Wikipedia:Teahouse

つがる, 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

WordPress as a reliable source.

A new question for you: Is WordPress a reliable source for articles?

If it is not a reliable source, would you both explain and elaborate the reason? What about pages that explain?

Also, what are examples and pages of how reliable WordPress is? Should they be used as a source?

Are you going to research WordPress anytime soon?

Sincerely, 204.129.232.191 (talk) 16:28, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. According to this list of common sources, WordPress is considered unreliable as it is a blog hosting site. To be considered reliable, a source must have a reputation of fact checking and editorial control- in other words, someone other than the author(like an editor) reviews what is written before publishing. That does not usually happen with blogs. 331dot (talk) 16:37, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

@331dot@Gråbergs Gråa Sång I can know and understand, but although an expert or a professional uses this site and publishes articles on WordPress, does that mean they can still be cited as sources since experts can be described as being a masterpiece of working on those posts with good explanations? How though? Were they fact-checked? 204.129.232.191 (talk) 18:11, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your question. If, say, Neil deGrasse Tyson has a WordPress blog, his blog posts are unlikely to be fact checked before publication. The argument to use it anyway for something about astronomy is that he is pretty good at astronomy. No source is 100% correct all the time. Context matters. If a company or person has a WordPress page as their official website, then that page can be used for WP:ABOUTSELF stuff. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:27, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

The other thing to consider is that it is rarely (if ever) going to be the best source to use for such information. If Neil deGrasse Tyson says something about astronomy in his WordPress blog, it will only be something which is already published elsewhere first, and in that case, go back to the source! NdGT is not going to be using WordPress to publish his own original astronomy research; such information would be published in reputable astronomy journals and the like. If NdGT is using WordPress to expound upon astronomy facts discovered by others, well, go to the original source! There are a lot of "yeah but, what if..." type hypotheticals involving self-published sources like "expert-written blogs" that look reasonable at a first glance, but fall apart upon analysis. Sure, "hypothetically we can trust it to be reliable enough, but practically it never happens that way" is usually how it goes in nearly all such cases. --Jayron32 19:15, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Also true. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:42, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

You do have some good points. 204.129.232.191 (talk) 17:25, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

WordPress can have uses per WP:SPS and WP:ABOUTSELF, but it doesn't happen that often. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:24, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

No, since it is largely user-generated with little oversight. The same goes for Twitter and Substack. Professor Penguino (talk) 22:01, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

@Professor Penguino What about the Blogger and Tumblr?  Are they even good sources for information for facts and material? Why does WordPress lack general oversight and it is user-generated? 204.129.232.191 (talk) 22:10, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Because anyone can use it. There are few guidelines. And -- since you asked -- Blogger and Tumblr are also not reliable. See WP:Reliable sources and WP:USERG. Professor Penguino (talk) 22:13, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Exactly. I have a blog on Blogger. I write about empirical math, science, engineering, gaming. What I write is reliable as far as I know, but there is no way for you to know for sure. My blog is really just for me to use as a reference to past projects I did and ideas I had. If I ever saw someone cite my blog on Wikipedia, I'd remove the link. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:27, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I'll be sure to keep that in mind the next time I need a citation for a statement in an article about (After some quick googling) water... rocketry... what. There really is a blog for everything! Amazing. casualdejekyll 03:10, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

@Casualdejekyll: You found it? Well, please don't cite it! Actually, 5 years ago I did offer to share some of my work at Talk:Water rocket#New additions: Fins and Predicting Height, but got no response. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:28, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

@Anachronist @Gråbergs Gråa Sång @Casualdejekyll @Professor Penguino @Jayron32, I got a link to show you, it is this: https://thebottomline.as.ucsb.edu/2020/11/why-are-book-to-film-adaptations-always-so-bad

I'm just wondering what I got from the WordPress site. But does this page have correct information and facts? If so, should I cite it? 204.129.232.191 (talk) 16:43, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

According to that website, they are a student-run, student-funded newspaper at the University of California. See WP:RSSM. If you want to cite it for something like "The Lord of the Rings” trilogy is regarded as one of the greatest and most influential film series ever made." you should probably get a better source. Stuff like "There was a lot of potential for “Vampire Academy” to become a great film" is Analissa Nunez opinion, and not very useful. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:59, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

If this site was student-run, then what other websites are student-run that are considered reliable by editors? Why was this statement "There was a lot of potential for “Vampire Academy” to become a great film", not useful, although it was an opinion and why it can't be included in articles as sources? 204.129.232.191 (talk) 17:12, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

• You can perhaps find more WP:RSSM at Category:Student newspapers if you try. If they're student-run I have no idea, if that interests you, you'll have to do the research.
• See WP:NPOV, and specifically WP:PROPORTION. Why include the opinion of this college student? There may be a good reason, but it's not obvious to me. That something is online does not in itself mean it's good as a ref on WP.

Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:20, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

That example is an opinion piece, and generally we don't cite opinions. We make occasional exceptions if the author someone with known expertise or is notable in the field the opinion is about. The author in this case is just some random journalism student expressing an opinion. The article is well written and I agree with some of the opinions, but that doesn't matter. We can't use that as a source for anything, even with attribution. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:30, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

 Another point you have out there, maybe I think that we should try to find a very reliable journalism, if not have an article written in an unbiased view. And there is an article that an author has written without only expressing opinions, then there is a chance I might use it as a source for this part in sooner or later. 204.129.232.191 (talk) 22:51, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

 What in those two pages like NPOV are for? Should articles maintain a balance of view? 204.129.232.191 (talk) 17:24, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

• Wikipedia does not seek to maintain a "balance of view", which is to say Wikipedia never tries to give all viewpoints equal weight, rather it seeks to give viewpoints their due weight, as assessed in reliable sources. If all reliable sources agree on something, we report it as-is in Wikipedia's voice. If there is disagreement, but only from unreliable or dubious sources, we don't report it at all. We don't seek to report all possible viewpoints, only to represent as accurately as possible the breadth of what all reliable sources generally say. That's what WP:NPOV means. --Jayron32 17:30, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Both Blogger and Tumblr don't consider themselves as reliable source for citation on this article, since anyone can create it without fact-checking it and both of them mostly consist opinion based on their words and questions. -- 2601:205:C001:EA0:39D5:AE22:288A:67FD (talk) 18:42, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

 Also, thanks again for notifying me as well. 204.129.232.191 (talk) 16:27, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I would say no, that is because WordPress is mostly UGC and they lack fact-checking information for reliability. Also read the posts from other people have. -- 2601:205:C001:EA0:CD9B:1D0E:A169:4C27 (talk) 04:03, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Alright, that is a good one,  others know that this site is user generated and lacks editorial insight for information. 204.129.232.191 (talk) 16:20, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

@Professor Penguino @Anachronist @Jayron32  And also, what happens if I cited WordPress as a source into articles, will it get reviewed or it will be accepted as a source, although it isn't a reliable source as a blog site? 204.129.232.191 (talk) 16:46, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Given the depth of review you are likely to receive from something like WP:AFC draft review, it is unlikely to be an acceptable source for anything there. I mean, we're being too nuanced and precious about edge cases here. To a first approximation, don't use wordpress blogs as sources. Just don't. If that's the best you can find, it isn't good enough. --Jayron32 16:50, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

The first one you got was draft, but what if I cite WordPress as a source on an article that is not a draft while editing and I just add information from the WordPress blog? 204.129.232.191 (talk) 16:53, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Don't do that either. As I said, while there are, maybe, possibly a really rare edge case where a WordPress blog might could kinda sorta be reliable... Don't worry about it. If you never ever ever use WordPress as a source, you'll be fine. No one will object. --Jayron32 18:50, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

 Always understandable. 204.129.232.191 (talk) 18:54, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

@Jayron32 @Gråbergs Gråa Sång Are you going to answer my recent question? I asked for it above here. 204.129.232.191 (talk) 17:55, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

So, you need to be specific as to what you are trying to say. Are you making an unadorned statement of fact, or are you reporting on the opinion or assessment of something? For example, are you looking for a source to say "The sky is blue" or are you looking for a source to say "Blue is the prettiest color for skies to be?" Are you writing text in Wikipedia's voice, saying something like "Blue skies are the best possible skies" or are you reporting the assessment of someone else "Jane Doe believes blue skies to be the best." The appropriateness of a source needs to be assessed against what is being written in Wikipedia. Be specific. What are you trying to write? Tell us, the EXACT wording you intend to put in the Wikipedia article, and let us know the EXACT source you got for that wording. That's what we need to assess here. --Jayron32 17:27, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Don't confuse a "balance of view" with WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:UNDUE. We don't give equal weight to all sides, we give weight in proportion to coverage in reliable sources. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:30, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

@Anachronist That is right. No need to confuse balance of view it with undue info. 204.129.232.191 (talk) 17:49, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

At least you can agree on some arguments that registered users and editors give out why isn't it reliable and some examples provided. -- 2601:205:C001:EA0:2C48:FF99:4B78:7672 (talk) 20:57, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Alright, but just to know, thank you for answering my question about WordPress being a reliable source and some example provided of why it isn't. 204.129.232.191 (talk) 16:16, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

By the way, thanks for all the questions. 204.129.232.191 (talk) 16:18, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Your welcome IP! -- 2601:205:C001:EA0:A8C7:5154:6E76:2E8A (talk) 20:05, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

WordPress was good but ip users 112.206.188.139 (talk) 03:50, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

A Teas

theres cup of tea

theres tea in a teahouse in wikipedia tea shop did want teas drink it the cup of teahouse 112.206.222.144 (talk) 11:39, 16 January 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Navajcmer (talk • contribs)

drink it! Navajcmer (talk) 13:07, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

good a tea 119.95.107.49 (talk) 10:46, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I can agree with you, others said that it has flavors. -- 2601:205:C001:EA0:5158:F2E0:33F:651E (talk) 05:49, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, even if it is either hot or cold. 204.129.232.191 (talk) 16:17, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I would prefer sweet instead. -- 2601:205:C001:EA0:5D6A:BCF8:EA20:EB5E (talk) 06:21, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Wouldn't mind having one. Milk with half sugar please PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:08, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Well anyone wants tea for sure. -- 2601:205:C001:EA0:39D5:AE22:288A:67FD (talk) 18:38, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Teascup has 2 handles to be balanced, right?, oops, I correct that..

Refer: Intercultural communication principles **talk** 110.174.50.79 (talk) 19:57, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Just like most of us. 204.129.232.191 (talk) 19:08, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

The tea is good. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 10:17, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

 Wow, that tea is just delicious, plus there are flavors served such as Iced Tea or other uses. You can still drink that, but it would be way too refreshing for you. 204.129.232.191 (talk) 16:15, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I want tea, it tastes good as coffee and chocolate milk. People should consume tea also. -- 2601:205:C001:EA0:5158:F2E0:33F:651E (talk) 05:48, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I like tea and coffee, although not at the same time. David10244 (talk) 05:16, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

If it's salty, I'll have three cups back to back. NamkeenChai (talk) 10:22, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Yep, that should also be sweet too. 204.129.232.191 (talk) 16:28, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Really good tea, but I don't think it fits in the TEAHOUSE. Maybe try playing in the sand? User:Someone-123-321 (chitter chatter, I contribute) 07:53, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

drink was a tea JC — KFC (🔔 • 📝) 06:33, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Wow, even have a snack with crackers. -- 2601:205:C001:EA0:A8C7:5154:6E76:2E8A (talk) 20:06, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Creating a page or a draft

The page "Nanoemulsion system" does not exist. You can create a draft and submit it for review, or you may create the page "Nanoemulsion system" directly, but consider checking the search results below to see whether the topic is already covered.

I realized when creating an article, I get two options as shown above; 1. create a draft and 2. Create a page. I have been using the first option. I am wondering if I can also use the second option and at what point. I would also appreciate a link that shows the difference between the two. Kelmaa (talk) 21:14, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Kelmaa. The way I understand it, a draft is created in a different namespace (section of wikipedia) to articles. If you create a draft, you have to either move the page or submit it to articles for creation to publish it as an article. Creating a page puts the edits immediately into the article (main) namespace. They still need to be reviewed though. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 21:21, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Your history is two drafts accepted, one declined. Consider continuing to use the AfC route until you are more experienced. Schminnte's comment is that direct-to-article efforts are reviwed by New Pages Patrol, where those can be approved, kicked back to draft, nominsated for articles for deletion or Speedy deleted. David notMD (talk) 22:12, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

...and it's worth adding that AFC review is a lot gentler on new users, who get helpful feedback and a chance to work on their draft and to resubmit when ready. If it's shoved straight into mainspace and is bad, it'll simply get deleted. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:21, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello @Kelmaa and welcome to the Teahouse! Registered users, or users who have been on Wikipedia for at least 4 days and have made at least 10 edits, can make articles directly instead of having to submit a draft as an Articles for Creation draft (per this discussion, if you're interested). I couldn't find a link for you, but there are a few differences between the two: first, a draft is in the draft space while an article is in the main mainspace. It's actually "mainspace", but "main mainspace" is catchier. Also, if I created a draft about a band called "Tomato soup band," it wouldn't show up in Google or any search engine. If I created "Tomato soup band" directly, once the article is marked as patrolled, it will show up in the search engines. You can create articles directly, since you are in the registered user group. Hope this makes sense. Happy editing! ‍ ‍ Helloheart ‍ ‍ 22:53, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

@Kelmaa I note there is already a page called Miniemulsion. This appears to me to cover precisely the same topic as the one you are preparing at Draft:Nanoemulsions system. Would you not be better advised to expand the existing article, as we do not allow two pages to exist on the same subject? If I have misunderstood the differences, so may AFC reviewers. You may therefore wish to clearly explain your rationale on the talk page of your draft. I hope this assists you. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:13, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you all for your feedback, I really appreciate it.

@Nick Moyes, I was considering that but I was not sure if it would be Ok. I was waiting for a review on my draft to see if the reviewer would recommend that. I will delete the draft and improve the existing article Kelmaa (talk) 09:13, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

That's a very good move, as we always encourage the improvement of existing articles, no matter how bad they may seem to start with. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:11, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Hosts: In this message, "The page "Nanoemulsion system" does not exist. You can create a draft and submit it for review, or you may create the page "Nanoemulsion system" directly, but consider checking the search results below to see whether the topic is already covered. Shouldn't the second occurrence of page be changed to article? David10244 (talk) 05:23, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

@David10244 I take your point, but that message also applies to other non-article pages (Drafts being a good example). So I think it seems to work fine as it is and probably covers all the bases. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:09, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes Isn't the piece "or you may create the page XYZ directly" referring to articles and not drafts? The phrase before that uses the "draft" route, right?

We're often telling new editors that they aren't creating a "page"; they are creating an "article". We often add that "page" is a social media term while "article" is an encyclopedia term.

And I see your point, but is there any better way to give the message? If we call things that are usually articles "pages" in this message, we are being inconsistent when we tell editors that these things (at least the things that new editors are most concerned with) should be called "articles" and not "pages". David10244 (talk) 08:29, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

This seems like a question of how general the message extends to namespaces, because I have a feeling this message shows up in places like Talk or Wikipedia from how Mediawiki works. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 08:38, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

OK, thanks. David10244 (talk) 08:18, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Link A Sanbox Article and give citation

Hello Team,

I am currently building a page for an Indian Freedom Fighter and a Parliamentarian who was a public figure and made significant contribution to Indian History. I find his mentions on the Wikipedia pages, but his wiki page is not existing. I am working with his next generation to build this Wiki page and link it to the existing pages wherever his name is mentioned.

Could you please help me how to do it?

Should i wait for my article to be reviewed and then add the citations?

TIA

Prashanthi Kolluru. Kolluru81 (talk) 07:41, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Kolluru81, are you saying that you're working with a descendant or heir of this person? -- Hoary (talk) 08:16, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Do not submit for review until you have all the citation included and properly formatted. David notMD (talk) 08:27, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Kolluru81, you should start by assembling the sources you plan to use. If these include several reliable independent sources with extensive discussion of him, you should go ahead and write a draft, basing it on the sources and citing them as you go. If you submit an article for review without using any sources, it will certainly be declined. And you should answer Hoary's question above. Maproom (talk) 08:29, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

For the curious, the draft is at User:Kolluru81/sandbox. A Wikipedia article cannot be used as a reference. I see you have included a photo identified as being taken in 1951 as your "own work" For Wikipedia, use of that term means that you are indicating that you took this photo yourself. David notMD (talk) 08:35, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank You for reviewing. Can i change the identification? It was published in a Newspaper of 1950s. Can i edit it to the newspaper name? Kolluru81 (talk) 08:45, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I wish the term "own work" instead said "I took the picture". David10244 (talk) 08:48, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank You @Maproom. Noted. Will take care. I appreciate your inputs. Kolluru81 (talk) 08:46, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes @Hoary i am working with his descendants to put it up on the Wikipedia. They have shared the sources, which i am uploading on Wikimedia as well. Kindly let me know if i am in the right direction. Kolluru81 (talk) 08:43, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

If this image and the other one from the Provisional Parliament Meeting that you placed in Commons were in a newspaper, then my understanding is that either the newspaper or the photographer hold copyright. David notMD (talk) 08:51, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello @David notMD, I really appreciate your inputs. I am trying to change the copy rights for this image, but i am unable to. Could you please help? 2406:B400:D1:B442:74D4:F1C3:4F92:4B94 (talk) 13:05, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

@Kolluru81 And if the newspaper or photographer holds the copyright, you can't upload it here and release it for public and commercial use. Copyright is complex. David10244 (talk) 13:41, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

A copy of this photograph is in a library where the event took place. How can i attribute this? Could you please advise. Kolluru81 (talk) 13:07, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

@Kolluru81 That is not related to the copyright status of the picture. It's not my area of expertise though. This should help: Images (click here). Good luck. David10244 (talk) 08:41, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

@Kolluru81 Also, the sources of information for an article (the references) need to have been published (click here). David10244 (talk) 13:44, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Actually we are talking about a Public Figure of 1950s who has contributed significantly towards the drafting of the Indian Constitution. Could you please help me on the published sources. I have tried everything from my side and also from the family side, looks like some records were not archived in digital space, but are in the Indian Parliament's website. Kolluru81 (talk) 13:10, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

@Kolluru81 Sources (used as references) do not need to be online. You need to cite when and where the source was published, though. (And family records, even if they were scanned or digitized, are not usable as sources.) I know there are a lot of scattered questions and answers here; I hope this is helping. David10244 (talk) 08:53, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

@Kolluru81 You might want to read WP:COI if you are working with his descendants, as well as make the mandatory paid editing disclosure Club On a Sub 20 (talk) 15:54, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

@Club On a Sub 20 Thank you for sharing this. I am not getting paid for this article, as i am helping a family whose grandfather made a significant contribution Indian Freedom Struggle. He has been lost in the history as he was a selfless man who was focussed on building a country than his persona :-) Kolluru81 (talk) 13:16, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

WP:PAID applies if paid, WP:COI if just helping. Do not add any more newspaper photos to Commons, and delete the one from the draft. David notMD (talk) 13:20, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

@David notMD Thank You So Much. Will edit the copy. Thank You! Kolluru81 (talk) 14:16, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

@Kolluru81 In case you haven't seen this link yet, please read WP:YFA. David10244 (talk) 08:55, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Vector

How can I change back to the old look of Wikipedia? I'm not used to the new skin so it makes browsing feel weird and I much prefer the old look. 24.207.44.76 (talk) 16:49, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

You can change it back at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Preferences BhamBoi (talk) 17:04, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

@BhamBoi, that is not available to IP editors. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:09, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't realize. I was just trying to be helpful 🥴 BhamBoi (talk) 17:17, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi IP editor and welcome to the Teahouse. Unless you sign up for an account, there is no way for you to switch back to the old skin except by manually adding ?useskin=vector to the end of URLs. There is a width toggle which is available to IPs as well as those using an account. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:11, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Ah, that's awfully disappointing. Thanks for the great tips 199. Do you know where or how I could access the width toggle feature? 24.207.44.76 (talk) 17:25, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

The toggle should show up at the bottom right of your browser window once you've widened it enough. It looks like a small, segmented square or cross inside a slightly bigger square. Unfortunately you'll need to re-toggle it every time you navigate to a different article or page. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:35, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi @24.207.44.76: you may use a bookmarklet! :) More information here. Hope this should help.--Patafisik (WMF) (talk) 09:52, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

One popular solution is to use a userscript manager browser addon with a userscript that automatically adds &useskin=vector (or monobook if that's your preference) to wikipedia URLs. Countless such scripts are available at sites that host userscripts, for example here. This also allows you to easily share wikipedia links with the proper desktop skin. But unfortunately, these userscripts may interfere with your ability to edit wikipedia depending on their implementation. Sad to see wikipedia join the list of sites that are unusable without userscripts/styles. - 88.113.111.225 (talk) 14:04, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Help improving this page Draft:Yayzy

Hi, I'm writing this page of a company Draft:Yayzy and was wondering how I can change these bits so I don't get refused again and again because it sounds like an advertisment. Any help greatly appreciated. Jerry3zs (talk) 17:58, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Hiya Jerry3zs! Welcome to The Teahouse! There are a few items you can read to help you out. Since you are writing about a company, WP:NCORP is a good place to start. Per WP:BACKWARD you should not try to write an article as you would read it, but should start with the most important items (from an encyclopedic sense) first. After reading those two, one of your reviewers suggested reading WP:SOLUTIONS as well. In brief: What is notable about the company? Answer that question, and the rest should follow. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:16, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

@Jerry3zs While you are waiting, please move the refs after the punctuation. Thanks. David10244 (talk) 08:46, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Hey David10244, thanks for checking my work

I updated the refs after punctuation can you check please?

for the awards enumeration at the end, would look strange if citations are after comma, what's the standard there?

Thanks again Jerry3zs (talk) 12:14, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

@Jerry3zs Even in the list of awards, ths refs should be after the commas. It looks normal once you have read Wikipedia for a while! David10244 (talk) 08:17, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Done, thank you for the feedback Jerry3zs (talk) 09:49, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Using photos as a source

How can I source a statement which I know to be true, but is not written anywhere online. For example, the locations of the groups in the Schuster Laboratory are outdated, but the new locations are not stated on any website. I can provide a photo of the building's layout displayed in the foyer, which gives the new locations. RSP13 (talk) 20:08, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

@RSP13 You can use {{Cite sign}} to reference such signage. You may optionally include a photo of the signage only if you took the photo yourself or the photographer explicitly licensed it apropriately. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:14, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

@RSP13 I find it odd that an encyclopaedia would cover the floor-location of the groups, since WP:NOTEVERYTHING applies. I also find it odd that one group is apparently on the 0th floor: is that some sort of group joke? So why not just remove the floor designations? Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:57, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

Everyone seems to believe im either being paid or that i know the person in real life im editing the Draft: Edward Hayter but its not true. I am just a fan trying to make him a wiki page as he doesnt have one. I am autistic and when i have an interest on someone i research them all day and all night ,editing and reseaching him and watching his movies makes me really happy . I dont know what to do cause no one seems to believe me, like how could i know them in real life if i live in canada and them in the UK. It doesnt make any sense why people think this. They are just my favs Veganpurplefox (talk) 20:55, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Veganpurplefox, welcome to the Teahouse. When a new editor appears on Wikipedia and their entire interest seems focused on one specific subject, especially if they start adding a bunch of stuff about how great that subject is, other folks get suspicious that they have some kind of conflict of interest (COI). Being a big fan of someone or something isn't a COI, but it does look like much the same thing to an outside observer. As a fan, you need to be especially careful to keep your enthusiasm in check; focus on writing in an encyclopedic tone and including only facts of encyclopedic interest. This isn't an easy skill to master, which is why more experienced editors often recommend not starting out your Wikipedia career by attempting to write an article, but by making small improvements to other articles and getting a feeling for how things work. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 21:38, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I see, how do i prove them wrong then? How do i write in encyclopedic tone? Veganpurplefox (talk) 22:58, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

@Veganpurplefox, that's mostly something you have to learn by reading well-written articles (focus on ones that are rated GA or FA) and paying close attention to the words being used. There are two things you can read that might help, though: TONE and Manual of Style/Words to watch. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 23:06, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I wil look into these! But also having a specific language impairment its quite hard for me to write well, if i had extra help that could build a good article that would helps me so much Veganpurplefox (talk) 23:13, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

@Veganpurplefox, the best place to find people who might be interested in helping to improve a draft or an article is a relevant WikiProject. For instance, there's WikiProject Biography, WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers, and many more. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 23:24, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

@Veganpurplefox You can't really prove that you have no conflict. But, on your "User" page, you can state that you have no conflict with (whatever other editors are asking about). That should take care of the issue. David10244 (talk) 09:01, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I made a bio a couple of days ago explaining why I created a wiki account, would it be fine how it's written? Veganpurplefox (talk) 12:46, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

@Veganpurplefox I am not sure; someone else will have to answer that. David10244 (talk) 07:35, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Veganpurplefox, and welcome to the Teahouse. If I were editing what you've written on your user page, I would make some changes, but as an expression of what you want to say it's fine.

The only thing I'd say is that I discourage ever talking about somebody or something "having a Wikipedia page", because in my opinion that encourages people to think of these articles as belonging to, controlled by, or for the benefit of, the subject - none of which is the case. I prefer to say "an article about X". Many experienced editors don't agree with me that this is important, however. ColinFine (talk) 20:38, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Mobile view on desktop

Hi. On my desktop system I am getting delivered the mobile view. I tried deleting all cookies, but it persists. What can I do to get it back to normal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.211.110.245 (talk • contribs)

Hi, you are probably mentioning the recent change that happen regarding Wikipedia's appearance. SEe Wikipedia:Vector 2022 for more information. Trizek (WMF) (talk) 14:43, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi IP user, welcome to the Teahouse. There is no way to switch back except by setting up an account. Feel free to leave feedback on the talk page (Wikipedia talk:Vector 2022 - there is also a link to the MediaWiki talk page at the top). 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:06, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh. So much wasted screen space. Feels like reading through a straw. Very claustrophobic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.211.110.245 (talk) 15:42, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

A widescreen version is still available to IPs - just widen the browser window enough and a toggle, which looks like this: , should appear in the bottom right. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 19:22, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

You have to do this _every time_ though. Wtf? 73.7.176.82 (talk) 20:05, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

dark mode

We need dark mode, please! One simple switch on top of every page. Thanks 2001:4C4E:29D2:C500:C559:A7ED:A9C4:3DCA (talk) 15:44, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Please offer comments at the talk page of Vector 2022. 331dot (talk) 15:47, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. We already have a 'Dark Mode' button at the top of every page. However you have to turn it on in Preferences (see here). But you'll need to be logged on with a free user account to change any of the defaults available to you. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:08, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for your suggestion. A technical side-effect of the current skin is that it will be possible to build the dark mode. You will find more information here. Until then, what Nick wrote above is the best solution. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 16:17, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

sorry, i might not be the smartest tool in the shed, but where is the switch for dark mode in the preference pane ? Vincent-vst🚀 (talk) 05:22, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

@Vincent-vst It is one of the options on Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets in the "appearance" section. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:50, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

thank you Vincent-vst🚀 (talk) 13:58, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer.

Here is my corrected suggestion:

We need dark mode without any registration, any account, any logging on, please!

Thanks. 2001:4C4E:29D2:C500:BD2D:F6F8:A9:3AD8 (talk) 10:11, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

As outlined at the link given above - this link - the devs know that folks want this feature, but it's not currently in development, and may not ever be available to IPs. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:56, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes You said "We already have a 'Dark Mode' button at the top of every page. However you have to turn it on in Preferences".

Then, this link, mentioned above, https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Reading/Web/Desktop_Improvements/Frequently_asked_questions#Are_you_building_the_dark_mode says the feature is not in development, and further, if it were built, "we would not plan to add an in-browser toggle".

And from the WMF, @SGrabarczuk (WMF) says "it will be possible to build it [dark mode], but until then, what Nick wrote is the best solution". (Emphasis mine.) So the WMF person's answer says it's not built yet, but we should follow your answer (Nick), which says it is available. Why is all this info so confusing?

Even so, I turned the toggle on in Preferences, but I don't see a dark mode button at the top of any page. Why is there even a toggle if the WMF and the linked page says it "will be possible to build" this feature? Please help me understand... David10244 (talk) 08:03, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

To clarify, I am in desktop mode on an Android tablet, using the Chrome browser. David10244 (talk) 08:06, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

"How to change back" doesn't explain how to change back.

Specifically, it doesn't tell how to get the table of contents back. None of the options have the table of contents, making articles, particularly longer ones, far more cumbersome and slow to navigate. Why this backward step? If your answer offers a justification for the change, then it's wrong.

Ironically, when I wanted to check if this topic had been already covered here, I looked for the table of contents. Not there of course, I'm an idiot, will take too long to find it, so you're getting it. Koro Neil (talk) 20:24, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Koro Neil, welcome to the Teahouse. If you want to return to the previous skin, you'll need to go to Preferences → Appearance → Skin → Vector legacy (2010). That will restore all the old settings. You can restore settings piecemeal by making alterations to your css, but that's a much more complicated process. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 20:27, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Koro Neil Please understand that it is challenging to design a website that is perfect for every individual. The skin underwent years of development and testing with community input. Input is still being solicited at the talk page for Vector 2022. 331dot (talk) 20:37, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Probably not much point in saying this, since the response is apparently an automated one, and doesn't address my specific concern about the table of contents. I have now discovered the table of contents, counter-intuitively way down at the bottom of the left-hand column. Could I encourage you to bring it high enough up the page to be visible when you open the article? I think I will add this as a heading-only new topic. Koro Neil (talk) 21:15, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

@Koro Neil, neither of the folks who replied to you is a bot, but you're not going to reach the skin developers by posting here. Problems with a skin should be posted either to WP:VPT or the talk page of the skin itself. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 21:42, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I have no way of identifying a "skin" as the thing I'm having problem with, or of knowing that the "skin developers" are the people I need to reach. I am learning here for the first time that they exist, and I have no idea what they are. Computer professionals all too often assume too much knowledge on the part of the general public. It's like when they say "Just scan the QR code," and you know what the words mean, but haven't a clue how to do it. Koro Neil (talk) 09:58, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

@Koro Neil Just to answer your question. You can toggle the TOC in articles to its new position in a column on the left (on a PC) by clicking on the icon at the top left of the page, left of the Wikipedia logo. The two options now are to see only the TOC, which stays visible as you scroll down the article, or to have the "old" menu options first and then the TOC. Give Vector 2022 a chance: you may like it once you realise how it works (details here. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:40, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

@Koro Neil: More specifically it's the found to the left of the page title. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:04, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Rule of thumb for positioning the table of contents

As you scroll down the page, you should always reach the TOC before you reach the first heading in the actual article. Koro Neil (talk) 09:58, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Constanza Navarro Meza article

Hi, I want to ask you to approve for a wikipedia article the biography of CONSTANZA NAVARRO MEZA. She is a well known living person. Her website is [1]https://www.constanzaoficial.com

References about her international television appearances are the following:

https://gluc.mx/entretenimiento/2022/4/28/la-voz-kids-2022-quien-es-constanza-navarro-participante-del-equipo-de-paty-cantu-50120.html

https://www.tribunadesanluis.com.mx/local/constanza-navarro-meza-pasa-a-siguiente-etapa-de-la-voz-kids-8327454.html

https://www.meganoticias.mx/s-luis-r-colorado/noticia/la-pequena-constanza-navarro-es-seleccionada-en-la-voz-kids/325733

https://www.tribunadesanluis.com.mx/local/invitan-a-apoyar-a-constanza-navarro-desde-la-explanada-municipal-8320046.html

https://www.pressreader.com/mexico/tribuna-de-san-luis/20211016/281831466922992

https://www.meganoticias.mx/s-luis-r-colorado/noticia/reconoce-alcalde-a-constanza-navarro-como-orgullo-sanluisino/326544

https://www.tribunadesanluis.com.mx/local/alcalde-recibio-a-constanza-navarro-participante-en-un-programa-de-tv-8240950.html

https://youtube/hsYppXHu-_k

https://youtube/8JYrMme9IDo

https://youtube/gpdNMDqWHGU

https://youtube/NPZw5kvdTuo Gelowiki21 (talk) 23:40, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

There are constraints on my time and energy, Gelowiki21; and therefore I'm not going to think about, let alone view, all of those. I imagine that I'm typical of people reading this request of yours. Putting videos aside, please nominate the best three sources among those you list above. -- Hoary (talk) 01:15, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Have a look at the guidelines at WP:GNG and see what you think. No one will approve an article before it's written! -- asilvering (talk) 04:28, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Gelowiki21, you have provided three links on my talk page. I quote:

1. www.constanzaoficial.com
2. https://gluc.mx/entretenimiento/2022/4/28/la-voz-kids-2022-quien-es-constanza-navarro-participante-del-equipo-de-paty-cantu-50120.html
3. https://youtube/hsYppXHu-_k

The first is the subject's website, so it's not a reliable source. The second is pretty insubstantial. The third doesn't even work, and presumably it's supposed to be some Youtube video. (I asked you to put videos aside.) If your three are the best three, then your proposed subject is not notable; and if she isn't notable, no article about her can be created. -- Hoary (talk) 06:25, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

@Hoary: It seems like the YouTube link was supposed to be to https://youtu.be/hsYppXHu-_k. Unknownst to many, however, the youtu.be shortcut domain is on the spam blacklist, so linking there does not work unless you obfuscate the link. The target video should be https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsYppXHu-_k. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 07:38, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, Victor Schmidt mobil. And it turns out to be a variety show: it can't be cited as a source. -- Hoary (talk) 07:46, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Correcting grammar, but not content

When I look at some of the pages in need of grammar/editing, I feel confident I can make them a bit better, but I am very hesitant to clear the previous author's work in the interest of preserving the original information. I am not an expert on some of the topics of the pages that need copy editing, and am worried about losing information. ScipioAfricanusAtZama (talk) 01:28, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to Teahhouse @ScipioAfricanusAtZama! WP:BEBOLD. If you are worried that some terms have technical significance, you can raise a question on the respective WP:TALKPAGE. In any case, you can never overwrite history, because all edits are permanently recorded and can be reverted/viewed. Happy grammar improvements! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 02:06, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I would actually strongly advise against being bold in this situation - it's very easy for accidental misinformation to sneak into Wikipedia this way! If you are worried that your edits might materially change the meaning of the sentence, get a copy of the original source to check! If you can't understand or can't find the original source, leave it for someone who can. There's absolutely tons of work to be done on the encyclopedia, and you can easily find things to edit that don't leave you completely out of your depth. Good luck! -- asilvering (talk) 04:25, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to second user:asilvering here. When I'm unsure I understand the content I usually avoid improving the grammar/formatting (and possibly ossifying misinformation or adding my misunderstandings). The thing to do here is to verify by checking what the cited sources say; you also have full rights to completely remove anything dubious and uncited, though I usually try to find and add relevant references. – Anon423 (talk) 08:06, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

@Anon423, @ScipioAfricanusAtZama I'm with Anon here--I think it's possible to fix grammar and spelling issues without changing meaning, and without being a subject-matter expert. If an article says "there was five ship in the harbor" I would feel confident changing that to "there were five ships in the harbor". If an article spells "blueberry" as "bluebery", I would also feel confident fixing this. I find these kinds of errors often, but I have occasionally run across things that look wrong where I was unsure of the intended meaning. In those (rare for me) cases, I leave that part of the article alone. David10244 (talk) 09:29, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

... Yes, of course, that's exactly what I meant, if it wasn't evident in context. I'm addressing mostly those cases you mention in which the writing is so bad as to impair comprehension. – Anon423 (talk) 09:33, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

In those cases (which I've sometimes wrestled with), there's no easy way other than to consult the sources, which may be easy or – not, and/or to look for an additional reliable source which might clarify the matter. Sometimes the article in question has been translated from one on another language's Wikipedia, and the difficulty is caused by poor translation: if that's the case, and you can read the other language sufficiently well, that original-language version might help. Otherwise the best you could do might be to put an appropriate template, such as next to the offending text, which someone with the article on their watchlist might respond to; or you could open a new section on the Talk page discussing the problem and adding an Edit request template. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 5.65.248.217 (talk) 10:29, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Starting new articles about people prominent in a specific community or region

Hi, I'm quite new to creating new articles but have edited numerous articles without an account. I was wondering what would be the right approach to create articles about people prominent in a specific community but have little coverage in mainstream media, something which is necessary part of the references section.

Please guide. NamkeenChai (talk) 02:12, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

@NamkeenChai: Welcome to the Teahouse! Creating a new article is one of the hardest things to do on Wikipedia, especially if you do not have a lot of experience editing existing Wikipedia articles. Once you're ready to create an article, you would gather multiple independent reliable sources that have provided significant coverage of the subject, and determine whether it meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, called "notability". If so, you could follow the instructions at Help:Your first article, and be prepared for a process that may include waiting for review, rejections, and rewrites, before an article is created. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 02:56, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! I have been editing for just under a decade now but never created new articles. I read both "notability" and "Help: Your first article" among some other pages related to creating pages hence needed to make this post in confusion. I think I'll start a few drafts and get help from experienced editor. NamkeenChai (talk) 10:02, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

What specific community? You might be able to ask editors at whatever relevant WikiProject for advice. -- asilvering (talk) 04:23, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

For example, the communities in the valleys of Karakorams. The region is home to only 2 million people but there is only a little coverage on Wikipedia about their work and contributions. NamkeenChai (talk) 10:03, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Whether "coverage in mainstream media" is "something which is necessary part of the references section" depends a lot on what you mean by "mainstream media". Take books for example. If by "mainstream" books you mean the kinds of books that are stocked by [physical] bookstores, then most of the books I cite would not be mainstream. If OTOH you mean the kinds of books that are bought and stocked by at least some university libraries, then all, I think (and hope), of the books I cite would be mainstream. -- Hoary (talk) 06:33, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

@Hoary, I think they mean bias exists and when plenty of "mainstrean" resources are owned by people that do not belong to a specific community - they won't be giving any good coverage to it. For example, it is very hard to find good coverage about Indian Muslim scholars in mainstream Indian resources such as The Hindu and others. Discussions about them are mostly limited to books and things that are "less mainstream" and are perhaps also closely associated. ─ The Aafī (talk) 06:44, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

That's a reasonable guess, TheAafi. However, if I were looking for material about a scholar, I wouldn't assume that there'd be anything in the newspapers about the person, regardless of nationality, ethnic affiliation, or religious belief. Well, NamkeenChai, what kind of sources do you have? -- Hoary (talk) 06:57, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

The primary sources are newspapers and magazines in Urdu language. NamkeenChai (talk) 10:11, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

You're welcome to use Urdu sources to write English-language Wikipedia articles. -- asilvering (talk) 10:17, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Awesome, thank you! NamkeenChai (talk) 10:24, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely, I was also meaning to mention sources that are not in English language specifically. Should those references be used to create articles in that specific language or can be used in English articles as well? I've yet to explore the Wikipedia practices multilingual sources. NamkeenChai (talk) 10:09, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

By mainstream media I mean English newspapers and new blogs, etc. that do not cover stories about the communities that I mentioned. This is not limited to people only, it also includes major events as well. NamkeenChai (talk) 10:07, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Concerning using non-english sources, please see WP:NOENG. Keep in mind that they still have to be reliable sources, though. Lectonar (talk) 10:27, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

That helps. I'll start a draft and see how it goes. NamkeenChai (talk) 10:29, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Password help

My friend forgot her password for her Wikipedia account but she remembers she had her Gmail email confirmed with the account but it seems there isn't a "forgot password" feature for Wikipedia on the login page. Help? Oscarjohnson1981 (talk) 05:40, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

@Oscarjohnson1981: Direct your friend to Special:PasswordReset. For future note, the "forget password link is underneath the login button. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 07:27, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Updating a profile name

Hello! I am wanting to edit a name because the person is divorced and is now using their maiden name (Lisa Arrindell)?

Please advise.

Lisa Arrindell Anderson Terrimontrel (talk) 06:11, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi User:Terrimontrel,

I see you have since found Wikipedia:Requested moves and made a request there. And User:Station1 has handled it. The page is now at Lisa Arrindell, and Lisa Arrindell Anderson remains as a redirect to it (in case someone is still looking for them by the married name). Thanks for pushing to get it updated! DMacks (talk) 07:36, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Take out that buttons on top right

New skin is nice. But one problem. That buttons like talk, preferences, sandbox. . . etc everything needs an extra click. How do I make it visible directly (probably at right side where whitespace is there). -- Parnaval (talk) 07:04, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure how, and it may take some custom CSS or Javascript. Perhaps ask at WP:Village pump (technical)? – Anon423 (talk) 08:23, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Sandbox

Why is there no option for the visual editor feature when editing the main Wikipedia experiment sandbox page? Quaker1889 (talk) 10:01, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

@Quaker1889: You can use the visual editor on the sandbox by using the button in the sandbox header. There is no link in the actions menu, however, because the Visual Editor is not configured to be active in the Wikipedia: namespace. Victor Schmidt (talk) 11:34, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the invitation to Teahouse!

Hi everybody, thank you for the warm welcome to the Teahouse. My name is June Komori and I am the co-founder for Bitcoin Wiki. It is a pleasure to be here. I do have a question though about a Wikipedia article that I was reading about called the Gülen movement. I am confused on why Gülen movement was renamed to the FETÖ "Fethullahist Terrorist Organisation" when they have not committed any acts of terrorism. How would one improve this article in situations like these? Komorijuno (talk) 10:03, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

As pointed out in the article, essentially only the government of Turkey labels them as terrorist. Questions like these are better discussed on the article's talk-page, though, as page watchers will see them. Lectonar (talk) 10:50, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Lectonar, it's a pleasure to meet you. I would like to thank you for responding to my question. Many people have opinions on different subjects, do we include personal opinions on Wikipedia articles if they're from the government? How do we identify between what is noteworthy vs which is not? Komorijuno (talk) 11:35, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

For example, I am labeled as an a member of the "Anonymous hacktivist group who is also apart of the FBI" by YourAnonWolf on Twitter. Do any of the labels or perceptions of me constitute the truth? They are merely false accusations made at me in attempts to gaining publicity. Komorijuno (talk) 11:49, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

(e/c) See Gülen_movement#Designation_as_a_terrorist_group. Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:51, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi there Shantavira, how are you? I hope all is well. I am most concerned with the bombing of a public library. See Gülen_movement#bookstore was bombed in Şemdinli. I tried to read more about the library bombing from the original news source provided but the links does not work. See Şemdinli_incident_#Background. What do we do in this situation? Komorijuno (talk) 11:29, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

This might be of help then; although it's an essay, it is a good starting point as all relevant policies are linked from it. Lectonar (talk) 12:03, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Lectonar! I will bookmark and study the resource you have provided. Thanks for reaching out. Komorijuno (talk) 12:21, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Anyone can edit Wikipedia, so you are welcome to be bold and change it yourself. That’s what makes Wikipedia great! Serratra (talk) 02:00, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Error: Librarian field in Infobox Library

Hello!

I just noticed an oddity trying to do an infobox following Template:Infobox_library. The librarian field doesn't seem to be working. It is included in the examples, but looking at the example on the side, it doesn't show. Do you know why, if it should be fixed, or what I could do? I wish to include the editor in chief of a digital library.

Thank you in advance,

Tsiluciole (talk) 10:57, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I do notice this but I'm not sure if Teahouse volunteers are best people to be asked on this. I have added your query at Template talk:Infobox library#"Librarian". ─ The Aafī (talk) 11:32, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

@Tsiluciole: To clear this up. I've checked the template and there is not a librarian field in that template, there never has been. Someone edited the template documentation and added the field name without adding any code to the actual template to handle the field. I've edited the documentation and removed the non-existent field. If you think the template would benefit from having that field, then follow the link to the template talk page and start a discussion about adding it. - X201 (talk) 11:45, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you @TheAafi for starting a talk page and @X201 for checking the page!

Do you think the director field could work for the editor-in-chief? Tsiluciole (talk) 12:27, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Moving a Page

Hello!

I am trying to move the Perseus Project for it to become Perseus Digital Library, seeing as this is the terminology used in all citations and references (and is more precise). There however already exists a page named Perseus Digital Library, which is used to redirect to Perseus Project, which means I cannot do this. What can I do?

Thank you in advance,

Tsiluciole (talk) 13:06, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

If you believe this move is uncontroversial follow the steps at Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Requesting_technical_moves. If you're unsure if someone would oppose to the move, or want community concensus before moving it, see Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Requesting_controversial_and_potentially_controversial_moves. Esolo5002 (talk) 13:17, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

 Done It's been done now, in case anyone reading this thread is interested.... Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:14, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Repeat citations

Is it possible for the same reference number to appear in difference places in an article using Visual Editor? When I enter a source more than once it appears with different numbers. Mcljlm (talk) 15:49, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

@Mcljlm: Welcome to the Teahouse. If you're using the visual editor, after you click on Cite, click on the Re-use tab and it will pull up the current references being cited in the article. It comes with a search field to easily look for the one you want. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:19, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

how to cancel account

i would like to cancel my account 75.134.189.254 (talk) 18:29, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi IP user, welcome to the Teahouse. Accounts can not be deleted. You can request to be WP:VANISHed, if eligible; otherwise, simply stay logged out and never use your account again. You can even scramble the password and remove any attached email address if you want to make it very permanent. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:37, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello IP! What kidn of account are you referring to? If you're referring to a credit card account then Wikipedia cannot help you there. If you're referring to a Wikipedia account those cannot be deleted (Or in your case, cancelled). Simply just abandon it and that's all you need to do. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:38, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion for an article

There is no entry currently on Wikipedia for David Alan Cooper. He is the principal French horn for the Chicago Symphony Orchestra and the Fieber solo horn of the Berlin Philharmonic. Thinking he should be on Wikipedia. 73.45.85.33 (talk) 19:10, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

• former Solo Horn of the Berlin Philharmoniker.

73.45.85.33 (talk) 19:13, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, IP user, and welcome to the Teahouse. The question is, does he meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability - roughly, that enough has been published about him in reliable sources to ground an article? If so, then an article could be written; if not, then no article will be accepted.

This being an entirely volunteer project, editors work on what they choose. You are free to try writing the article yourself - see your first article - but it is a tough challenge for people who are not experienced Wikipedia editors. You may post a request at requested articles, but in truth the takeup there is extremely low. Probably your best bet to make it happen would be to find the necessary reliable independent sources about him, and then post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians - what you will need to be doing is stimulating somebody into wanting to write the article, so it would be helpful to show that you have done the groundwork to find the sources that establish him as notable. ColinFine (talk) 19:58, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

At French horn, look at notable players for examples of referenced articles about playars. These show the quality of references needed. David notMD (talk) 00:09, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Is there a single page with all the rules for editing Wikipedia?

Hello, I've been trying to be bold, as the article states you should, but I am finding my edits being reverted. I was curious if there is a manual for editing. Thanks! Drdr150 (talk) 19:25, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

There are a lot of different policies, guidelines, and advice essays, and they can get a bit overwhelming. A good start would be the simplified ruleset, which gives a brief summary of all the major ones and links for more info. Wikipedia is very much "learn on the job" and don't be afraid to make mistakes. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:31, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

@Drdr150 There are already a lot of links from your own Talk Page, which you should read when you have time. Provided you are not deliberately vandalising pages, no-one will object to you making a few mistakes as a beginner. We have a key process summarised at WP:BRD which you should certainly read, as WP:BOLD is not the whole story. Mike Turnbull (talk) 19:35, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Drdr150, there are hundreds, maybe thousands of such pages. But you can ask here for help, and people will guide you to the relevant policy page. For your edits to Towel Day, see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Dates. With your first edit to Nepenthe (video game), you added a whole sentence but wrote the misleading edit summary "A mild grammatical fix". Maproom (talk) 19:36, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

@Drdr150: There are two lists.

Wikipedia:List of policies is a list of pages containing all of the rules that should not be broken.

Wikipedia:List of guidelines is a list of pages containing all of the rules we strive to follow as best practices.

Hope that helps. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:32, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

direct sources

hey everyone, I added a a small text and reference to an article. The text was summarizing that Elon musk has stated that he is pro train, and as a reference I used the tweet in which he stated this. This has been reversed because "Twitter is not a reliable source". I generally agree but in this case I think that it is because it is the way that musk communicated this.

Can anyone explain why this isn't a reliable source regardless?

Thanks everybody! GXBaum (talk) 19:41, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

@GXBaum According to WP:RSPTWITTER, consensus is that Twitter can be used for WP:ABOUTSELF type of citations, which is probably the case here, assuming the tweet was from Musk's own account. If you believe your addition is important, you should take this up with the editor who reverted you via Talk:The Boring Company, as part of our standard WP:BRD process. Mike Turnbull (talk) 19:52, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick and helpful response! GXBaum (talk) 19:53, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I reverted, and I am open to rethinking that with this context. — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 19:54, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

thank you! I appreciate your support to wiki GXBaum (talk) 19:57, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

It is a team effort. :) — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 19:58, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Redesign

Can you undo all of this? I'm not sure I will be donating anymore because the site has huge usability and accessibility issues now. 73.7.176.82 (talk) 19:59, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Are you asking about a sudden change to Wikipedia's appearance? It is because the default skin has changed from the Vector legacy (2010) skin to the new Vector (2022) skin. If you would like to change back to the old one, you can, as a registered user, click on the in the top-right corner and choose Preferences. Once there, go to Preferences → Appearance → Skins → Vector legacy (2010).
If you would like to leave feedback, you can do so at Wikipedia talk:Vector 2022. IP users are stuck with the new skin for the moment. Mike Turnbull (talk) 20:05, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

"for the moment"? details!

feedback: this is awful, to the point of being unintelligible and unusable. if it were better, I would not have much to say, but this is worse. it wastes space (important to many people ITRW), and is more difficult to read.

and I rarely login anywhere I go. it gets in the way, one of the problems with trying to track more than (I will enjoy this part) the IP: 100.14.162.51 (talk) 22:19, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

See above for where to direct your concerns. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:30, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

How to challenge a summary ban?

Hi have been summarily banned for FIVE months for making a completely uncontroversial, minor edit by adding a new sentence with new detail on an existing article along with a sound reference. I am new to editing, but took some time to familiarise myself with the guidelines and am utterly flabbergasted at what appears to be draconian, arbitrary measures implemented without any discussion! A very off putting experience which has undermined the democratic nature of the Wikipedia platform in my eyes. What to do for an inexperienced newby like me?? BLM123 (talk) 00:13, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

@BLM123: Welcome to the Teahouse. As far as I can tell, your account has never had any editing restrictions imposed on it. Did you make this account as a workaround? If so, you should be aware that this would fall under sockpuppetry which would be grounds to block the account you're on right now. I am going to assume you've been partially blocked from editing a page, in which case you're best off filing an unblock request from the account that actually has the block. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:18, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

@BLM123 From what you say, you have evidently been operating at least two accounts for the last two years, and have continued editing articles from this one up until yesterday. You should cease that immediately. Then, in order to request an unblock of your main account, you should log on as the original blocked user. There, at its talk page, you should make an unblock request, per the instructions provided there. Explain your reasons for asking to be unblocked, and addressing any concerns raised. An administrator will assess your request and make a decision. I will shortly be blocking this account per WP:SOCKPUPPETRY, but you may still edit the talk page to provide a link to your master account. I, or another admin, will then be able to follow that and asses your unblock request. I hope this makes sense. Thank you. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:19, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

• BLM123 Wikipedia is not a democratic platform. 331dot (talk) 01:22, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
• For the Teahouse-curious, BLM123 made a series of edits to Tariq Jamil on 20 January 2023, all reverted (not minor and not uncontroversial), and a batch of edits on 10 June 2020. No evidence at Talk of a temporary block, or mention of another account. Appears Nick Moyes is seeing content not viewable by non-admin. David notMD (talk) 08:40, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

  @David notMD That's not strictly true. By their own admission (see above), BLM123 has had an account blocked for 5 months and has come here asking to be unblocked. I check BLM123's block log, and there are no partial or complete blocks in their history. Therefore they must be using another account of which we are unaware. I repeat: by their own admission they are using BLM123 as a second account (sockpuppet), and thus I blocked them, leaving what I hoped was a clear explanation on their talk page to request an unblock of their main account. I'm not a WP:CHK, so can't tell which other account they have been operating before it was blocked. But I would gladly look at their block for them if I did know. It's possible I did not give them the usual leeway I normally do when someone breaking the rules posts at the Teahouse, but I feel I administered the blocked appropriately, based on what they said here. As always, I'm happy to unblock or have another admin unblock if they - or you - feel I acted inappropriately, or too harshly. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:07, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

IMO, on BLM123 to identify what account has "been summarily banned for FIVE months". David notMD (talk) 18:28, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Can I have a page that's mainly Wikipedia humour, but also incorporates some misc humour.

For example, let's say User:Someone-123-321/Humour was a real page, and focused on Wikipedia humour (although has some trivial, non-offensive general humour that's not aimed at Wikipedia). Would the "general humour" bit make the page disallowed, or would it still be allowed? - Someone-123-321 (talk) 02:47, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

WP:NOTWEBHOST may apply. Heiro 02:51, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

+1 The aforementioned link has the following:

The focus of user pages should not be social networking or amusement, but rather providing a foundation for effective collaboration.

Emphasis and links in original. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:54, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

If that's the case, then why is there an entire category dedicated to pages containing WikiHumour? Someone-123-321 (talk) 02:57, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

The same paragraph that I quoted from also states: Humorous pages that refer to Wikipedia in some way may be created in an appropriate namespace. Links removed. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:05, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Technically, said page would be referring to wikipedia in "some way", as it would be mostly humour pertaining to Wikipedia. Someone-123-321 (talk) 03:24, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Someone-123-321. Editors who are clearly here to improve the encyclopedia based on their long term track records are definitely given more leeway with their user pages than new editors. You have only made 39 edits to encyclopedia articles at this time and yet you are lobbying to write humor pages. I suggest that you make at least 1000 productive edits to encyclopedia articles before writing humor pages. Otherwise, you are at risk of developing a reputation as an unserious and unproductive editor and this is actually a serious project. Cullen328 (talk) 08:21, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Time to delete my user pages, ig User:Someone-123-321 (chitter chatter, I contribute) 08:24, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I have deleted my user-pages as U1. Only my main page is here. Happy now, @Cullen328? Someone-123-321 (I contribute) 08:43, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Sandbox

need go to Sandbox 210.23.189.236 (talk) 05:09, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

wut -- Someone-123-321 (talk) 05:53, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

a sandbox pls edit to Wikipedia:Sandbox — KFC (🔔 • 📝) 06:29, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh. Yeah, that makes sense. -- User:Someone-123-321 (chitter chatter, I contribute) 06:56, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Unable to add {{CNONE}} to a part of a table on Cross Island Line

Hello! I found a glitch where you can’t add {{CNONE}} to a section of the table describing the stations on Cross Island Line or else it’ll show wiki-text. Can anyone advise me on how to fix it? Thank you! Brachy0008 (talk) 09:21, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

@Brachy00008: Welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid I am not familar with that template, but I do need to question if you've been typing the name using the correct capitalisation? It should be {{CNone}}, and not {{CNONE}}. That will make a heck of a difference, as the second option does not exist. But I can't advise on its actual use - hopefully other might if you confirm that you still need further help. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 11:37, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Create page, please

Draft:Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore (soundtrack) is only a draft and not a Wikipedia page, please make it a page 191.113.196.245 (talk) 10:04, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

We don't have "pages", we have articles. I've added the information to the draft required to submit it for consideration. 331dot (talk) 10:14, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Cerro Blanco confusion

Today's (January 21, 2023) featured article is Cerro Blanco. The first three sentences are "The Cerro Blanco is a caldera in the Andes, . . . It is a volcano collapse structure. . . It has been active for the past eight million years . . ." I think this is misleading - the caldera has not been active for eight million years, it is a structure, which cannot be active. I do not think the name is synonymous with the feature. The linked article is headed "Cerro Blanco (Volcano). I don’t know why there is the parentheses, it is a volcano. It may be that those in the field don’t add the word volcano after every volcano's name, they all know that Cerro Blanco is a volcano. But those outside of the field do not. I think the first sentence should be "The Cerro Blanco volcano, located in the Andes, is noted for its unusual caldera, a volcanic collapse structure rarely found in volcanoes. . . The volcano has been active for eight million years . . ." Wis2fan (talk) 12:52, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Wis2fan, and welcome to the Teahouse. If you think there is something in an article which can be improved, you're welcome to either edit it yourself, or to open a discussion on the article's talk page (in this case Talk:Cerro Blanco (volcano)). If you make the edit yourself, and somebody disagrees, they will revert your edit, in which case you can then open the discussion on the talk page: see WP:BRD.

As for the article title: we use a term in parenthesis to distinguish between articles about things with the same name. In this case, Cerro Blanco (volcano) is distinguished from Cerro Blanco, which is about the mountain. Again, if you think this should be changed (or even, the two articles merged) please open a discussion on the talk page. ColinFine (talk) 14:16, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

@Wis2fan I've only skimmed over the article very briefly, but I rather tend to support your suggested alternative wording. I get the impression the article has suffered a fair bit of vandalism today, so when it settles down I do think you should raise this. I know Jo-Jo Eumerus has done a lot of work on this and other volcanic articles to get them to Featured Article status, and that they'd appreciate your observations. As has been said, the best place is actually to raise it at Talk:Cerro Blanco (volcano). Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 16:26, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, I do think that "structures" can be "active" for some time, since the structure is a volcano and volcanoes erupt. The title is as ColinFine said, there are numerous things called "Cerro Blanco", more than one of which has a page here, so we need to specify which Cerro Blanco we are talking about. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:48, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

How long does it take?

Header inserted by ColinFine (talk) 14:11, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

How long does it typically take for a published article to go live? I know it needs to go through consideration, but I think I submitted a couple weeks ago and want to make sure I submitted correctly. Thank you! Mamaofonebear (talk) 12:53, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Mamaofonebear, and welcome to the Teahouse. You wrote a draft article, but you wrote it in the wrong place (your user page), and you did not actually submit it for review, so probably nobody has seen it but you.

I have moved it to Draft:Don Miller, and added a header that will allow you to submit it when it is ready (which it is not). You need to read about Notability and find several reliable sources that are wholly independent of Miller and of any of his employers, and contain significant coverage of him. You also need to read about how to format references.

Once you have submitted it for review, the message will tell you that how long the review takes is unpredictable, and could be months.

I also need to ask: what is your connection with Miller? You uploaded the photo, and described it as your own work; and when a new editor immediately launches into the challenging task of creating a new article, they very often have a conflict of interest. ColinFine (talk) 14:32, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

That depends on how long it will be accepted, and it ranges from days to 1 week. -- 2601:205:C001:EA0:A8C7:5154:6E76:2E8A (talk) 20:07, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

It shouldn’t take longer than a few hours. Happy editing! Serratra (talk) 01:51, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Wrong. Acceptance of a draft can take months. Especially if the draft is as non-ready as this one is. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:04, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Mamaofonebear. I see that you have submitted your draft, without taking much note of my advice. I guess that it will be reviewed quickly, because it can very easily be declined. None of your three references contributes to establishing Miller as notable: the first two are not independent (they're from a former employer) and the third is neither a reliable source nor does it contain significant coverage of Don Miller.

The scan of an obituary you included is problematic for several reasons. First, it is almost certainly a copyright violation, which WikiMedia takes very seriously, and I have nominated it for deletion from Commons for that reason. It is also useless as a reference because it does not identify the source or the date. In fact, if it were useful as a source (see below) you could cite it by providing bibliographic information such as title, author (if known), publication, date, and page number: (see REFB for how to do that): a link or an image is not required.

However, an obituary of his father is unlikely to be of any use in an article about the son. Not even the mention of his son Don is relevant, because we have no way of determining whether that is the same Don Miller. Equally, the article about his father's visit is irrelevant. An article about Don Miller needs to be about Don Miller, not his father. If you can find a reliable source that mentions Bruce and Don as father and son, that is clearly about this Don, that would be acceptable to mention who his father was. It would still not contribute to his notability, though (Notability is not inherited).

I see you have also not responded to my question about what your connection is to Miller. ColinFine (talk) 21:00, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Mediawiki message delivery

How to make the mediawiki message delivery go in my talk page? Thanks in advance ball deletor. 14:18, 21 January 2023 (UTC) ball deletor. 14:18, 21 January 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by -tynjee (talk • contribs)

-tynjee please make sure that your signature links to your user talk, and has some resemblance to your username. See WP:CUSTOMSIG/P. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 14:38, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

ok tynjee 14:40, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@-tynjee: It depends. MediaWiki message delivery is a system account controlled by the MassMessage software extension. Generally, most regular mass messages will have some sort of onwiki subscription list (e.g. here for Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost) to which you can add yourself to to get a talkpage message by MediaWiki message delivery the next time that message is sent out. The sole exception I am aware of are the yearly arbitration commitee election notices, which are sent to all eigible users as far as I am aware. Victor Schmidt (talk) 14:41, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Writing a biography page of someone who avoided the public eye

My uncle was adamant about being private, unlisted phone number, hardly any trace of his existence online. However, he was one of the founders/authors of guassian, the lead scientist for hundreds of peer-reviewed publications and cited hundreds of thousands of times. He recently passed and I would like to memorialize him. Due to his lack of online media presence, I wonder if this article would be rejected. I am his niece, he had no children. Skyhawkgrl410 (talk) 18:07, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

If he was the lead scientist for hundreds of publications, there is a very strong chance that he meets the guidelines at WP:NPROF, and would be eligible for a Wikipedia article. However, you should be familiar with the guidelines at WP:COI. -- asilvering (talk) 18:11, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Skyhawkgrl410: Hello and Welcome to the Teahouse. Sources do not have to be online, offline sources are accepted as well. Victor Schmidt (talk) 18:14, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! I started the article and submitted with some references. There was indication that an option to have a wiki volunteer edit it/write it would be smart given the COI but I do not see that option. Does it comes when my submission is reviewed in a few months? Skyhawkgrl410 (talk) 18:44, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

IMO, given that you have declared your COI, you are fine to continue without an independent co-author. Just remember that facts must be verified by references. SeeHelp:Referencing for beginners on how to format refs and insert those into the text. P.S. Be as complete as possible before submitting the draft, because once accepted as an article, your path to additional editing gets complicated. David notMD (talk) 18:48, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Skyhawkgrl410 I took the liberty of unsubmitting your draft Draft:Joseph Dannenberg. As written, it would be declined. Learn how to reference properly. David notMD (talk) 18:57, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

See Hunter College, section Notable Faculty, especially those that are/were scientists, as it may give you ideas about what to include. Did Dannenberg receive notable science awards or honors, or was a member of important science societies? David notMD (talk) 19:12, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

@Skyhawkgrl410 Thank you for starting this article. David notMD has given you good advice, and I just want to add that while you should add this information if you have it, it shouldn't be necessary to demonstrate his notability (ie, his eligibility for an article), since his citation counts are indeed very high. Because I am confident in this, I have created a Wikidata item for him here: Joseph Dannenberg (Q116286474). When your article is finished and moved out of Draft space, this Wikidata item will link various metadata about him via Template:Authority control, which I added to the bottom of the draft. You are welcome to add to it, but be aware that this is not a draft, and information in Wikidata populates various other online databases like libraries etc very, very quickly! If you have something to add but you're nervous to edit it "live" (I don't blame you), feel free to write on the Talk page of Joseph Dannenberg (Q116286474) and I can get to it for you. -- asilvering (talk) 23:04, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I mixed up terminology: on Wikidata it's not the "Talk" page, but the "Discussion" page. -- asilvering (talk) 23:06, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

@Skyhawkgrl410 The very large number of citations are owing to the fact that Dannenberg was one of many authors of some widely-used software (see Gaussian (software) and this IUPAC definition). I think he certainly will meet one of the criteria at WP:NPROF and I've added two other of his highly cited papers to a "selected publication" section. My other suggestion would be to look on Hunter College's website via the Wayback machine, since he was presumably mentioned there in the past with more detail than they currently have. Note that Wikipedia is not a site to use to memorialize anyone. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:21, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Changing sandbox article title and moving it to Wikipedia

hey all. I am new here. How can I move a sandbox article (which I think is ready to be reviewed and published) and change the title? thanks! Evita2023 (talk) 20:42, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Evita2023 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. According to your edit history, you have no edits to your sandbox. The best way to submit drafts for review is to use Articles for Creation to create and submit your draft for review. New accounts cannot directly create articles and must use that process; it's a good idea in general unless you have much experience in article creation. 331dot (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I see it now. Just click the "submit your draft for review" button on the screen. 331dot (talk) 20:46, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

thanks a lot, I could move it to the review section. Evita2023 (talk) 20:54, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

You don't need to do anything further, it is successfully submitted. If accepted, the reviewer will place it at the proper title. 331dot (talk) 20:56, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

perfect. happy weekend! Evita2023 (talk) 21:00, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Adding Company and Personal Profiles

Hello, I am looking to add a company profile on wikipedia and also one for myself, Are there any guidelines handy that I can follow to ensure that they do not get declined when I post them? Shvite (talk) 22:34, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Shvite Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia does not have profiles, not a single one. Wikipedia has articles, typically written by independent editors wholly unconnected with the subject. Wikipedia is not a place for people(or companies) to tell the world about themselves. A Wikipedia article must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the subject, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability(people and companies). Please read Your First Article. If you truly feel you can set aside everything you know about yourself and your company and only summarize independent sources (not press releases, interviews, routine announcements), you may go to Articles for creation to create a draft. 331dot (talk) 22:43, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

The Terms of Use also require you to make a formal paid editing disclosure. Please also see conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 22:45, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Creating an article is as simple as writing one. I would suggest first reading Help:Your first article, and make sure your article is well sourced with a lot of reliable independent sources. Serratra (talk) 01:49, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Serratra is not correct. Creating a new article is one of the harder tasks at Wikipedia. New editors are strongly advised to put in months of improving existing articles first. Especially as it appears you want to write about yourself and a company (presumably one you are connected to), please do not waste reviewers' and administrators's time without gaining experience first. At best, your efforts would be Declined. More likely, those would be Speedy deleted, leaving no trace behind.

Too late! Shvite's effort was Speedy deleted for andvertising/promotional and the account indefinitely blocked. You can appeal the block, but best to promise to never attempt to create drafts about yourself or the company, if there is to be any chance of success. David notMD (talk) 05:57, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello all!

I'm an actor with several films on Amazon. I keep getting denied for a wikipedia page. I'm told it's because of resources so tonight I went and put in about 15 or so websites that mention my name from Google to foreign websites. I haven't gotten a lot of information about why I'm denied but I've been afforded blue check marks on many social media sites, it seems like Wikipedia would be easy to handle. I just wanted to control it before my name started to show up after recently selling in the UK and Ireland. Would anyone want to help me get it published? Madridbenjamin (talk) 01:10, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

@Madridbenjamin Welcome to the Teahouse! If you haven't already done so, please read WP:AUTO and WP:PSCOI, and declare your conflict of interest on your user page. The information at the top of Draft:Benjamin Madrid links to lots of Wikipedia's policies. In particular, and article has to show how the person meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, called "notability". Looking at the IMDb page about you, it doesn't seem like you meet the criteria at WP:NACTOR, and the draft doesn't seem to have multiple independent sources that provide significant coverage of your work to meet WP:NBIO. It may be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Hope this helps! GoingBatty (talk) 03:15, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Madridbenjamin have you read Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing? Wikipedia is not a social media site, it is an encyclopedia with articles that can be edited by anyone. If there comes a time when a reliable source reports something about you that you don't like, it can be added to a future Wikipedia article and you won't be able to remove it. If you want to have control of what is published about yourself Wikipedia is not the place to ask for help getting an article, for that article won't belong to you, and you won't have control over it. You may also want to read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Best wishes to you. Karenthewriter (talk) 04:08, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for all your advice. I don’t meet the criteria of ‘actor’? I’ve done 500 pieces of work, and I could keep putting them in the resources but didn’t think I would need too. I’m known for selling the only film created in Indiana to Hollywood. There are businessmen in this town with wiki pages.

I’m happy if someone else does it but people don’t just show up on the resources I put up for nothing. Turn around and ask your Alexa ‘Who is Benjamin Madrid?’ - That global bit of info doesn’t get you on Wikipedia? Kinda weird. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madridb (talk • contribs) 04:50, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello from an Alexa-free zone, Madridbenjamin aka Madridb. There have been extraordinarily many actors. Most aren't notable according to Wikipedia's notability criteria. Perhaps here, in this thread, you could provide the links to the three best sources of information about you. These must be "reliable sources", and one requirement for this is that they must be independent of you: not by you, not by an agent working for you, not based on an interview with you. From the three, we'd be able to evaluate your [Wikipedia-defined] "notability". -- Hoary (talk) 05:48, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Benjamin Madrid exists. All refs need to be embedded in the text. The software then puts a superscript number in the text and the ref shows uup under References. David notMD (talk) 06:02, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

@Madridbenjamin Wikipedia allows drafts to be created by their subjects, although for reasons already given you may not like how the article about you subsequently evolves. However, that said, it is vital that you conform to Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living people. That policy is there to ensure, among other things, that every fact stated in a biography is backed up by a reliable source that readers can use to verify it is an accurate representation of what the source says. This means the draft must use inline citations (see WP:ILC). It is unreasonable for you to expect volunteers here to fix the shortcomings of your draft. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:49, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Guys. I’m not expecting anyone to fix it. It has inline sources, notable according to all of your articles. I can already tell you this is more trouble then it’s worth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madridb (talk • contribs) 16:23, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

@Madridb These are not inline sources, they are just a bunch of weblinks dumped at the end of the draft, with no attempt to specify which source is relevant to the various facts in the text. In addition, you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons a photo of you but that is not your "own work", (i.e. taken by you as a selfie): it was taken by Lucas Saugen Photography, a commercial company. Commons will delete the photo unless you prove you are authorised to license it. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:00, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Correct. Saugen photography took the photos of my wedding and with permission sold them to TurboTax. Like son of citation for MLA and APA style I put the links in your ‘automatic’ citing link under cite and that’s how Wikipedia spit them out. So the wedding photos are my own work, bought and paid for by me. I may not understand how the coding of Wikipedia works but you do not understand the business of acting and modeling. I suppose that’s true for many people and why they say ‘it’s not notable’…forgetting that they don’t know ANYONE that’s successfully don the same. Saugen also took my first album cover photos from My first recording contract. Dr Demento Basement Tapes 11 also shows my pre show business (legal) name. A selfie portrait would have been taken by my arm. Those are clearly professional photos. If you walk into any big box store today you’ll also see my face on many many products. Ford Motor Company travels the world using my face for their new Fusion. It’s not a matter of ‘stuff’ or permission it’s a matter of wiki people understanding what’s legal, real and owned. I’m happy to give whatever they want as long as it doesn’t show personal info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madridb (talk • contribs) 17:25, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

If you do own the copyright to the photo, you'll need to provide evidence of permission to Wikimedia Commons. See your user talk page over at Commons for instructions. It is, as you say, a matter of what is legal, and the admins over at Commons will delete the photo if there is no evidence that the upload is in fact legal. As for "I put the links in your ‘automatic’ citing link under cite and that’s how Wikipedia spit them out", you misunderstand what you'd need to do – the citation marker has to be placed after the sentence or paragraph it supports, not in the "References" section. Take another look at the information linked by Michael D Turnbull above. --bonadea contributions talk 17:58, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

@Madridb: You need to put each of those citation templates at the end of the article behind a sentence that is supported by that citation.

Also, we are strict about copyright. The fact that you possess a photograph doesn't mean you own the copyright. The fact that you bought a photograph doesn't mean you own the copyright. If you paid a photographer, then you would need a written agreement stating that the photograph is a work for hire, and you would need to provide a copy of that agreement to the Wikimedia Foundation.

Nobody said writing a Wikipedia article is easy. In fact, it is the most difficult task in existence on Wikipedia, and even more difficult if you have a conflict of interest, as you do.

One more thing, and this is really important. Please look at the short essay Wikipedia:Golden rule to understand what we require of the sources you cite. Can you tell us which three sources you cite meet all three criteria described in that essay? ~Anachronist (talk) 01:07, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

When should an article show pronunciation?

On the article Rob Ickes, it says that his name rhymes with "bikes" and I'm pretty sure that is not how pronunciation is normally shown on Wikipedia. However, I'm not sure what to do, since I'm unfamiliar with IPA (though there are guides here that I'm sure I'll get the hang of), and not even sure if there should be a pronunciation guide (although I'm pretty sure the source used for it was this https://robickes.com/about/). Should I simply get rid of it, or can it stay, or should I make a pronunciation guide using IPA? Is there some sort of criterion for if an article needs a pronunciation guide?

Balnibarbarian (talk) 03:06, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Balnibarbarian, if his name does indeed rhyme with "bikes", then it's /aɪks/. Anyway, the pronunciation won't be obvious to people (like me) who don't happen to know it, so your suggested addition would be worthwhile. -- Hoary (talk) 05:34, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

@Balnibarbarian: I added in the proper IPA based on Hoary's stated transliteration. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 07:16, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you all! Balnibarbarian (talk) 13:46, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Please, upload this poster

Please, upload this poster https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yt2MebbhcMz8qO_rylSAWsHG4J-ssqjJ/view?usp=sharing in Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore, it has the billing block and is the DVD cover. 191.113.196.245 (talk) 03:18, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia. If you register an account, you can upload the picture yourself. It’s just one of the many reasons that registering an account is encouraged! Serratra (talk) 16:05, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Insert New Paragraph button: new in mobile view VE?

I swear this is not related to the new Vector skin (I've tried several skins), but this "Insert New Paragraph" button now appears between some, but ofc not all, paragraph breaks in the mobile view visual editor. I swear this wasn't there yesterday, and I didn't see anything in tech news. it is highly annoying for a thumb-smasher like me. Can this be turned off? Thanks, Teahouse! — LumonRedacts 03:35, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

John Cook Wilson entry

I am the author of this entry:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/wilson/

Thus a recognized expert on Cook Wilson. The Wikipedia entry includes errors, an extremely poor choice of bibliography and consists of a set of randomly chosen remarks, that do not amount to a philosophically competent, serious, let alone complete, presentation of his work. I have begun revising it, including with lots of new material, to bring it up to the standards but someone simply undid all my work in the middle of the process. I was able to reintroduce the modifications I made so far, but please advise for the next step. As it stands one section, "Philosophy" and the bibliography will next revision and expansion. I fear that, again, vandalism will occur and that I am doing all of this for nothing because someone wishes the previous incompetent version to stand instead. MatMar555 (talk) 04:39, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

MatMar555, the place to ask about this is the article's talk page. I've already kicked off the discussion (which I don't intend to participate in, or even to monitor): see Talk:John Cook Wilson. Wait for the person who reverted to explain, and then reply to that explanation. Everything must be referenced: while waiting for the reply, you might add references to stretches that are currently unreferenced. -- Hoary (talk) 05:24, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for this advice (I am all new to this) and for putting my query at the right place. Needless to say, as opposed to the previous version, I have references. I am just going to figure how to put footnotes. :) MatMar555 (talk) 05:27, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

MatMar555, try Help:Referencing for beginners. It's extremely elementary (sorry if I seem to be insulting your intelligence by recommending it), but it has links to more helpful pages. And, whether or not you use the Cite templates, as you're likely to want to make repeated references to specific pages (or page spans) in certain printed works, you're likely to find Template:Rp useful. -- Hoary (talk) 05:40, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

For major article revisions, recommended to do a section at at time - referencing as you go - rather than all at once. That way, if an editor disagrees with some of your content changes, they will not revert everything, both valid and disputed. David notMD (talk) 06:07, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

OK, I did not know editors are validating section by section. I note that referencing was to be done has you go along, I was expecting to do it at the end. MatMar555 (talk) 13:23, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I did as you recommended and fixed one section with footnoting, but you were busy messing with the entry at the same time, and as a result I lost what I did. I throw the towel. MatMar555 (talk) 16:56, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Dear Hoary, thank you for taking time to provide such kind advice. I am a beginner on Wiki, so no insult, on the contrary. MatMar555 (talk) 13:24, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

If ever you know how to do this, would you kindly get the entry back to what it was prior to my interventions, i.e., prior to January 21? Thank you again for your advice, help and, may I add now, respectful attitude. MatMar555 (talk) 16:58, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

John Cook Wilson is massively missing references. David notMD (talk) 06:11, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

MatMar555: before your edits, John Cook Wilson had four references (misleadingly titled "Notes"); after your edits it had only two. That will strike most editors as not being an improvement. Your problem is, your are rewriting the article backwards. Maproom (talk) 09:09, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I had not finished my edits, I had a break for diner with my family. The entry entry:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/wilson/

has no lack of them, I was about to move them in. I understand that I should have done this first. MatMar555 (talk) 13:21, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Finally, when I properly footnoted one section, the simultaneous pointless editorial interventions of someone else made me lose my work. So I throw the towel. You guys do not allow others to work at their own space and have no compunction whatsoever in intervening disrespectfully without waiting for the final result. I am Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada and I think the foremost specialist of John Cook Wilson and there you are, discouraged completely from helping Wikipedia. Well done! MatMar555 (talk) 16:44, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, pace* MatMar555 (talk) 16:45, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps if you could wait until I add them before erasing my modifications. If you care to look at https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/wilson/ you will see I could footnote every sentence in the entry. But, I confess to be new here and, not expecting this treatment, I foolishly thoguht I would add notes after the written text is completed. MatMar555 (talk) 15:02, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a steep learning curve. A suggestion: use your own Sandbox to perfect the formating of references before inserting those into the text. Others here at Teahouse can advise on the different methods of ref formating (my familiarity being limited to science journals). David notMD (talk) 15:09, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I just introduced the footnotes to the section "Personal Life", to begin with, but your continued simultaneous editorial interference as I am working on the entry meant that my modifications were not implemented and seem to have disappeared. I strongly resent this attitude, with no room for me to manoeuvre, so unless I hear otherwise soon, I'll stop my work and withdraw all modifications I made. I shall leave you to improve the entry on your own. MatMar555 (talk) 15:30, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't see the interference? The only content-related edits since yours, made by User:David notMD, were to remove the 'Cook' from 'Cook Wilson' per WP:SURNAME and to shuffle/retitle the section to conform with other Wikipedia articles.

Another recommendation: Don't mark your edits as 'minor' - especially those that introduce new content or other potentially controversial content, and use an edit summary. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 15:54, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

No, User:David notMD, made modifications of the layout (sections) as if it is his business to write the entry, those happening simultaneously to my fixing one of the sections as opposed to waiting to see the finish product, causing me to lose my work (and waste my time). So, please, do not tell me what happened. You only compound the problem. I am out of here, the entry was utter crap (even with many factual mistakes), it is now not even half-done towards a better state, I wish it could be reverted to its original mediocrity that seemed to have satisfied everyone but me. Yes, I now understand what "minor" means, but that it the least problem. If you wish to do something, don't pick on me further and try a revert the entry to what it was before I tried changing it yesterday (January 21), so that there is no trace of my own writing, including correcting falsehoods. Thank you. MatMar555 (talk) 16:54, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

i have added 5 more sources and copy edited for WP:MOS, your combative attitude will win you zero support here, it is a collaborative project. Theroadislong (talk) 16:58, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't care about winning any support, I now want simply to see all my modifications erased and the entry reverted to the state prior to them. I understand fully this is a collaborative effort, but it is not a collaborative effort when two persons not knowing the topic undermine my efforts, the first one by reverting all I did in one go without explanations and the second pretexting the half-way state resulting from this for interventions that ended up screwing my attempts a resuming my work. Please fell free to improve the entry and well done for you. I would not mind being barred from here if that meant not wasting anymore time replying to comments, my only wish is to have not trace left of my earlier, incomplete attempts at improving it. Please don't reply to this, we are wasting our time. MatMar555 (talk) 17:08, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Blanking content as you did here [2] is likely to lead to a block, please stop. Theroadislong (talk) 17:48, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Today’s featured picture January 22, 2033

When an artwork is shown anywhere writers and/or editors should provide its size. This is particularly true for today’s Chinese painting, which is enormously long. I bet that very few viewers of today’s article realized that the photo of the painting moves left and right so the the entire long picture could be seen. I discovered it by accident when I tapped the part showing so I could enlarge it and opened a very long, very narrow slit. I closed it and tried sliding it and it slid. It might be a good idea to say "slide the picture to see all of it" or something similar under the photo next time.

I’ve raised the size issue before, for the lost pendent of Queen Elizabeth I. That picture was described as actual size but that "actual size" was not provided. Wis2fan (talk) 04:49, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Wis2fan, I quote: "35.6 × 1152.8 cm". Whether you see a short stretch of the painting or a miniature version of the whole thing I think depends on which browser you're using. With the browser I happen to be using now, I see a miniature version of the whole thing. -- Hoary (talk) 05:10, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

@Hoary: It would be cool, however, if that photo widget included a little bit of javascript to cause the image to pan slowly by itself. The javascript is simple, but run-of-the-mill administrators like me have no permission to modify templates with custom javascript. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:50, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I've made the suggestion at Template talk:POTD protected. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:01, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

YouTube links?

Hi, I just wanted to create a new page dedicated to a food delicacy that I am personally familiar with - (Siwawa). It is a very popular street food in Guizhou province. The issue is that with the one exception of CNN travel, I am having great difficulty in finding enough sources online that even talks about Siwawa let alone support all the information that I want to add in. CNN travel is also very stingy in giving enough info. And I am aware that you cannot add in unsourced statements. But is it okay if I add in a professional documentary style Taiwanese food channel that is only on YouTube, as my source? They have much of the info I need to back some information that I like to add in to my draft (which is limited currently). It is unfortunately the only source I can find, that shows some specific ingredients and mentions context like how sauces are used as both dippings and pour over toppings, etc. I can't find other sources that says the same and I also believe the food info in that specific YouTube link is accurate and of professional quality. I only intended to do something good and contribute (not here to promote commercial stuff or edit in bad faith) but no biggie if I can't use YouTube links but felt I should at least ask to be sure. (Because of the blacklist on YouTube links - I can't show the link but the YouTube video is titled (美食台 | 貴州的神奇娃娃，人人都想咬一口！)

Also Happy Lunar New Year everyone. :) SoyDream888 (talk) 06:40, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

@SoyDream888: The answer is "it depends." If the YouTube video was not uploaded by the copyright holder, then don't link to it. If the uploader owns the copyright, then you can link to it, but what you say in the article would depend on whether the source would be considered reliable. If the video is expressing an opinion or point of view, then the article should attribute the claim, like "according to so-and-so on a YouTube food channel, this food is best prepared in a wok" or something similar. Otherwise if the source would be considered reliable, you can just state something in the article and cite the video. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:45, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, SoyDream888. Do not think of YouTube as a source. Think of it instead as a platform that hosts millions of videos, each one of which needs to have its reliability evaluated independently. A large majority of YouTube videos consist of self-published content and are worthless as references on Wikipedia. A small percentage are uploaded to the official YouTube channels of reliable media outlets, and are therefore acceptable. It is up to you to verify the reliability of any YouTube video that you propose to use. When in doubt, leave it out. Cullen328 (talk) 07:17, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

SoyDream888, youtube.com is not blacklisted. Youtu.be is blacklisted. The video you referred to is here. It appears to have been uploaded by its copyright holder, although I'd need to know more about Taiwanese food videos to be sure of this. (And I'm not qualified to comment on the [Wikipedia-defined] reliability of this video.) -- Hoary (talk) 09:08, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

@Hoary @Cullen328 @Anachronist Thank you for the replies. :) That was extremely helpful. SoyDream888 (talk) 23:02, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Questions

Play your questions in teahouse — KFC (🔔 • 📝) 08:00, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello Navajcmer ("KFC"). Yes, people are welcome to ask questions about the use of Wikipedia here. Do you have such a question? -- Hoary (talk) 09:00, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

yes — KFC (🔔 • 📝) 17:12, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

My wiki page

86.147.108.103 (talk) 09:52, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Firstly it is NOT your Wiki page, it is Wikipedia's article about you, secondly you have a conflict of interest so should not be editing the article at all. You can submit suggestions on the article's talk page with the {{request edit}} template and a reliable source. Theroadislong (talk) 11:29, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Matt. The best way to request changes to an article of which you're the subject is to follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Simple conflict of interest edit request. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:40, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

how to create an article?

I tried to create article but its not approved. Anyone can help? 203.186.173.222 (talk) 10:19, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. As you haven't indicated the title of the article, we can only give you general advice and refer you to the advice at Wikipedia:Your First Article. Shantavira|^{feed me} 11:05, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Declining submission: bio - Submission is about a person not yet shown to meet notability guidelines (AFCH 0.9.1)

I've received this message

Editor's summary: Declining submission: bio - Submission is about a person not yet shown to meet notability guidelines (AFCH 0.9.1)

I even messaged the editor, in which the editor replied "Thank you for submitting your draft article to Wikipedia. I have a suggestion that might help improve the chances of your draft being accepted: please try to find at least three reliable sources that have in-depth coverage of the subject matter of your article. Reviewers often look for a good number of high-quality sources when evaluating draft articles, and having a strong foundation of well-researched information can make a big difference in the review process."

However, I have read and believe I've met the notability guidelines. Further, these articles are from reputable newspapers and magazines (Euronews, Rollingstone, NME, etc. Could any experienced editors try and help?

Pertains to this link here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Psients Lorposralem (talk) 12:12, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I looked at some (not all) of the cited sources. The AESCA link seems to be completely uninformative -- or am I making some mistake? The other cited sources that I looked at were mildly informative. (For one thing, they gave Psients' real [?] name, which, surprisingly, the draft fails to do.) What they say is interesting, but they don't say much. Perhaps it would be better to wait a year or too two, until Psients becomes better known. -- Hoary (talk) 12:54, 22 January 2023 (UTC) [typo fixed Hoary (talk) 01:52, 23 January 2023 (UTC)]

These are good points.

- I've removed AESCA for brevity.

- Added Psient's real name.

- Found more sources and added relevant details Lorposralem (talk) 14:39, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

@Lorposralem, Draft:Psients uses interviews as sources, although they are not considered to be reliable sources for Wikipedia's (contestable) content. Also, much of the article appears to be repeating the exact words of Psients in Wikipedia's own voice. That isn't considered to be WP:ENCYCLOPEDIC in tone.-- Quisqualis (talk) 00:36, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Why was my article declined?

In the reviewed article it has been mentioned by the reviewer that the references do not show that the subject qualifies for Wikipedia. The article is about a famous Indian Actor , what mistakes should i avoid to get my article approved?

Draft:Saleem Zaidi Syedamanal (talk) 12:19, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I think I've met the notability criteria of Wikipedia still my article was declined , can you help me sort out this issue and get this approved? Syedamanal (talk) 12:24, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Syedamanal, I quote:

This submission's references [...] do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject [...]

Perhaps we'll be able to sort out this issue if here, in this "Teahouse" message thread, you point out three such sources. That is, three sources that each have significant coverage about Saleem Zaidi and are in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of Saleem Zaidi. -- Hoary (talk) 12:44, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Syedamanal, If you truly think the sources you've used fully meet the criteria of WP:NACTOR, you should click the blue Resubmit button at the bottom of the Submission declined template and wait for another review.

I am not a reviewer, but I doubt your sources are adequate. I am not sure if the three sources you've referenced qualify as WP:Reliable sources, but in any case the second and third are clearly based mostly on one or more interviews with the subject; they are therefore not independent of him, which is one of the criteria necessary for them to support notability. The other reads like a potted biography typically issued by a publicity agency working on his behalf, which would also not be independent. It may simply be WP:Too soon in this actor's career for enough reliable and independent sources to have published sufficient material about him. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.241.36.247 (talk) 12:55, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Now what can i do to fix this problem ? Syedamanal (talk) 13:29, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

@Syedamanal If you have exhausted all the sources you can find (i.e. already used them) and you have not yet shown that the notability threshold is reached, then there is nothing more to be done. You should abandon the draft for now and come back to it in a few months when you may have found additional useful sources. the draft will still be there: they only get deleted after 6 months of inactivity. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:28, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

There are some other sources but there's change in the spelling of the subject's name , can i use those links ? Syedamanal (talk) 14:45, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Syedamanal as long as they are talking about the same person, that should be fine. Non-English languages are allowed too. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 15:37, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

alright thankyou Syedamanal (talk) 16:35, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

how do i log into my old wiki page account?

how do i log into my old wiki page account? It does not recognise my email and name 79.72.155.134 (talk) 15:37, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, IP user, and welcome to the Teahouse.

You seem to be a bit confused: Wikipedia does not have the concept of logging into a page. But I assume you mean you're having difficulty logging into your account.

What you need is your user name, which is not usually your email. If you can't remember your username, then it's difficult. If you can remember any articles which you edited from that account, you could look through the history of one of those articles, and see if you recognize your user name there.

With your username and password, you should be able to log in. If you can't remember the password, and the email you registered with the account is still accessible to you, then you should be able to get it to send you a password reset message.

But if you cannot recall your username, or cannot remember your password and didn't set a valid email, then there's no way to recover your account, and you'll need to abandon it and create a new one. ColinFine (talk) 15:58, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

If you go to Special:PasswordReset you can enter your email address, and it will send you the username associated with that email (if you enabled email for your account). RudolfRed (talk) 19:47, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I didn't know that, RudolfRed. Thank you. ColinFine (talk) 20:00, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Impartiality

How do I get attention drawn to a 'quality' article in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals) ? 118.208.122.36 (talk) 16:49, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

IP editor: You made a contribution to WP:Village_pump_(proposals)#RfC:_Quality_Wikipedia_rather_than_"building_the_encyclopedia". If you want to make a futher comment on the topic of "quality", it would be best to go ahead and do so here at the Teahouse rather than continue what is now a closed discussion. Please give sufficient detail that others will be able to understand any comments you want to make. If you have a concrete proposal you could of course make it in a new section at the Village pump page instead. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:32, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

printing does not work with the new CSS and more

Could you please, PLEASE change back to the "old" CSS? This new one works badly when printing, because the Table of Contents cannot be avoided and it takes MUCH place on paper, which is a waste. Furthermore, the limitation of the width of the page (CSS max-width:) makes it difficult to read the text because one has to change to the next line too often. One other thing: The menu to change language should be avoided, to prevent the need to click twice to get to a new language. Have a plain list of languages, instead — not in a menu! I change between several different languages dozens of times every day … Thanks in advance! Regards! 2001:6B0:E:2B18:0:0:0:72 (talk) 20:26, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi 2001:6B0:E:2B18:0:0:0:72 and welcome to the Teahouse. It's unfortunate that you've been having issues while printing. I don't have the power to change anything about the new design as I'm just a regular volunteer here. You could register an account to change back to the old interface. I'm also going to ping Patafisik (WMF) to see if they have any advice, as they have offered comments on other threads here related to the redesign. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 20:58, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Click on "Download as PDF". Look at the PDF, deciding whether you need the list of references (which for a good article can occupy far more pages than does the body text). Print only those pages that you want to read on paper. -- Hoary (talk) 22:11, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Infobox for Indian states and union territories

Can I get feedback about this infobox wrapper, and can it be used in Indian states and union territories article pages ? Template:Infobox Indian state or territory

What are the things that are not properly and nicely done? Please help me to improve.

Tojoroy20 (talk) 22:34, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

@Tojoroy20 Welcome to the Teahouse! Template:Infobox settlement/doc contains an example of how the infobox would be displayed. You may want to add something similar to Template:Infobox Indian state or territory/doc. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 00:18, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Citing a patent

I'm just getting started on learning to edit, my apologies if this is obvious, I did not see a template for citing a patent number, would I consider a patent an article or other form of published material? 10346Charlie (talk) 00:55, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

@10346Charlie Welcome to the Teahouse! Try {{cite patent}}. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 01:12, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Tables

How do I add a table to a page? Mast303 (talk) 02:37, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Mast303, please see Help:Table. If something in it is hard to understand, feel free to ask about it here. -- Hoary (talk) 03:01, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Welsh Place Names on Wikipedia. Should they be in Welsh or English?

I've looked a few Welsh places on Wikipedia recently to find out exactly where they are, and some of them are confusing, because sometimes they use Welsh names, and sometimes they use English names. I can't remember what most of them are however one of them is Plynlimon which has it's English name Plynlimon as the title, has Plynlimon as the heading in an infobox about summit heights, and has Plynlimon written once more in the article, whereas the Welsh name Pumlumon is written many more times. It should be one or the other imo. I believe all Welsh place articles and all Welsh noun articles in general, should all be in English. Danstarr69 (talk) 03:11, 23 January 2023 (UTC)