So, I tried to create an article draft Draft:Ben Harrison (snooker player). I didn't realize I could directly make articles, without them first being drafts. I moved the Ben Harrison (snooker player) page to a draft, but there's now a redirect that shouldn't exist. How do I delete the Ben Harrison (snooker player) redirect to Draft:Ben Harrison (snooker player)?

TypistMonkey (talk) TypistMonkey (talk) 03:43, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi @TypistMonkey, welcome to the teahouse! I've tagged it for deletion under {{R2}}. Justiyaya 03:56, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Donald 1st

I have learned to interpret the Pict Stones, and am still trying to work out the sequence of events that caused the Picts to go into hiding. I can see all the Pict families that were opposed to Kenneth McAlpin and am still in a quandary about Donald as My Family are the ones that seem to hold the Stories about the event that caused the Picts to go into hiding out of Sheer Fear for their lives at the hands Of Kenneth. To Solve this question would answer a lot of problems on Scottish lineage. Bagsy b (talk) 06:18, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

This isn't something us Wikipedians can help with. You need to contact scholars who have studied the Picts. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 06:34, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Bagsy b. Family stories about things that happened 40 or 50 generations ago are of negligible value. Cullen328 (talk) 15:58, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Stonewalling?

Hello!

I believe that there has been stonewalling on a BLP article by motivated editors to maintain status quo and foreclose discussion. For the sake of argument, assuming that there is in fact stonewalling and this can be reasonably demonstrated, what would next steps be?

Context:

Stonewalling tactics have included hostility to new editors who raise questions about status quo, premature attempts to close discussion with a close tag, tag-teaming, claims of consensus when the last rfc was no-consensus; subverting normal processes, like archiving and notifications of discretionary sanctions, in order to intimidate new editors; and no apparent intention to concede or come to consensus, among others. I believe this can be well demonstrated in the history of subject's talk page.

To be clear, this is not a content dispute, but a conduct dispute. Regarding the content itself, I have an opinion, but it is weakly held; and about the subject, I have no opinion whatsoever. Unfortunately, even discussing the topic has been disrupted, repeatedly, apparently for years.

I want to understand the process in its entirety before even deciding if I want to get into it. I'm not asking for opinions on whether it is happening, and I'm not linking to the article in order to keep focus on the process on an abstract level, and if I decide it's too much effort, I want to walk away without drama!

As an aside, if I might speculate, I think the stonewallers believe sincerely that the subject holds such reprehensible and probably genocidal views that full discussion is a dangerous information hazard. To them, rather than revealing truth, neutral POV is a dangerous obstacle to truth in this specific case.

Thoughts?

91.153.203.110 (talk) 07:52, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

You're being too abstract. This isn't a situation where less information about the dispute is going to be any good at formulating a responce, because the conduct issue may be justifiable (such as if the topic area the article is in is under sanctions or the matter is a perennial one that has been settled and the only people pushing for it are drive-bys/sockpuppets). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 08:08, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Assuming that it is stonewalling and I can reasonably demonstrate it, what happens next? 91.153.203.110 (talk) 09:09, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

You could try Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:15, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

It is very difficult to give specific advice in this case, only the generals: assume good faith first, open discussions on the relevant talk pages, ask for a third opinion or mediation from an uninvolved editor, open a dispute resolution request, ask for a request for comment, and if all else fails bring it to the attention of the administrators at the incidents' noticeboard especially if editor conduct is a serious problem. Rob3512 (Talk) 09:21, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Perfect. This is the answer I needed. Thank you. I'll review all of this in detail before deciding what to do, if anything. 91.153.203.110 (talk) 09:27, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Given that there is an entire essay WP:STONEWALLING, it must have happened before. It would help to know how specific accusations rolled out. What was successful, what failed. Are there examples of these cases that anyone knows off-hand?

And let's say, hypothetically, an administrator were sympathetic to the stonewallers? What would happen then to someone who brought this to dispute resolution? 91.153.203.110 (talk) 20:29, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Most steps in the dispute resolution process do not involve administrators (and if an admin becomes involved, most of the time they're acting as a regular editor, not in their capacity as admin). It's only going to ANI which would involve a request for admin action against someone, and any action taken based on that report is subject to review by other admins and non-admin editors. ANI deals with behavioral issues, though, not content issues. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 20:40, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Since this dispute seems to involve multiple discretionary sanctions areas, WP:ARE or WP:AN might be more fruitful venues than ANI... Newimpartial (talk) 20:44, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, ARE would probably be better than ANI if the option exists (some would argue almost anything is a better option than ANI). But, again, that's for behavior issues, not content issues. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 20:52, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

It may be heading that way. There's some stalking, badgering and bizarre accusations, and apparent history of. I have learned that the stonewallers have gamed the system, baited, and badgered people into leaving Wikipedia altogether. Again, I may decide to walk away. 91.153.203.110 (talk) 21:08, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I'd caution you against throwing around such accusations; even though you haven't mentioned any editor(s) specifically, it's still not a good look and could come back to bite you later. If you want to pursue this issue, you'll need to gather evidence in the form of diffs and prepare to make a well-reasoned, persuasive case in the venue of your choice. Otherwise, yes, it would be better to walk away. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 21:15, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Oh, believe me, I am well aware that it would be a shit-storm. There is a lot of documentation and multiple collaborating witnesses. Gathering it would be tedious, but it's definitely there. I will only do it if the stalking continues. 91.153.203.110 (talk) 21:35, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

You and Rendall ought to refrain from alleging "stalking" without evidence. Thx. Newimpartial (talk) 21:39, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I would also point out that revealing truth seems to be a telling phrase (in this rather oblique comment about the Graham Linehan article, an article that follows the reliable sources while following WP:NPOV rather carefully). I would encourage the IP (and Rendall) to examine WP:NOTTRUTH in that context, as well as WP:RGW, which seem relevant to their motivations rather more than they reflect the motivations of editors supporting that article's status quo. Newimpartial (talk) 15:33, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Comment - unless an editor has been editing another editor's comments, which I do not believe to be the case, this section is about Graham Linehan and continues the aspersions cast in this Talk section.

I'm INVOLVED, of course, but I do not believe any STONEWALLING to have taken place on that article. Rather, what I see is editors who disagree with the current consensus on that page but who engage in WP:SEALIONing or Wikilawyering rather than proposing an RfC or other process to change the sources, status quo, policy-compliant article text that offends their sensibilities. Perspectives on this differ, of course. Newimpartial (talk) 15:15, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't see any stonewalling, though I do see some quite vigorous discussion. I would advise 91.153.203.110: if you want to get involved in this, register an account first. Your views are more likely to be taken seriously if they're from a registered user (and it will help to protect your real-life anonymity, if you think that matters). Maproom (talk) 16:49, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Joe Mauer (baseball player)

Hello. Having problems with an edit. Go to Joe Mauer, career statistics section, reference #77. I cant hook it up to the top performances section of Retrosheet.org for Joe Mauer, wont link up. Please fix. Thank you.Theairportman33531 (talk) 11:32, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Please disregard this request. Fixed the problem.Theairportman33531 (talk) 12:22, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done

Paid editing user

How is Paid editing user recognized? give me some 10-12 examples PravinGanechari (talk) 12:03, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

PravinGanechari Paid editing is recognized when someone makes overly promotional edits. Often they are also sockpuppets. Sungodtemple (talk) 12:39, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

It's not clear what you're asking, ProvinGanechan. One answer is that you can recognise a paid editor by going to their User page and see if they have made a paid editing disclosure. But, as Sungodtemple focussed on, sometimes paid editors do not disclose - either because they are knowingly trying to misuse Wikipedia for promotion (in which case they may indeed use sockpuppets) or because, like most people, they simply don't understand what Wikipedia is, and think that editing about their business or their client is completely normal.

As for how to regcognise their editing: if there were an easy answer to that, it would be less of a problem. I doubt that there is any heuristic that will distinguish been paid and unpaid promotional editing. But you'll probably find WP:IBA useful. ColinFine (talk) 13:13, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for giving the information PravinGanechari (talk) 13:44, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Question about image format

Hello Everyone. Could you be so kind and tell me , if it is possible, how can i format a cluster of pictures into something like this? Thank you in advanceΙπποκράτης2020 (talk) 12:49, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello Hippocrates. I don't know, but you mayy find the answer at WP:Collage tips. ColinFine (talk) 13:15, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

What is the fillter log for

i need to know about the filter log what is it for 209.221.91.114 (talk) 13:27, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

209.221.91.114, the filter log logs all instances of a WP:FILTER stopping, warning, or logging an edit. Sungodtemple (talk) 13:31, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

at happen if i keep triggering filtersh 209.221.91.114 (talk) 13:33, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

 Note: IP has been blocked. Rob3512 (Talk) 13:47, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Spanish language article

I recently wrote Leyendas Legendarias. Should the title be in Spanish as "Leyendas Legendarias" or in English as "Legendary Legends"? TipsyElephant (talk) 14:52, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, TipsyElephant. It seems to me that the sources call it Leyendas Legendarias, so by COMMONNAME that's what the article should be called. But I think the English translation should be given in the first line of the text. ColinFine (talk) 15:26, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

@ColinFine: do you think a redirect would also be appropriate? TipsyElephant (talk) 16:19, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

If you think the English name has any currency, so there is any chance that people might look it up by the English name, sure. Redirects are cheap. ColinFine (talk) 16:52, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

How to tell if a section is too long?

Before I make hasty edits to a WP I want to know if the edits I will make are logical. Thus:

Is the Kaleidoscope Eyes (2019- present) section of this page too long? Maccore Henni user talk Respond using tb, please. 15:55, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I would most likely split it to have Singles (2021- present) as the final section Maccore Henni user talk Respond using tb, please. 15:56, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Help understanding why post keeps getting rejected

Hi! I am trying to get a draft posted on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Anthony_Chase_(entrepreneur)

I am not Anthony Chase, nor am I hired by him to post it. He is a really successful self-made entrepreneur from my hometown. The first couple of times it was rejected was because of not having reliable sources - but I've gone through the citations over and over and can't understand what I'm doing wrong or why these aren't reliable sources (all third party legitimate media articles).

The most recent rejection was because it 'read like an advertisement'. I haven't drastically changed the content, and this is the first time it was brought up. I am a former reporter and don't understand this comment at all.

Can someone please help me better understand what I need to do, in a clear way, to get this posted? Thank so much for your help! Hhuften (talk) 16:41, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Hhuften, welcome to the Teahouse. I didn't get past the "Background" section of your draft before noticing a major problem - there's only one source in the entire section, and it only backs up a tiny bit of the information in that section. Where are the sources for everything else? Other parts of the draft have similar issues. Where is this information coming from? 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:51, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Please understand that Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only 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 you cannot find such sources, then Chase does not (currently) meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, however worthy he may be.

Glancing through your citations (which aren't formatted ideally, but that is a minor matter), I notice that many of them are in some way Chase's words The WSJ entry is not a third-party article, but a biography which almost certainly came from Chase or his associates, and dito The History Makers. The article about his father is in-depth about his father, but says very little about him; and so on. Can you identify at least three sources each of which meets all three of the requirements, viz reliable, independent of Chase, and containing significant coverage of him? If not, please don't spend any more time on this. ColinFine (talk) 17:03, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Learn how to ref properly (see Help:Referencing for beginners), ref everything, delete bad refs. David notMD (talk) 18:11, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

article rejection

i have published an article sevral times and it is still declined by DaxServer. though i have edited it with all the requirements still it is showing declined by DaxServer. and without any specific reason mentioned.

User:Haidar2521/sandbox#Mohammed Imaduddin Naveed Haidar2521 (talk) 16:53, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Haidar2521, welcome to the Teahouse. The reason for your article being declined is listed in the yellow notice on your talk page - the references are the problem. For instance, your very first reference is to Wikipedia itself, which is not allowed.

You've only submitted the article for review once, as far as I can tell, and haven't made any substantial changes since it was declined. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:02, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

okay i got you. so, instead of doing in sandbox should i edit it in draft and publish? Haidar2521 (talk) 17:21, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

@Haidar2521, that's up to you, articles can be written either in draft space or in a sandbox. However, if you put it in draft space and then don't edit it for six months, it will be considered abandoned and deleted per policy. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:35, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Haidar2521, and welcome to the Teahouse. Please see the reply I gave to #Help understanding why post keeps getting rejected immediately above, because most of it is exactly what I would say to you. ColinFine (talk) 17:06, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

i got it. thanks. Haidar2521 (talk) 17:22, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

not really an issue with a page, it's more of a question with the miscellaneous section

Am I allowed to make jokes on the miscellaneous section of Wikipedia? not anything that would be at all rude or offensive. Just stuff like dad jokes or something like "imagine a cop pulling you over and saying 'do you want a graham cracker?'" or something like that. I'm just trying to give people a small chuckle. CannonCrandall (talk) 17:46, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia isn't social media and that's also a terrible joke. PICKLEDICAE🥒 17:50, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi @CannonCrandall, welcome to the Teahouse. What do you mean by "the miscellaneous section of Wikipedia"? Reference desk/Miscellaneous? Wikipedia doesn't have a space which acts as a joke depository, but perhaps you'd like to check out the Department of Fun, Silly Things or HUMOR. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:58, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

@CannonCrandall what the two above said. With regards to the WP:HUMOUR page, this is more for humorous things that happen on Wikipedia, not necessarily jokes like yours. I hope this makes things a little clearer, and if you need any more help, please don’t hesitate to ask! Blanchey (talk) 18:26, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

To take a different interpretation to your question: If you mean, "When I'm talking to people on talk pages and Wikiprojects and stuff like that, do I have to be old-man serious?" And the answer to that question is absolutely not. I never talk here without saying something stupid, and my talk page is glamoured with a randomly generated, comedic talk page banner. Just try to keep in mind your audience, and who has higher toleration for jokes. Panini! • 🥪 20:22, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Undid edits

I fixed some misspelled words, someone undid it and told me to go here

edits:

favour -> favor funnelled -> funneled travellers -> travelers programme -> program link to edit

I just want to know why did it appear unconstructive and had to be undone.

Segnos (talk) 18:21, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi Segnos, thank you for asking. It appears that you changed the spellings of those words from British English to American English. Generally, on articles for locations (or just articles in general) it is suggested that you continue to use the spellings of words based on how the rest of the article is written. Since River Severn is located in England, it is suggested that you use the British English spelling of words like favour, programme, etc. ― TUNA × 18:25, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

@Segnos, you may want to take a look at WP:ENGVAR, which goes over how the various national varieties of English are used on Wikipedia. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:29, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

What kind of English should be used on English version?

I see both British and American versions of words on English Wikipedia, especially in articles where the Britain or United Kingdom is involved. Is there a general preference? Switching between them mid-article seems bound to happen unless specifically explained. I think it could get in the way of understanding the entries for people learning English. Toraboshi (talk) 18:59, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

There is no preference as per WP:ENGVAR, but generally articles will use whatever variation is present when the page is originally created. If you see discrepancies in an article (like one instance of favor when it's spelled as favour several other times) then you are always free to change it. ― TUNA × 19:03, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

It's also generally expected that articles about topics originating from US, Canada, UK, India, etc. will use that country's national variant of English (American, Commonwealth, British, Indian, etc.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 19:08, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Does anyone have information on a sorority in Ontario Canada? It is Theta Kappa Sigma

Theta Kappa Sigma sorority

Gammasigma71 (talk) 19:42, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Gammasigma71, welcome to the Teahouse. This is a place to ask questions about editing Wikipedia. For information on a sorority, their own website, or the college's website, or, lacking those things, semi-all-knowing Google would be good places to check. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 19:46, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Parodies

Should parodies and even the entire lyrics sheet of a parody be listed on the article for a historically important song? Say for instance, the German National Anthem, would it be acceptable to list racist parodies referring to Nazi's on the same article page? It seems crazy to allow this sort of thing. I could understand perhaps a link to a separate article about the parody if it were considered important enough to deserve it's own article. Bearcingetorix (talk) 21:38, 12 September 2022 (UTC)