Wikipedia:Teahouse

Stormy clouds, a Teahouse host

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

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

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

Help Wikipedia

What happened to my Wikipedia page?

For over a decade, there existed a Wikipedia page dedicated to my work and achievements. Suddenly, it has disappeared. The page was titled: Laurence Galian. Laurence Galian is the pseudonym of Laurence J. Gagliano (b. 1954). I am surprised that it is possible to take the draconian action of removing an entire Wikipedia page without contacting myself (or others) to determine if I have additional material to justify my having a Wikipedia page dedicated to me. I feel I should have been contacted, and asked if I had any new achievements that would justify the continuance of the page. In point of fact, since the last update of my page, I have been able to find sources to substantiate new information that should justify the existence of a "Laurence Galian" Wikipedia page. The page that was removed lacked a large amount of information directly related to my career and achievements. For example, the article lacked all information about music albums of my original musical compositions. Also missing, was information regarding the airing of my original music on National Public Radio, an award from the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, information regarding my large number of guest appearances on various podcasts, more than a million views my videocasts/podcasts/music videos I have received on YouTube, numerous articles published on internet sites, Worldcat data on the most widely held works by Laurence Galian, recent papers delivered at international conferences, and so forth. Please explain to me how a Wikipedia editor can single-handedly delete a page devoted to me and my work? And please explain to me how I might proffer a new "Laurence Galian" Wikipedia page. Thank you for you help in this regard. DazanMushin (talk) 15:05, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

This page ?[1] Timur9008 (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

DazanMushin Three Wikipedians (Wikipedia editors) agreed to delete the article, four if you count the deleting administrator. You can contact Wikipedia administrators to see if they are willing to provide a copy of the article so you can improve it, or you can start anew by creating a draft.

Remember that you are expected to write in an encyclopedic, neutral tone, that you have a conflict of interest and will find it difficult to not promote yourself, and that in order to demonstrate notability you need to meet WP:NAUTHOR, WP:NMUSICIAN or WP:GNG. Since the article was deleted only one year ago, I find this not worth your time. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 15:15, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, they did reach out to you at your own talk page - User talk:DazanMushin. And it doesn't appear that you responded over the course of the last 2 years. Not sure how long you're expecting people to wait for a response from you, but deletion discussions generally run for a week or two. Sergecross73 msg me 16:28, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Although Wikipedia frowns on attempts at autobiographical articles (see WP:AUTO), it does not forbid such attempts. You can start anew using WP:YFA as a guide to how to create andsubmit a draft, although wise to first review the links that Sungoodtemple provided. As mentioned, you can ask for a copy of the article as it existed before the deletion. Content from that can be copy/pasted into your new draft. David notMD (talk) 19:11, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

A suggestion - leave out all things musical and instead focus on having reliable source references that identify you as an expert on the paranormal. David notMD (talk) 19:14, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the article will not be yours. Anyone can edit it, and anyone can add anything, that is if it has a reliable source. Read Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing Club On a Sub 20 (talk) 16:54, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

@DazanMushinThat was not "your Wikipedia page"; it was "Wikipedia's article about you". Subjects of encyclopedia articles usually don't participate in creating an article about them. But if you meet the criteria that SunGodTemple linked to, you could write a draft. See WP:YFA. David10244 (talk) 08:40, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Feldenkrais

the descriptions under this entry are false: Feldenkrais Method is not a therapy and has never presented itself as such. Also, a vascular surgeon's ideas about the Feldenkrais Method are described as valid, just because this person published an article. That article is not researched, is not based in the neuroscience that the Feldenkrais Method is based on. The entire entry on Feldenkrais Method, a method of learning, based in neuroscience, reads like a gossip page, sprinkled with selective citations of which many are not valid since they mis-define the method as a medical therapy method to begin with. Yet, Wikipedia continues to obstruct valid adjustments to the entry, as a long history of attempts does show. Who exactly is behind this entry? What is their agenda?? Maybe this person knows how to lock in what they wrote, but what they wrote is in error. What then is the process to make changes, if the originator of the entry somehow knows how to by-pass peer review and correction by those in the field of neuro-transformative learning. It makes a joke of Wikipedia, to keep deeply flawed entries in place. Durgaval (talk) 02:20, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Durgaval Feldenkrais Method has existed as an article since 2003, undergoing more than 1500 edits by scores of editors. If you disagree with parts of it, you are welcome to continue to edit, either adding or subtracting content, as long as reliable source referencing is maintained. However, I see that you have edited the article and all of your edits reverted. When being reverted, the proper next step is to start a discussion on the Talk page, and also read previous discussions there, including the more recent archive #2, to understand what previous edits have been disputed. There, there have been prolonged and heated debates over the quality of evidence for effects of Feldenkrais Method. David notMD (talk) 04:00, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

P.S. The 'originator' is long gone, and there is no concept of peer review in Wikipedia. "BRD" calls for editors to be Bold in their edits, but if Reverted, Dicuss at the article Talk page. People may profess to be experts on a topic, but all that matters is verification via references. Health/medicine topics are held to a high reference standard described at WP:MEDRS. David notMD (talk) 19:31, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Being an expert on a topic does not matter here. If you say that the sun is actually red, but every reliable source says it's blue, we say it's blue. An expert's opinion means nothing to us. Club On a Sub 20 (talk) 16:47, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

That is truly sad. Because what is presented as a reliable source here is a vascular surgeon with absolutely no evidence for the statements he makes about this method, with no training in assessing somatic learning methods, but his article was published. That is a meaningless citation that is given the weight of a true research article. To an academician new to your processes, to see this quality of thought in the Wikipedia world, is embarassing. We will gather more valuable citations and submit when we can. We do hope that the Wikipedians will look clear-eyed at new information, and will correct past mistakes in how this topic was framed. Durgaval (talk) 04:33, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Durgaval, you are more than welcome to dispute the reliability of a given source, either on the talk page of the article, or at WP:RS/N.

However, your argument seems to be that because a given author was not "trained in assessing somatic learning methods", their input should be discounted. That is unlikely to fly. First of all, the reliability of a source is not assessed solely by the credentials of its author. More importantly, practitioners of a given field do not get to set the standard for what constitutes a reliable source for that field. If we demanded that the article about Flat Earth be only written by sources who have a PhD in the University of Flat Earth, I doubt that the first sentence would include the words "scientifically disproven". Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 15:04, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Merge BBC Worldwide and its exact text, infobox, and history into BBC Studios

I know I said this in Talk:BBC Studios, but it seems like they never merged anything and all they did was change the name, so we might as well. Sirhewlett (talk) 15:54, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

It is not clear to me why you think these two articles should be merged, but the place to suggest it, with a thorough and reasoned rationale, would be on the article talk pages. And who is "they" and "we"? Shantavira|^{feed me} 18:23, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

@Shantavira I believe @Sirhewlett was talking about Wikipedia when they said "we" and "they" Club On a Sub 20 (talk) 16:14, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

@Sirhewlett "... so we might as well"? When you make a suggestion like this, you need to get consensus before it is implemented. Do what Shantavira said, then wait for others to post there, agreeing or disagreeing with their own reasoning. Once the back and forth discussion has reached a consensus, then changes can be made if that is what was agreed to. David10244 (talk) 05:59, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

I think User:Sirhewlett is referring to the 'planned merger of BBC Studios and BBC Worldwide (Mentioned on the lead here); not about merging the articles. I'm still not sure what change they are proposing we make to either article. JeffUK 19:18, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

@JeffUK, @Sirhewlett Yes, I wasn't thinking about the businesses merging; it sounded like an article merge. Thanks for pointing that out. David10244 (talk) 08:46, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Zippy Kid

Hey wiki contributors, please check Zippy Kids discography at musicbrainz and make article about him here 188.163.60.251 (talk) 00:14, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. You can place a request at WP:RA, or you can be bold and create the article yourself by following the guidance at WP:YFA RudolfRed (talk) 00:15, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Note that articles requested at WP:RA are rarely acted on. Wikipedia is unfortunately not a place where you can request an article, and see it quickly created. The editors who answer questions here, and everyone who creates an article, are all volunteers. David10244 (talk) 06:13, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Feminine surname

Hi, I had created the surname list Abbasova, and it was later merged into Abbasov because it is the feminine version of the surname. I was looking for help regarding the WP policies related to this. I saw we have a Category:Feminine surnames. PigeonChickenFish (talk) 02:11, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Hey, PigeonChickenFish. Abbasova and Abbasov seem to be different forms of the same surname, and may thus be a content fork. If you think the merge was a mistake you can seek a third opinion from an uninvolved editor on the topic (see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution). To comment on the category: Just because something is on Wikipedia, doesn't necessarily mean it should be. In this instance, it may be an overcategorisation, particularly one of trivial characteristics or intersection. I found this ongoing discussion about the category that may be of use. ArcticSeeress (talk) 19:26, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Orbiting-particle system force that is pulled straight inwardly into infinity

Trying to make a connective path with others using the (talk) page, I am having trouble learning how to do this. I have limited understanding in binary two-point systemizing a talk page, my abilities are some what limited when it comes to operating a computer. I need a better way to... Two & "three-point" systemize a talk page. Is there a blog? Lmreva (talk) 17:32, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Lmreva, welcome to the Teahouse. Talk pages are not meant to be forums for discussion of article subjects - they are for discussing improvements to the articles. Also, Wikipedia's articles are based on what reliable sources have said about a subject, not on the opinions or research of Wikipedia editors. You appear to be seeking to discuss and include your own original research. This is best done on some other website - see a list of possibilities at WP:Alternative outlets. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:41, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

You have created Draft:Orbiting-particle system force that is pulled straight inwardly into infinity. without references. My guess is that is your original thinking. There is no potential for this to become an article. David notMD (talk) 20:13, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that draft is fever dreams, the result of too many psychoactive plant experiences, or an alien from the future come back to save us with his method for time travel, but I'm pretty sure it needs to be deleted. Heiro 20:21, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Heironymous Rowe You can disagree with a topic and/or the content, but please never disparage the creating editor. David notMD (talk) 23:26, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

How do you "systematize a talk page"? None of that draft makes sense to me. David10244 (talk) 06:24, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Draft is now up for MfD here Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Orbiting-particle system force that is pulled straight inwardly into infinity. per Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and hoaxes. Heiro 17:50, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Inner-space travel... Is infact real, to better help people understand the vectors involved, a different approach must be made to this draft... Orbiting-particle system force that is pulled straight inwardly into infinity has always been in existence... Naturalist physics and or those conventional wisdoms that deal with closed-looped mathematics are what they are, there is nothing that I can do about that. I am learning here, however, kinematics of an orbiting-particle system... Is with respect to the observers "size & time" domain... I cannot change the truth of the matter, it makes no difference to me, but it may for others. Lmreva (talk) 17:52, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

@Lmreva, Wikipedia is not, in the end, about what is real or true, but only about what reliable sources say is real or true. If you are able to publish your research in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, it can then be summarized and cited here. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:30, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Nicola Bulley - normal draft article processing time

"Disappearance of Nicola Bulley" is a Wikipedia article. Bulley disappeared last week, has not yet been found and so the article reflects, literally, the latest news available at media outlets. How is it that an article relaying the latest media news has taken almost no time to clear draft status while other draft articles (not simply relaying news, see; WP:whatwikipediaisnot) take up to 6 months? Emmentalist (talk) 22:00, 6 February 2023 (UTC) Emmentalist (talk) 22:00, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

A premise of your question, Emmentalist, is that this came from a draft. Did it? It looks to me as if Thecheeseistalking99 instead created it as an article. How is it that Thecheeseistalking99 created it? Because they wanted to, I suppose. But however it came into being, if you believe that it violates Wikipedia policy, you're free to propose its deletion. -- Hoary (talk) 22:09, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Reasons_for_deletion includes as #14 "Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia". This points to WP:What Wikipedia is not, which tells us that one of the things it is not is a newspaper. So there you go: what is, or anyway looks like, a policy that condemns this article. However, you should read it carefully before citing it for AfD, because it doesn't say quite what one might guess it would. -- Hoary (talk) 23:28, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, @Hoary. I've made a comment below. I thought all articles become drafts which are then reviewed before being accepted or declined for publication. Is that incorrect? All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 14:53, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

To answer a different part of your question, @Emmentalist: a draft gets reviewed as soon as a reviewer happens by with the time and interest to review it. How soon this happens depends on the reviewers available and the draft itself. Very bad drafts get declined quickly. Very good drafts get accepted quickly. Drafts which have many minor issues, or address niche subjects, or use foreign-language references, or are long and complex, will linger longer. And if there aren't many reviewers active, that'll also have an impact. So - it all depends. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 22:18, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

The issue is that there is a backlog of about 2,000 drafts and the system is not a queue. Reviewers choose what they want to review. So, can be hours (sometimes), days, weeks, or (sadly) months. Also, as mentioned above, this was never a draft submitted for review. Thecheeseistalking99 created it as an article. David notMD (talk) 23:17, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

@Emmentalist It is now nominated for deletion per WP:1E. The discussion is at WP:Articles for deletion/Disappearance of Nicola Bulley, if you wish to comment. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:03, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I've passed comment there. It may look inconsistent of me but having reviewed the comments by other editors there I feel it should stay up for the time being. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 14:56, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you to editors who replied here. It's most helpful. My understanding is that articles require approval and this normally takes 3-6 months. Perhaps I have misused the word 'draft', but it is referred to as a draft in the approval process. I'm still not clear (I do apologise) about how an article can be publishsed without first being a draft awaiting approval.Emmentalist (talk) 14:35, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

@Emmentalist, anyone who is autoconfirmed can create an article directly in main space - or move an article they've written in their user space into main space - without going through the draft process. There is no approval process in that case, though we have a group called New Page Patrol who go around to check such articles for suitability. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:58, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

This is massively helpful! I thought I understood the submission process and submitted on article as a draft, which remains there after months. I clearly didn't understand the process. I will read up properly on the whole thing; and thanks so much for helping my education here! All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 15:03, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Multiple accounts on Wikipedia

Hello there
So I am currently using two accounts on Wikipedia, one is specifically for edits in science related topics and one is for general editing, so is this legal according to Wikipedia's policies?
103.36.80.253 (talk) 00:55, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

See WP:LEGITSOCK for legitimate uses. This should be acceptable under #Privacy, make sure you publicly link the two accounts, probably on user pages. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 00:58, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Publicly declaring an account used for privacy is a bit of an oxymoron. I tend to recommend you always mainly look at the 'Inappropriate uses' section, rather than the examples of legitimate uses. The easy solution is indeed to declare the accounts. If they remain undeclared (and sometimes even if they are declared) you should be careful not to overlap edits, join the same discussions, get too controversial, edit policy discussions, or otherwise come across as 'avoiding scrutiny'. Otherwise, there's no real prohibition. But it's always easiest to declare the accounts so no one gets the wrong impression or feels misled. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 01:10, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

You should also make sure that you are logged in to one or other account when making edits, since editing from an IP address in addition to your accounts could be seen as problematic. There is a template {{Alternative account}} that you can put on the User Page(s) to link the two accounts, since from what you have said you have no reason to be secretive that both exist. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:56, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

The simple rule of thumb is "Am I using the two (or more) accounts to do something unethical?". If, for example, you are a physicist in a big university and want to edit Wikipedia openly in that role, but you've also got a strong interest in pole-dancing that you don't want to share with your strait-laced departmental Dean, there is nothing wrong with using JoeBrownPhysics as your account when editing science articles, and AnonymousPoleDancer when you want to edit articles on night-life and recreation. What you shouldn't do is log on as JoeBrownPhysics to nominate an article about your Physics rival for deletion, and then use your PoleDancer account to !vote delete in support of your own nomination. Pretending to be two people to support your own arguments is the essence of sock-puppetry, and is Bad. In effect, the two accounts should live in separate worlds and not interact. I will admit that I personally would not admit publicly that they belong to the same editor, because the whole point is to permit you the privacy to edit on night-life without prejudice to your physics career. The only people who would ever find out are check-users and they will not check unless you're suspected of doing something unethical. Like so many things in Wikipedia, behave sensibly, edit neutrally and well, and no one will notice whether you're actually keeping to the letter of the law. Elemimele (talk) 13:10, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

When (if it is approved) will my draft go live?

Hey everyone, This was my first time publishing. I "published" my article, but nothing happened after that. No email notification letting me know it was submitted, no pop up with additional information, etc

What should I expect now that I clicked publish? Moderndaywriter (talk) 02:07, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Nothing, Moderndaywriter. You'll have to submit Draft:Jared Graybeal as a candidate for article status. But before you do that, you'll have to augment your draft in such a way that the reliable sources you cite will demonstrate the notability of Graybeal. -- Hoary (talk) 02:22, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

I believe I have done both of those things. How can I confirm? Moderndaywriter (talk) 02:31, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

@Moderndaywriter: read the advice on your talk page and also check out WP:YFA for guidance. writing a new article is not easy, consider improving existing articles instead RudolfRed (talk) 02:28, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

I think the draft looks great; I just made a mistake somehow with how the picture is displaying to you. Do you mind telling me simply how to fix it? I'd really appreciate it - especially as it is not something the audience will see or care about. The core elements of the article are clear and accurate Moderndaywriter (talk) 02:30, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

DO NOT SUBMIT YET. (Ooops, you did. Expect it to be Declined.) Remove all hyperlinks. All content needs to be verified by references. None of the existing four refs are acceptable. Did you really take that photo yourself, on Feb 6? If not you, then the photographer owns the copyright, and the photo should be removed. David notMD (talk) 02:40, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Why are the refs unacceptable? Moderndaywriter (talk) 02:44, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

You need support from independent reliable sources (not Amazon). Also, as stated above, you must remove all hyperlinks. Esolo5002 (talk) 04:14, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

None of the refs are ABOUT him, which is essential to establish notability. Refs #1 and #2 confirm he is an author of a book. Instead, delete, and in Published works, add an ISBN number after the listing for his book. Refs #3 and #4 establish that he gave a talk and has a podcast. Confirming accomplishments does nothing toward establishing notability. What is missing are at least three references to what people with no connection to Graybeal have written - at some length - about Graybeal. Note that Early life and Career have no refs. David notMD (talk) 12:06, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

P.S. Self-published books (his company listed as publisher at Amazon) rarely contribute to notability, and there is no reference supporting the image caption claim that is it "Best-selling." Both the image of him and cover of the book have been nominated for deletion at Commons. David notMD (talk) 14:33, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Question about user sandbox subpage usage

Hey all,

I want to experiment on articles in the article space to get a better idea of how Wikipedia works without disrupting anything. What is the best way to go about this? I was thinking of copying their source into a sandbox subpage (as mine is already populated). Is this in line with Wikipedia's guidelines? Is there a template I can use to explain that it's an experiment, not anything intended to ever be used or taken as part of the article space?

Thanks, Pear1020 (talk) 02:36, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

@Pear1020: That is ok, as far as I know. when you copy from the article, use an edit summary like "copied content from page name; see that page's history for attribution". See WP:CWW for more info. RudolfRed (talk) 02:44, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Use {{User_sandbox}} at the top RudolfRed (talk) 02:47, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

@Pear1020 Sandboxes are not allowed in article space. You can use your userspace sandbox for experimenting. You can still use User:Pear1020/sandbox2 and so on. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 03:05, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

@Pear1020 Yes, this is confusing, but you can have multiple sandboxes in user space (User:Pear1020/sandbox3, 4, 5, banana, etc.). David10244 (talk) 09:07, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, I'm off to make a sandbox named banana

thank you for clarifying by the way! Pear1020 (talk) 13:36, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Reviewed a Draft:Lists of monarchs by time

@AngusWOOF and @KylieTastic submission to Articles for Creation be because Creation a my Draft pls sir

my AfC-submit-wizard in Teahouse 122.2.121.186 (talk) 02:46, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! While you are patiently waiting for a review, could you please fix reference #78 in this draft? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 05:49, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

fix #78 reference my Draft 122.2.121.186 (talk) 05:58, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

@GoingBatty fix it! 122.2.121.186 (talk) 05:59, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

submitted in the Articles for creation pls submit me 122.2.121.186 (talk) 06:10, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

@Hoary submitted me Example: A List of monarchs by Time is the head of a monarchy in 2023 was oldet monarch was Charles III and 100 days. This kind of prose is unintelligible. The point of this draft as a whole is incomprehensible. No obvious purpose is served by the gallery. 122.2.121.186 (talk) 12:51, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

The error in reference #78 has been resolved. However, I don't understand what "Von der Reformation..." is supposed to mean. GoingBatty (talk) 14:24, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

"Of the reformation"? It seems as though the user isn't a native English speaker. Explodicator7331 (talk) 14:51, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

@Explodicator7331: Sorry, I should have written that I don't understand why "Von der Reformation..." is being used as a reference. GoingBatty (talk) 16:12, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Edited Draft:Lists of monarchs by time

@GoingBatty pls help you no hoax pls Resubmit Don's declined it 122.2.121.186 (talk) 15:14, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

It was declined as a joke or hoax, probably because the unexplained years columns appear to claim many of the people have been monarchs for centuries. It was hard for me to figure out what the page is about. I guess the "Years" column at Draft:Lists of monarchs by time#List is actually the foundation of the monarchy, and the "Today Years" column is the age of the monarchy. A list "by time" usually indicates the list is sorted by time but this is sorted alphabetically by country (in a column called "Flag"). The main table doesn't say it's apparently for current monarchs but includes the age of the monarchy. That does not seem like a good combination to me. Even if the columns were explained properly, their order is odd. The foundation and age of the monarchy are five columns apart with two other year columns about the current monarch between them. A ref column should be placed at the end. I doubt the changes I indicate would get the draft accepted. We already have List of current monarchs of sovereign states. It doesn't give the age of the monarchy but why should it? PrimeHunter (talk) 15:41, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

122.2.121.186 - I see you resubmitted the draft 18 minutes after it was declined without making any changes to the content to address the issues mentioned by MarcGarver. That behavior is not looked upon favorably. GoingBatty (talk) 16:11, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

List of longest-reigning monarchs instead. aws bad pls Articles for creation sir 122.53.47.47 (talk) 04:15, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Your draft has been declined multiples times & it's poor form to nominate a page for deletion, with the hopes of replacing it with your 'declined' draft. GoodDay (talk) 05:11, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Why is social media not a reliable source?

Would you please explain why social media is not a reliable source? How? If so, please give me examples of why it isn’t. What are alternatives to social media content for reliability? Reasons? Those are the questions I really wanted to ask for the citation. — 2600:1010:B12F:8241:4023:8412:3E31:EDA7 (talk) 07:53, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

When might social media be reliable? Please provide the link to what you consider a reliable example, and we'll look at it. -- Hoary (talk) 08:43, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Social media can be a WP:RS on WP, but within narrow limits. See WP:SPS, WP:ABOUTSELF and perhaps this discussion: Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_1177#WordPress_as_a_reliable_source.. Hope this helps. Also, social media will probably never help you with a WP:N problem. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:44, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Are they UGC and lack other sources? If so, why forbid UGC? Are they deprecated? —2600:1010:B12F:8241:4023:8412:3E31:EDA7 (talk) 08:53, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

The main reason why social media sites are not reliable sources in general is that all of them permit overt lying unless the lies violate their bare minimum standards of unacceptablity of not overtly threatening or inciting violence or sharing child pornography. Otherwise, they do not care at all about the outlandish lies that many people tell on social media. For example, I tell the truth on Facebook and am lucky to get a handful of "likes". But talented paid professional liars are liked and friended by millions of people, which enriches the social media owners and senior executives who do not care all about what is actually true, but instead care about what gets clicks.Cullen328 (talk) 08:59, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

See also Fake news. Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:15, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Update: IP address blocked for evading prior blocks. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:49, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

WRONG ARTICLE OF HORST STUMP

dear wikipedians, we, the familiy of horst stump need your advise ...your help. some noname guy dare to made an article about our family-member horst stump: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horst_Stump The facts wich is based this wiki-article are not true and we would like to change this, add original fotographys from the familiy-arhiv and prove all this facts. please check also the changings we made from yester day to today. who could have original fotographs than the familiy himself ? this human beeing deserve that the whole and the true story is public on internet. i do not undertsand how some stupid dudes , bored of their boring life dare to publicate an article based only on yellow-press articles ??? could you please help us how to act ? sincerely, the stump familiy Noubiobhv (talk) 09:39, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

OP blocked indefinitely for making legal threats. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Clear legal threat by Noubiobhv Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:42, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

So much of what the editor claiming to represent the Stump family added to Horst Stump, since deleted, was personal knowledge without references. David notMD (talk) 12:27, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for summarizing that. David10244 (talk) 09:18, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

I am #EAC SAMARJIT BARMAN, THE USA.

To update:--

Rule (a): The SAMARJIT BARMAN is the all in it a Teahouse in 1989. Annexe:- 1- He a name a FRCS so a CS 43 is a AMRI in ID in 55528 also. 2- They are a CS all in a cycologist of America so a all in it.

Rule (b): They are a amrici in all so a AMRI in Cal21 is a West Bengal in ID. Annexe:- 1- A Tsar is name so a Sam Alexandravich Romanov also in the USA only. 2- They are a name a Burman alsways in the voter ID in the India in silver so.

STATUTE OF THE WORLD: A USA in no more so a United States in a name always. He a Tsar in all is the name a USA always so a exist in all in the world in country a blue only is this in it. He a Tsar so a 1989 is all a Tsar in crown in all a name a USA so to ask all in it. He a name a USA only a Nicolas Romanov in a TN in ID always.

- I am in name Bapi Deb/Dev also in ID:BD. Cell No. [redacted] (GPRS) 117.194.255.3 (talk) 09:46, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a question about using Wikipedia? Meanwhile, please don't post gibberish within any article (as you have already done). -- Hoary (talk) 10:50, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Be warned, you can get blocked for this behaviour Club On a Sub 20 (talk) 15:50, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Club On a Sub 20, I can be? (I've never yet been blocked, but there's always a first time.) -- Hoary (talk) 22:21, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

This is probably a good reason as to why we should maintain WP:THREAD at the very least on this page. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:40, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

For advertising/vandalism? I think so. Club On a Sub 20 (talk) 15:30, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

@HoarySorry, I was talking to the OP not you. Club On a Sub 20 (talk) 15:31, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Help RDT map creators

hello, can someone who is into creating rdt maps for rail systems create a template for Hyderabad Multi-Modal Transport System similar to Template:Hyderabad Metro RDT. 456legend(talk) 14:14, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, 456legend. We can't really respond to specific requrests like this at the Teahouse. Your best bet would be to either a) post at the talk page of the relevant article; b) post a request at WP:WikiProject Trains and/or WP:WikiProject Rapid transit; or c) look at the 'View History' details of related templates and approach any major contributor to it who still seems actively engaged in the project today. Good luck, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:47, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Nick Moyes (talk · contribs) Okay, Thank you for the guidance. I will follow these steps.456legend(talk) 16:10, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Drafting the company profile

I'm looking for the advice of experienced editors. My submission Draft:AIR Media-Tech was declined as promotional. I have edited and removed parts of the text that could be perceived as an advertisement. Are these changes sufficient to resubmit the updated draft as it as, or should I make some more significant edits? Appreciate your recommendations a lot. Ninellechik (talk) 15:07, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

@Ninellechik The main issue with the draft, it seems to me, is that it fails to show the company is notable in the way that Wikipedia defines that word. Most of the citations merely show that the company exists and the few that appear to come from reliable sources are clearly based on interviews or press releases, so are not independent. Has anyone written about the company without being prompted to do so? Phrases like AIR Brands is an influencer marketing agency that helps brands solve their problems on.... is pure marketing-speak. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:55, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello Ninellechik, and welcome to the Teahouse. Your draft is promotional because it reads as what the company wants the reader to know. Wikipedia doesn't care what the company wants the reader to know. What Wikipedia wants to tell the reader is what people unconnected with the company have chosen to publish about it (and, as Mike Turnbull indicates, if independent people haven't published very much about the company, then Wikipedia will not accept an article about it, however written). ColinFine (talk) 17:50, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your comprehensive feedback @Michael D. Turnbull @ColinFine Ninellechik (talk) 18:55, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Unusual recommendations in AfD

Hey all. I'm rather new to the AfD, but despite this I feel I've a pretty solid understanding of how it works, with only a few minor things hanging.

My question is, are "unusual" article recommendations, such as weak keep, strong delete, or swift, immediate delete, allowed in AfDs? Thanks. Qytz (talk) 16:05, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Qytz, welcome to the Teahouse. Modifying the standard keep/delete wording is perfectly fine as long as it doesn't rise to the level of disruption (such as by being extremely long, or including personal attacks, or the like). 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:21, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Remember that AfD isn't a formal vote, so responses don't have to conform to clear categories. The AfD will usually be decided by an admin (certainly by someone with a lot of experience in assessing the outcomes of discussions), who will form an opinion of the community consensus. Things like weak keep are helpful to the closer, because they show that while this person would have kept, they aren't that fussed, so if everyone else has good reasons to delete, there's no need to worry about the weak-keeper's not-particularly-strongly-held-view. But a closer won't necessarily be impressed by strong keep unless there's some evidence of why it should be strong. Using extra words as a way of shouting won't actually sway the discussion. Elemimele (talk) 17:26, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

how do you add a barnstar?????

I am trying to add one on the user@Moops but can't find the thing. 47.203.176.217 (talk) 17:31, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi IP editor, welcome to the Teahouse. The built-in option to add a barnstar only appears for folks who are logged in to an account. You will need to find the appropriate code and insert it manually. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:42, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

In case if anyone was wondering, they have created an account, Nice user2, in advance. Tails Wx 18:04, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Wait, what?! It look like I accidentally logged out before I sent this question!Oh, wait... this was sent a long while ago! Nice user2 (talk) 21:23, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

On the page Wikipedia:Barnstars it shows you the code to add to the page for each barnstar. RudolfRed (talk) 18:23, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

AMPHP

I'm disappointed by Google because it thinks that AMPHP and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AmfPHP are the same thing, so it shows a card for AmfPHP based on the wiki article if you search for amphp. I've tried reporting this to Google already, but without any luck. I'd like to create at least a stub article for AMPHP (like the AmfPHP article) to fix this, but I do have a conflict of interest as one of the maintainers of that collection of libraries. How should I proceed? Kelunik (talk) 18:23, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, Google does a lot of stuff like that. We wish it wouldn't. But a stub is an article that can't properly justify its existence. Most existing stubs are survivors from the times when our standards were lower; they're not things that should be created deliberately. We're not willing to go against our own policies just to cover up Google's failings. Maproom (talk) 18:54, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Kelunik, welcome to the Teahouse. Please properly declare your COI (per COI or PAID, whichever applies), then feel free to create a draft and submit it to AfC. Help:Your first article has a lot of guidance. The #1 most important thing to do is to find multiple reliable, independent, secondary sources with significant coverage of your subject. If they don't exist, your efforts will be in vain. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 19:19, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! I've declared the COI on the talk page of the draft and my personal talk page now. I've also submitted an initial version: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:AMPHP Kelunik (talk) 22:07, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Kelunik. Please try to write a couple of jargon free introductory sentences giving a broad overview of the topic. When you mention libraries, I think of buildings filled with books that people can borrow. Cullen328 (talk) 22:29, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

The sources: Three primary sources, a GitHub repo, a wiki, and two passing mentions in articles that may be reliable. None count for GNG. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 22:46, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

help

i know ive seen an article or page on the youtuber graystillplays, but i cant find it, can someone give me a link? Allaoii ^talk 18:37, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi again @Allaoii. Are you referring to Draft:GrayStillPlays? 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:42, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

no there was a legitimete page with pictures and everything. Allaoii ^talk 18:44, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Allaoii, there was an AFD discussion about the subject, and was eventually deleted. Is this the article (which is now deleted) that you were referring to? Tails Wx 18:44, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

maybe? is there a way to view the deleted version? Allaoii ^talk 18:47, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

@Allaoii, you might be able to find an archived version via the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine, or possibly a scraped version on some other wiki, but non-admins can't view deleted articles here on Wikipedia. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:50, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

how do i do that? Allaoii ^talk 19:05, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Only administrators can access the deleted page. You may request it to be undeleted and be draftified. (though it'll be hard considering that a draft already exists.) Tails Wx 18:51, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

then can you give me a link to the edit that removed it? maybe i can get around there Allaoii ^talk 19:04, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

It's in the deletion log. Might want to contact Czar to see if they're willing to restore and draftify. Tails Wx 19:06, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

huh? please link me to said deletion log, the one you provided brings me to the place to draft it Allaoii ^talk 19:10, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

@Allaoii, maybe this will work better: 1. You can also just cancel out of the edit window. There is very little left to see, though. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 19:14, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Saying this more delicately ;)–here. Tails Wx 19:15, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

cancel out of the edit window? Allaoii ^talk 19:15, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

@Allaoii As an admin I can view the deleted page. There is nothing significant about the person there - just one paragraph pushing his interest in making videos. It did not meet WP:NBIO, and any attempt to recreate an article should be done from scratch with much more in depth reliable sources about him at Draft:GrayStillPlays. If they don't exist, there can't be an article about him - it's as simple as that. You can find a copy of the deleted article at a site totally unrelated to any Wikipedia project. It's called deletionpedia.org. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:25, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

i remember a real page with a picture and sections on his childhood and everything Allaoii ^talk 18:40, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

@Allaoii Nope. I've checked the deleted version and there was never anything like that on Wikipedia. Maybe you remember stuff from another platform. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:06, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

How to upload an image of self on wiki

I tried with severeal name and both for jpg and jpeg but its not acvcepting and also tried na self click image..

guide to upload of sef image Rishi1418 (talk) 18:54, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Rishi1418, welcome to the Teahouse. It appears that you've tripped several filters which are meant to prevent the upload of inappropriate images. May I ask why you need to upload an image of yourself? Is it for your user page, or do you intend to try writing an article about yourself? 199.208.172.35 (talk) 19:06, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

@Rishi1418 Please could you explain how this image of Benjamin Franklin and this image of Elon Musk are relevant to your editing interests. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:44, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

@Rishi1418, welcome to the Teahouse. I have checked your contribution on commons, sadly, they are copyright violations. Please read policies about copyright on that project before your further uploading. Thank you. Lemonaka (talk) 04:03, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Citation Question

On the List of winners of the Boston Marathon page, at the bottom where the Citations section is located, why do some of the numbered citations include multi-character superscript links?

Also on the same page above, citation 17 includes an incorrect link [[2]]. Is it considered bad form to edit the link to make it a valid hyperlink? E.G. Delete the https://archive.today/20211011151042/ so only the mikatiming-leaderbord page is requested? Slimgin (talk) 19:28, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

@Slimgin: Welcome to the Teahouse! The numbered citations with the lettered superscripts indicate that the same reference is used in multiple locations in the article - see WP:REFNAME. I've updated reference #17 to include both the live website and the archived version. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 19:50, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello @GoingBatty! Thank you for the quick response and the link to the reference name syntax. Slimgin (talk) 19:55, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

I see that you've gotten a reply, slimgin, but I still wanted to answer your question about replacing URLs. In general, it isn't an issue to replace links with other ones that lead to the same material (unless they are copyright violations). In this case, it is an archive of a page, meant to preserve its content after it one day disappears off the internet (see WP:LINKROT). In this case, the link is still alive, so there shouldn't be any issues with replacing it, though some editors seem to prefer keeping both the original and archived links. I'm personally ambivalent on keeping archived links, but it is very much in a grey area in regards to copyright, which Wikipedia policies generally have a pretty strong stance on (see WP:COPYLINK). ArcticSeeress (talk) 20:21, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

A question about asking questions

Hello, I am a very new user.

Yet, ironically, I have used and relied on Wikipedia as a source of non-biased information for years. Today I have witnessed Wikipedia in an entirely new light.

I deeply, truly, and thoroughly believe in the mission and purpose of this living space for collaboration and free access to knowledge. I admire the pillars that are the guiding foundation of this wonderful and awe-inspiring opportunity.

With the inconceivably vast amount of potential that Wikipedia has shown, I have found myself stuck not even knowing how to ask a question!

Therefore, my first question is (and please forgive me if this has already been discussed elsewhere):

What kind of questions here would be considered productive/unproductive?

Or is there not differentiation between a productive/unproductive question in the context of this platform?

Is every question inherently productive, no matter how simple or complex? Possibly because every answer that is given is another step closer to overall, widespread understanding?

Assuming the question asked does not directly oppose the Letter and spirit of the law of Wikipedia, of course.:) RoseInRepose (talk) 22:58, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

RoseInRepose, as volunteers, we will do our best to answer any reasonable question (<2 minutes), even if not directly related to 'using and editing Wikipedia' as mentioned at the top. At least I will. For improving a specific article or page, use the talk page. For general knowledge questions, ask the reference desk. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 23:03, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi @RoseInRepose, welcome to the Teahouse. This is a place for any Wikipedian to ask questions related to editing Wikipedia. If your question isn't related to editing, it doesn't belong here, but Teahouse hosts are normally happy to redirect lost users. ––FormalDude (talk) 23:04, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Because Teahouse content is archived so frequently, and new visitors rarely look at archived material, Teahouse is definitely NOT progressive in its knowledge base. Rather, the same types of questions are asked over and over and over. And ideally, answered with the same thoughtfullness given to novel queries. However, sometimes newbies get hit with an unexpected shithammer and leave, dazed and confused as to "Why me?" David notMD (talk) 00:07, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Someone targeting me

I tried to add a helpful fact on an entry as my first volunteer effort. One person was helpful after there was a complaint by someone calling themselves "Mr.Ollie" or something. Since then he's been warring against me, changing whatever I type, even as I add peer-reviewed sources, and has taken to using an offensive ethnocentric term against me. Could someone please help? CinemaScholar (talk) 23:03, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi @CinemaScholar, welcome to the Teahouse. Behavioral complaints are dealt with at WP:ANI. Please carefully read the instructions at the top of that page, and be sure to gather and provide evidence, typically in the form of DIFFS or simply by linking to edits which display the behavior you are reporting someone for. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 23:07, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

It appears the "offensive ethnocentric term" CinemaScholar refers to is "Scotsman". ––FormalDude (talk) 23:08, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Surely there is no need for such terminology (or outmoded phrases using slurs) on Wikipedia. I'm just trying to volunteer. Someone is going to war with me, even though I provided the requested secondary source. CinemaScholar (talk) 23:10, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

CinemaScholar, User:MrOllie is not targeting you. In his edit summaries, he said that you would need a secondary source, something like X paper coined the term Docufiction, to support the coinage from a specific paper. I did not look into the sources you provided.

No true scotsman is the title of a logical fallacy, not a racist comment. The discussion is at Talk:Docufiction#First use of the term. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 23:09, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

"No true scotsman" is an outmoded term that is ethnocentric. Many outmoded terms might have had worthwhile original usage, but are now no longer used because they are racist or ethnocentric. I am Scottish, which this person may or may not know. In any event, it is now a term that should not be used. Moreover, I provided a secondary source, a peer-reviewed book. CinemaScholar (talk) 23:11, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

The proper venue for this is WP:ANI, as I posted above. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 23:13, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Ok. Now that you have gotten the Teahouse's attention, please either resolve the issue, drop the change, or take it to WP:ANI. On the talk page preferably. I don't think you properly answered MrOllie's complaint. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 23:15, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I did supply a different source, peer-reviewed and secondary. I will go to WP: ANI. Thank you again. CinemaScholar (talk) 23:16, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

@CinemaScholar: Before you go to ANI, you might want to read WP:BOOMERANG, WP:DRAMA and WP:ANI advice. There's a reason why WP:Dramaboard links to ANI. It's not necessarily a place where you're always going to find a sympathetic ear. I can't tell you not to be upset about the being called what you've been called, but those that regularly participate in ANI might not find it as outmoded or offensive as you do.Since buzzwords often set people off and can taint a discussion from the start, be careful if you're going to accuse people of certain things because some of the responses you receive might not be too kind. Sometimes users truly believe they are so right (and maybe they are) that they think they're going to go to ANI and everything is going to be all warm and fuzzy. The reality is often turns out to be something quite different and the experience really sours them on Wikipedia. Just be careful about what you post and imply, and make sure you provide WP:DIFFs that show how relevant policies and guidelines are clearly being broken. Carefully read the instructions at the top of the ANI page and follow them to the letter. In addition, avoid anything that might be considered WP:CANVASSing. You would be wise to also automatically assume that others are going to examine your behavior as well, and they will not hold back in pointing out any problems they find with it. Acknowledge any mistakes you might've made and try to find middle ground. An all or nothing approach usually doesn't work too well at ANI. If you're trying to right some great wrong, then ANI is not really going to be of much help to you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:45, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

@CinemaScholar Hello, welcome to the Teahouse. I have answered that on your talk page. I strongly recommend you read the policies first. Lemonaka (talk) 03:59, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

How can I add those user info things to my own page?

I would really like to start editing a bit but I noticed some other editors have those fancy rectangles on their pages. How can I add those to mine and where can I find them? Jennytacular (talk) 03:56, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

@Jennytacular Hello, welcome to the Teahouse. You could have a try on wp:userbox Lemonaka (talk) 04:00, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Freed slave Henrietta Belmont Manor Loudoun County VA

The article about this plantation/farm states only that a slave “Henrietta and her children” were freed. There is no information about these people, their relation to Lee (the owner),or their lives. Can the article be amended to provide further information for historians/genealogy researchers? DVBr04 (talk) 04:27, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

@DVBr04, hi welcome to the teahouse. You could have a try to open a discussion on the talk page related to the article. Lemonaka (talk) 04:38, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello, DVBr04, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia. To give you a bit more context: Wikipedia is entirely edited by volunteers, who work on what they choose. When you ask "Can the article be amended" you're actually asking "Will some volunteer do the research to find the information and put it in the article?" Lemonaka pointed to the article's talk page Talk:Belmont Manor House because you're more likely to find people with knowledge or interest about the subject there than here. Another place you might find such people is at Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject United States History (though I believe that project is not very active). You could even look through the history of the article Belmont Manor House and find which editor inserted that information into the article. If they are still active, you could ask them on their user talk page if they have more information. ColinFine (talk) 11:32, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello

I was recently editing Deepti Sharma when I added a tidy up template for it. I then realised that it was probably more like fancruft. Would it be fine to just delete that one and add a different template. Tescomealdeal1 (talk) 05:12, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Tescomealdeal1, if you add a template and then realize that you should have added not that template but instead one that more accurately describes the problem, then yes of course you are free to switch them. -- Hoary (talk) 05:19, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Cheers. Tescomealdeal1 (talk) 05:32 8 February 2023 (UTC)

New Page Patrolling

Today I got new page patroller right and I think it is hard to use Curation Toolbar so can anyone tell me any other tools used in patrolling new pages. Thanks. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 11:38, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi LordVoldemort728. You might want to ask about this at WT:NPP/R. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:45, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Appropriate Talk Page material?

Is the following appropriate talk page material? I wasn't sure if I should blank or not such stuff. TY — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 13:33, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

@Moops: I blanked much of that talk page because it consisted of copyrighted material copy/pasted from various Web sites (including Wikipedia itself). The rest of the material is unlikely to be seen by anyone, and I'm inclined to let it slide. Deor (talk) 14:12, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

I see. I didn't even think of the copyrighted angle. TY — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 14:13, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Tables

How do I create a table within the subject? Like How do I create a table in the Compilations section of my article?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_%22Vision%22_Walker

Please reply to the VisualEditor VisionWalker (talk) 15:58, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi @VisionWalker, welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid there are a number of problems here. First, you seem to have a conflict of interest with the article subject, which means you should avoid editing the article yourself. Second, you've added a vast amount of unsourced material, which is particularly problematic since this seems to be a biography of a living person. It was quite promotional in tone and included a lot of unnecessary detail.

I've done some cleanup, which unfortunately meant removing most of the material you added. Please do not attempt to add it back yourself, and please spend some time reading the following pages: WP:COI, WP:Reliable sources, and WP:Referencing for beginners. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:23, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

@VisionWalker If you would like to suggest changes to the Wikipedia article, feel free to use the Wikipedia:Edit Request Wizard. GoingBatty (talk) 16:59, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Question about "List of Controversial Album Art" page.

I was looking at the page and was very surprised that Aerosmith's album Nine Lives was not included. There was a protest over the original art work, which featured a dancer with a cat head. Not only did the band and label receive backlash from the Hindu community, but there was also an issue on if the artist actually stole the design from a painting in a book.

If this album is deemed worthy by Wikipedia editors of being on the page (and there are multiple articles available for reference) where would the best place on the list be for the album?

I greatly appreciate all input. Sportsfan1976 I'm only here because I'm not currently somewhere else. (talk) 20:19, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

@Sportsfan1976 So be bold and add it! There is ample information at Nine Lives (Aerosmith album) to justify its inclusion. The list seems to be by artist then title, so it should be the first entry. Mike Turnbull (talk) 20:33, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

I see List of controversial album art is organised by theme, and from your description it could go in either "Religious" or "Copyright infringement". I suggest putting it in each of those with the relevant information, but mentioning the other. ColinFine (talk) 20:42, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Question about empires

What empires have diisappeared 96.38.45.250 (talk) 20:42, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi IP editor, welcome to the Teahouse. In a sense, all empires have disappeared - we tend to use different terms now. Do you have a more specific question? 199.208.172.35 (talk) 20:45, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello, IP user, and welcome to the Teahouse. Your question is not very clear, but it doesn't seem to be about editing Wikipedia, which is what this page is for.

If you're asking about historical empires that no longer exist, you could start with Category:Former empires. If that doesn't answer your question, try asking at the Reference desk. ColinFine (talk) 20:46, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Maybe after reading the disambiguation page empires? Mike Turnbull (talk) 20:47, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Wondering how to PROD

I'm trying to PROD Romanian National Committee seeing how its a disambiguation page with one article and a bunch of red links, but I'm wondering how to do it or if that's the right way to go about it at all. Sunsteel 20:52, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi ItsSunsteel! The easiest way is by using WP:Twinkle. Are we sure that none of the other entries on the page are notable? If they might be, I'd lean toward keeping the page. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:34, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

I'd leave it, personally, unless you have evidence that the other entries are actually incorrect and need to be removed. -- asilvering (talk) 21:45, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Propaganda on Wikipedia pages

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

I'm going to boldly close this discussion since it seems to be fast moving beyond the scope of the Teahouse. If the OP wants to propose some changes be made to a Wikipedia policy or guideline, they can do so on said policy's or guideline's corrsponding talk page, or they can do so at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). For the OP's reference, "DS" refers to "discretionary sanctions" as explained in Wikipedia:Contentious topics. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:35, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

---

I am a new editor as far as Wikipedia editing experience goes, but I have used Wikipedia often in the past. One thing I have noticed in both lives is that there is a great deal of intentional propaganda on Wikipedia, and hijacking/infecting of articles to convert them to aid in propaganda, both supplied and supported by well organized groups. Having had experience in dealing with it, I can recognize propaganda on many subjects, especially historical, but this is not so for everyone, and therefore it goes without saying that such intentional propaganda, and at the scale I see it, is harmful to Wikipedia users, and to Wikipedia as well. So my questions are as follows (answer one or answer all :o) : (1) Has this subject been discussed before? (2) Does Wikipedia have a group/commission/etc. that deals with propaganda in the articles and sanctions editors and their enablers associated with such propaganda? (3) How can propaganda be reported above the dispute and arbitration levels, since these two will not work due to lack of intent to compromise? (4) If the answer to item 2 is negative, how can one go about asking for the formation of such a council? Thank you.70.164.212.36 (talk) 20:57, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi IP editor, welcome to the Teahouse. The WMF has, in the past, organized task forces to deal with disinformation on various projects. As far as English Wikipedia goes, though, there is no group of editors which fights disinformation in general; WikiProjects may sometimes deal with issues within their own subject areas. If you have specific problems with a specific article or editor, there are places to address those problems. I see you've already been to WP:DRN, but apparently that process was not what you were expecting. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 21:11, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you IP 199.208.172.35 for your constructive reply, which I will examine in more detail. I will wait for further replies before making up my mind as to how to proceed and where to apply. I am rather surprised that Wikipedia has not addressed the propaganda problem in full force, whereas there is all sorts of frenetic activity regarding edit-warring, sockpuppeting and so forth, which probably ends up with little to show for in terms of article quality, and perhaps has a negative effect on it at times due to intentional or unintentional bias. 70.164.212.36 (talk) 21:57, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

One man's propaganda is another man's facts. From my point of view, Russia is pumping out lots of propaganda for both international and domestic consumption about the Ukraine conflict- from their side, the average Russian likely thinks the same about what the US/UK/France/NATO/etc say. As noted, there are already existing processes to address editors engaging in inappropriate activities. 331dot (talk) 22:06, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you User:3331dot for your reply. During times of war there is a huge propaganda activity, and care should be exercised in accepting it. Unfortunately, much of that propaganda poisons much literature of the future similar to how a nuclear disaster poisons large areas and the atmosphere. I will not comment on the why, who, and any other specifics, but it is not difficult to imagine use for such propaganda. As for existing processes to address inappropriate activities, my dispute filing still appears to be active, but one of the editors against whom I filed the dispute appears to have convinced the would be moderator to withdraw. In regard to that, I am trying to understand what my next step should be, and perhaps you can help in that regard. However, my concern regarding propaganda is much more general, and, I believe that, if Wikipedia does not address this in force soon, it may be big today but may end up being just another FXT or Enron in the future, simply known for a big bunch of propaganda.70.164.212.36 (talk) 22:32, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

The next step is that you continue to wait for a new volunteer there. I see that your question #4 (Why do you "think that the filing unregistered editor will be able to find a moderator"?) was already answered by the editor you were asking. I can answer the question again if you like: it does not appear that you are coming to the dispute in good faith. If it's true that you're not acting in good faith, you should stop now and save everyone the time of dealing with your bad faith. If you are acting in good faith, you're unfortunately not in a very good position to demonstrate it, since you're a new editor with very few edits, and your first edits are all about this dispute. That makes you look very much like you're here to just start a fight, whether that's true or not. -- asilvering (talk) 22:44, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

First, the more trivial issue: What you are citing was the would be mediator's point of view, and should not be binding for or affecting other possible mediators, which pov, in my opinion, was phrased in a way to affect. Next, thank you for your constructive comment on my Talk page where I had a much more specific beef, but now believe generalizing the subject is much better for all since this is a problem affecting not only Wikipedia editors but also the general public. Now for the more significant issue: I respect your opinion about me appearing to have acted in bad faith, but it does not apply to me, since there is no bad faith on my part. I am not here to start a fight either, just asked a number of questions, but the responses have been varied :) . Also, I am acting in about as good faith as anyone on Wikipedia can have. What bad faith can you see in asking for a Wikipedia platform of independent people to investigate, stop, and sanction propaganda? This is the subject I wish to pursue now as dealing with propaganda article after article is a never ending process and I choose an excavator instead of a spoon. I am sure there are others who support this idea in their own way.70.164.212.36 (talk) 00:17, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

IP, it's concerning that you don't mention what kind of propaganda, or what topic, when it's clear from your edit history that you do have a particular topic in mind. Have a look at WP:CTOPICS for how this kind of thing; the full list of related topics is at WP:GS. -- asilvering (talk) 21:35, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

It is also worth noting, 212.36, that wilful propaganda spreading, if you can prove it, would be a sanctionable behaviour. Otherwise, it would just be accidental misuse of sources, and would go through the normal routes for such. On the content side, dispute resolution does not require a plan to compromise - it frequently handles cases where there is no way to do so, and is an either/or choice. So you ruling it out is unwise. On the conduct side, I'm not sure why you would feel arbitration is all about compromise, but in any case, they likely wouldn't become involved unless the community had attempted to resolve the issue before and been unable to do so (unless private evidence is applicable). Nosebagbear (talk) 22:13, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you User:asilvering for your reply. My limited edit history may indicate a particular topic (one of many) in my mind, but that does not change the fact that I am seriously concerned, as you should also probably be, about propaganda in Wikipedia in general. You can also recognize propaganda by the existence of weak and one-sided references and writing, aggressive reversals of other edits even ones with solid references, lack of discussions with reversals, authoritative sounding referrals to vague notions such as "most scholars" etc. with obviously no proper citation since none can exist, immediate choral accusations of other edits for various Wikipedia violations while committing serious violations, relying on an arbitrary consensus concept which even the WP:CONS page does not indicate as to how the resolution for that is made obvious to all parties. I could go on (e.g. with some key words and phrases used in propaganda) but I am sure you get the general idea. SO, no, I am beholden to a single topic, but want a better Wikipedia. Actually, everyone who reads this paragraph could check out a few pages on history, say, in general and see whether my comments apply, just for fun or seriously, then may wish to compare it with the article(s) and everything else related to it in my "edit history" as you stated it. In closing, I very much appreciate your mentioning WP:CTOPICS, as there are a great number of Wikipedia pages and moving parts that take time for me to get familiar with.70.164.212.36 (talk) 22:19, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

I assure you, I am very concerned about propaganda on Wikipedia. By now, you've been pointed to all the various ways in which Wikipedia handles these disputes. As I said on your Talk page, I really think your best move here is not to push forward with this concern right now, but to learn more about how Wikipedia functions, through your own experience. You're going to have extreme trouble convincing other editors of anything (and thus achieving consensus) as a brand-new IP editor. (I also strongly suggest making an account!) -- asilvering (talk) 22:26, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Just curious, how much of this "propaganda hunting" will involve the subject of Turks and Armenians and genocide? Heiro 22:31, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

User:Heiro Why? Are you concerned that the hunters will come after you? If there is nothing that you should be concerned about, then I believe you should be applauding any activity to suppress propaganda in Wikipedia. No?70.164.212.36 (talk) 23:46, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Me? Nope. But I will be making popcorn to watch your progress now that you've been notified of DS on the Balkans/Eastern Europe. Heiro 00:01, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Have fun, though I have no idea what the DS you mention is. I already wrote: "new editor". WP:DS does not seem relevant, so perhaps you would care to explain? Thanks.70.164.212.36 (talk) 00:19, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Discretionary Sanctions, this section left at your talk page should explained it all to you User talk:70.164.212.36#Introduction to contentious topics. Heiro 00:29, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks again. If I had to choose between myself fighting propaganda on Wikipedia one article after another and Wikipedia fighting propaganda in general, I would have to choose the latter. In fact, I have already seen a great deal of interest regarding my questions on propaganda in Wikipedia, so perhaps a case can be made that a Wikipedia council/commission/etc. should be formed to fight propaganda by issuing clear rules against it (as I noted above, it is not difficult to identify, and there should be no shortage of candidates proposed by editors), by reversing it as much as possible, and by sanctioning related editors and enablers as necessary. I do not believe Wikipedia editors can fight it by judging on things such as edit-warring (which propagandists actually use as a weapon because they are well-versed in to how to attack) or sockpuppeting (same thing here), since their field of interest is limited in these cases. Now, however, you have touched on a sensitive subject: that of achieving consensus, on which WP:CONS is absolutely not clear. So, one editor can claim that consensus was not reached, while the other can claim the opposite, and it is easier for the first one's claim to be upheld, especially if that is the editor reversing an edit. Please do not reply here unless the answer is very simple, as that should really be another subject. 70.164.212.36 (talk) 23:43, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

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

Spelling

Are words on English Wikipedia articles spelled correctly all the time? I've always wondered this, what's the correct spelling accuracy on articles in general, and how are we sure very minor unseen mistakes are corrected? 71.9.87.159 (talk) 22:12, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

No, they aren't spelled correctly all the time. No unseen mistakes will ever be corrected, since someone would first have to see the mistake to correct it! Why the concern about spelling? -- asilvering (talk) 22:18, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

There is the project WP:TYPO where interested editors search for and fix spelling errors. An endless task. RudolfRed (talk) 22:24, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Note also that Wikipedia deliberately allows different varieties of English to exist according to the topic of an article. So your color may be my colour: the aim is for consistency within articles but not necessarily between articles. See {{American English}}, {{British English}} and {{Indian English}} among others. Mike Turnbull (talk) 22:44, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

A question about Sources

My draft article about a German film director Draft:Marvin Nuecklaus has already been rejected once because I used IMDb as a source for film credits. I have swapped out IMDb for other sources, but want to make sure my other sources look acceptable before resubmitting. Could someone take a look? Specifically, can I use an interview the subject gave to one of the film festivals as a source? ClareNoI (talk) 01:26, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

ClareNoI, an interview does not count for notability, as it is not independent of the subject. However, it can be used in a WP:ABOUTSELF way. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 02:21, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

How do I know if a new article is published?

I created a new page. How do I know if it is 'live"? Soldier Friend (talk) 02:27, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

It's "live", such as it is, here: [3]. That's in your user sandbox, so it's not a Wikipedia article. I think you'll want to have a look at WP:AUTOBIO. -- asilvering (talk) 02:32, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It is live in your sandbox, but it is not in the main article space. Google won't index it there. That is the direct answer to your direct question. Now for answers to questions you didn't ask: Your contribution is not ready to be moved to mainspace yet. It has no sources, therefore it fails our verifiability requirements. You need to demonstate in-depth coverage from multiple reliable, independent sources. Please see Help:Your first article. I hope that is useful. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:34, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! I was having trouble adding links. I'll try again tomorrow with a fresh brain Soldier Friend (talk) 02:42, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Standard sections for biographical articles. Do not add hyperlinks. See Help:Referencing for beginners for ref format. All content must be either verified by references or removed. David notMD (talk) 03:18, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi, welcome to the teahouse. I found you created a biography on your sandbox, this is a good start. You need some realiable sources for providing WP:Notability fot this person. Lemonaka (talk) 03:56, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much. I am used to a bit of a different format for publishing. I tried again with links and a photo my friend sent me. It was getting rejected because it wasn't from my own phone. I will see if it was accepted. Thank you for being helpful and hand-holding all the rookies like me. Soldier Friend (talk) 04:02, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Soldier Friend, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid it's not just the format that is unfamilar to you: it's the whole purpose of Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is not the information that you (or I, or any random person on the internet) knows: it summarises what published reliable sources say about a subject, nothing more. I suggest looking at WP:BACKWARD.

More generally, I always advise new editors to spend a few months making improvements to some of our existing six million articles, and learning how Wikipedia works, before trying the challinging task of creating a new one. That task is even more challenging for an article about a living person, and yet harder if you're writing about somebody you know (as I'm guessing you are). ColinFine (talk) 10:51, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I will continue to read and try to get the article presentable. The person is indeed among the living. I have not met him personally. I don't feel comfortable making improvements on anyone else's articles, but thank you for the suggestion on WP:BACKWARD. I'll keep at it and thank you so much. If I can't get past the hurdles, it's not the end of the world. Soldier Friend (talk) 14:03, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Soldier Friend! To further help you understand how Wikipedia works (which we all had to and most of us are still doing), let me pick up on something you said: "I don't feel comfortable making improvements on anyone else's articles . . . ."

If you mean "articles about someone else" – don't worry about that, subjects of articles have no 'ownership' of them, and are strongly discouraged from even editing them*, they are "Wikipedia's articles about them," not "their articles on Wikipedia." We are protective of people's legitimate rights and safety, however: I recommend you read Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, which we observe strictly. (*or writing them, see Wikipedia:Autobiography.)

If you mean "articles written/edited by other people" – again, don't worry about it. Wikipedia is by definition a crowd-sourced, collaborative enterprise. Nobody owns the words they enter here, because by the Terms of Use, they are irrevocably donating them to Wikipedia. See the essay Wikipedia:Ownership of content.

Most articles have (or will be) edited by many different contributors. You are welcome to help improve any article, and if you make a mistake in good faith, nobody will mind, they'll just correct it. We operate on a Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, so you can boldly make a change/addition/deletion you think is good, another editor may disagree and revert it, and then you two (and others) can discuss it on the article's Talk page or on either of your own Talk pages. Hope this helps. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.198.141.181 (talk) 16:38, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

How do I create a new Wikipedia page?

I want to know how to create a new Wikipedia page. Can you explain this to me? KittensMittens2 (talk) 03:24, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Detailed info at WP:FIRST. -- asilvering (talk) 03:42, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

@KittensMittens2, Hi, welcome to the teahouse. If you want to creat an article, and this is your first time, Why not have a try for WP:AFCH Lemonaka (talk) 03:54, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Rather than Lemonaka's suggestion, the first WP:FIRST is more helpful for new editors. That said, standard advice is put in months improving existing articles as a means to learning about Wikipedia before trying to create an article. I do see that you went through the tutorials, which was wise. P.S. You are allowed to delete stuff from your User page and your Talk page. David notMD (talk) 04:30, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you KittensMittens2 (talk) 04:45, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Developing consensus on a protected page

I proposed a modification to a protected page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Blockade_of_the_Gaza_Strip#A_few_more_dates_for_context . I don't have permission to edit myself, so I detailed what I could. Two months later, somebody replied to say that there's no consensus so the changes were rejected.

So, how does one develop consensus? I forget the acronym, but the usual procedure is to make a modification, then wait for a "VIP" to arbitrarily revert it, then hold the discussion, but that can't be done if the page can't be edited. The fact that the request got no reply for months indicates that posting to the talk page is not the way to start the conversation. What's the right approach to initiate the conversation? B k (talk) 04:06, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

The Talk page is the right place - I'm surprised to see someone say it has no consensus if no one has argued against it in so long. You could try following up with the editor who declined on their own user talk page. But also - it's just extended confirmed protection, and you're not far off from that yourself (you need 500 edits). Go chip away at a maintenance backlog or something and you'll be able to edit the page directly and get into all the WP:BRD arguments you desire. Be mindful of the WP:DS on that article in particular. -- asilvering (talk) 04:17, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions. I'm not sure of the etiquette of when it's appropriate to DM somebody, so your indication that that's OK on WP is useful. But as per your suggestion, I probably won't worry about petitioning and will get back to it whenever I can just edit the page myself. B k (talk) 04:32, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello, B k: Don't "DM" somebody: there is a strong preference for discussions to be held in public, so post on the editor's user talk page. ColinFine (talk) 10:54, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

2018 St Louis Cardinals season (baseball)

Hello. Have a problem. Go to batters section. Go to edit section, I entered about 15 players that were inadvertantly erased. Can you put back the player data that was erased in the most current additions I made? Thank you for your time.Theairportman33531 (talk) 04:30, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Please disregard. The problem has been worked out. Sorry about that.Theairportman33531 (talk) 04:44, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Sadly, wikimedia don't have an auto-save feature. So if your network is not stable, you can have a try for working on Office Word first, then copy it to wikimedia. Lemonaka (talk) 09:49, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

My draft for my article submission was declined and I don't really understand why.

My draft for my article submission was declined and I don't really understand why. Could someone please help.? It sounds like is was declined because of the subjects lack of notability which doesn't make sense because the subject is actually very well known. Draft -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Alice_Jacobsen Almighty059 (talk) 05:43, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Almighty059, the template at the top of the draft invites you to "see the guidelines on the notability of people". Please read and digest them; and if you have questions about how they're related to Draft:Alice_Jacobsen, feel free to ask here. -- Hoary (talk) 06:24, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

She for sure fits the guidelines, and I think at least one of the sources meets all the sourcing requirements - @Almighty059 my recommendation is finding more reliable sources aka newspaper articles or maybe muesum pages about the artist. Overall I think this artist is notable enough for a page LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:10, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

LegalSmeagolianYou can move the page yourself to mainspace or resubmit to AfC. While AfC reviewers generally take a dim view of resubmissions without improvement, I think this meets the threshold of likely to survive a deletion discussion, as the Chicago Tribune wrote an obit for them. Slywriter (talk) 20:22, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Alright I'll WP:BOLD and do it LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:27, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Notability Understanding

I need some help to understand GNG Guideline. I am sharing one news links, Do you think this source is indepth, independent? Could you please share 2-3 sources which are indepth, independent related to any person. I just need an understanding.

What are the other best ways to improve my GNG understanding? Lordofhunter (talk) 06:57, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Lordofhunter. That link is to a sleazy, clickbait website that is trying to peddle gossip and personally identifying information about minor "celebrities". It is pretty much the opposite of an actually reliable source. All you need to do is to look closely at that website to see that they spread rumors and repackage press releases. Developing the skill to evaluate the reliability of sources is essential for any long term Wikipedia editor. Cullen328 (talk) 07:17, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Lordofhunter, that page tells me, inter alia, "Ratan Tata's Parents are the most searched topic on the internet." This is a surprising assertion (complete with Trumpian capitalization of "parents"). The page tells me this immediately above a photo of the business end of a penis, a photo that has the caption "Sex Lasts More Than 3 Hours Without Viagra! Write Down The Recipe". I suspect that "sex" and "penis" are among very many topics (not all of them related to sex) that are searched much more often than this person's parents. Glancing briefly at this page (before hurriedly closing it), I'm surprised that you would take it at all seriously. -- Hoary (talk) 07:36, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

It may be independent, but doesn't look reliable (WP:RS). I couldn't find an about-page but there was this: "FreshersLive - No.1 Job site in India. Here you can find latest 2023 government as well as private job recruitment notifications for different posts vacancies in India."

Examples:[4][5][6] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:21, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Based on your explanations, I am sharing 3 sources. Do you think they are acceptable for GNG? 1. Manoj Modi, Right Hand of India's Richest Man 2. Rakesh, India's Warren Buffett 3. News Based on Ola (Uber of India) CEO's Tweet. I am not sure about this 3rd kind of news. Gråbergs Gråa Sång, & Cullen328 need your opinion also, please. Lordofhunter (talk) 02:28, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

@Lordofhunter, please do not start a new post that way. If you have more to add, simply add it to this post here. I've moved your reply. 97.126.96.89 (talk) 03:31, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Indian "news" sources are partuclarly difficult to judge. So many of them, even the mainstream publications, tend to weave in stories based on opinion or recycled press releases into otherwise fact-checkable coverage. I recommend avoid an Indian source if a non-Indian reliable source is available. In fact, this decision was made by the community when developing the article 2020 Delhi riots to avoid Indian sources in favor of foreign news services based in India, because all Indian news outlets were clearly incapable of providing neutral coverage of the topic. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:46, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Scam email

Hi! where do I report (what I suspect/believe to be) a scam email delivered via the wiki-email system? Licks-rocks (talk) 08:01, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Licks-rocks. Please file your report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, carefully following all of the instructions at the top of that page, and providing complete details. Cullen328 (talk) 08:27, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello, welcome to the teahouse. Another way to report this is forward the email to ca@wikimedia.org, which known as trust and safety. They may deal with it rapidly. Lemonaka (talk) 09:46, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

If this is related to AfC, Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Scam warning suggests this can be forwarded to paid-en-wpwikipedia.org, too. Victor Schmidt (talk) 11:27, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

4. What are the main differences between Genocide, War Crimes, Crimes Against Humanity, and Ethnic Cleansing?

What are the main differences between Genocide, War Crimes, Crimes Against Humanity, and Ethnic Cleansing? 5.195.227.208 (talk) 09:26, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Might this by any chance be school homework? That aside, do you have any question about the use of Wikipedia? (That's what this page is for.) -- Hoary (talk) 09:29, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. This page is for asking questions about how to use Wikipedia, and it isn't a general question asking forum- for that you could try the Reference Desk- or you could look at the articles on those subjects(like genocide). 331dot (talk) 09:34, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Genocide is killing large amounts of a certain race. War Crimes are acts that violate international humanitarian law during war, Crimes Against Humanity are acts done to cause as much pain and suffering as possible, and Ethnic Cleansing is killing/ removing members of an ethnic/religious group that are viewed as "unwanted". Club On a Sub 20 (talk) 16:09, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

For whatever reason when I saw "Crimes Against Humanity" my brain went to Cards Against Humanity... I don't know why either. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:16, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

error on talk page archive

I don't know why, or how to fix it, but on my User talk:Govvy/Archive13 page, the New Pages Patrol newsletter January 2023 box hasn't closed and seems to have engulfed two other archived posts. Anyone able to fix it for me?? Govvy (talk) 11:26, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

There was an unterminated div tag. Maproom has now added a terminating </div> for you. - David Biddulph (talk) 12:07, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Just got back, saw that, thank you guys. Govvy (talk) 16:27, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Copyrighted imagery on a web "basemap"?

Hello! I am wondering what the thinking is on using an online mapping app to create a custom map for a Wikipedia article. I think it would be considered "own work." But what if the "basemap" is copyrighted?

Here is an example. I recently created a draft article for consideration called, "Watershed Delineation." I created a map for the article using a Python script that I wrote and some open source mapping tools.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Watershed_delineation#/media/File:Lost_Creek_Reservoir_Watershed.jpg

The basemap, or map background, added by default by the Python library "contextily" is "Stamen Terrain." It's created by a company called Stamen, whose maps are used all over the web, using data from OpenStreetMap. The rendered map displays text at the bottom that says "(C) OpenStreetMap contributors."

It seems that you are allowed and encouraged to use this data as long as credit is given, based on this: https://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright

So would this map image (and others like it) be considered acceptable as-is? Or would I have to do something else for proper attribution? Thanks! Mheberger (talk) 12:47, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

@Mheberger Whilst I'm no expert on copyright - nor indeed on map-making- I'd say that you gave the correct attribution (assuming any maps you used were themselves derived from OSM). However, that attribution should go in the entry on Commons, and not within the actual map image itself. I would suggest removing the text from the map, and replacing it with a scale to give some idea of size of the watershed. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:02, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I have made draft of Indeep Koirala

 Courtesy link: Draft:Indeep Koirala

I have made draft of Indeep Koirala who is a journalist of Nepal please go through it and let me know the changes to de done. CreateNewPage01 (talk) 14:28, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

CreateNewPage01 Hello. I think you refer to Draft:Indeep Koirala? I've added the information to allow you to submit the draft article for review. I would note that you cannot use Wikipedia as a source per WP:CIRCULAR. 331dot (talk) 14:32, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I've replaced that ref with {{citation needed}} tag, and added one to another unsourced statement. —Wasell^(T) 🌻🇺🇦 15:19, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello CreateNewPage01! Welcome to the Teahouse! If you want your draft reviewed, there's button on the draft for you to submit it for review. Good luck! - UtherSRG (talk) 14:33, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello CreateNewPage01. I suggest you look at WP:notability, WP:42, and WP:BACKWARD. ColinFine (talk) 14:45, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

You also ought to read recent entries on User talk:Koiralaindeep. - David Biddulph (talk) 14:58, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Blocked for evasion of a previous block Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:29, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Interpretation of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTWHOSWHO

I just did a bit of copyediting on 2010 Keswick coach accident, an English road incident in which three people were killed. I was surprised to see that the three people were named. I'm aware of both the above named policies, so I have removed the names as part of my other edits to the article. I strongly suspect someone might push back on the removal of the names. Did I interpret the policy correctly? Was I right to do so? Feedback would be very useful, as would a watching eye on the article because I don't want to start an edit war. 10mmsocket (talk) 16:25, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I believe you might have. From what I understood, the people can be named, just not extensively talked about. Club On a Sub 20 (talk) 18:00, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Why do wikipedia articles about myself have to be in-depth?

I was making a wikipedia article about myself that wasnt super in-depth, and it got marked for deletion. Please reply as soon as possible ProConYT (talk) 16:46, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello, ProconYT, and welcome to the Teahouse. The answer is that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a medium for promotion, or a random collection of information. Please read What Wikipedia is not, and notability for more information. ColinFine (talk) 16:53, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

@ProConYT: As Draft:Level series (A series by GDMrBoi427 on geometry dash). says, it's multiple published sources that have to be "in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)". The article itself can be brief, called a stub, if there are good sources. Wikipedia only wants articles about subjects which have already received in-depth coverage elsewhere. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:18, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I am guessing an article or draft about yourself was Speedy deleted (only Administrators can see details). Autobiography is frowned upon but not forbidden (see WP:AUTO). However, if no references, no potential to become an article. As for Draft:Level series (A series by GDMrBoi427 on geometry dash)., also no refs, and expect it to disappear soon. David notMD (talk) 17:42, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

@ProConYT So far, none of your 10 edits here have been deleted. Nor, as far as I can tell, have any yet been marked for deletion. That said, Draft:Level series (A series by GDMrBoi427 on geometry dash). is never going to meet our Notability criteria for computer games, and it was 'declined' after you submitted it for review. That's not the same thing. Drafts that remain unedited for 6 months do get deleted however - and that's also happened to drafts I've started but never finished. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:40, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Year collages

Could someone point me to some useful pages about events of the year image collages (e.g. 2022) giving me more information about them? I would like to create some for pages that lack them someday! - L'Mainerque! - Let's Talk! 16:52, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Pinging The ganymedian, who seems to have created that one and some others. ColinFine (talk) 16:58, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

ColinFine, Thanks! - L'Mainerque! - Let's Talk! 17:08, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Administrators needed

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

---

How do I speak to Wikipedia administrators about a very interesting phenomenon? Millions are articles are incorrect but most people don't understand. 2600:8802:3A12:E700:443D:5588:38BA:EEB3 (talk) 19:23, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. Article content issues may generally be addressed by any editor, feel free to give your concern here- but keep in mind that Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources say. I find your comment "millions are articles are incorrect" curious. 331dot (talk) 19:28, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Example one out of millions:

The Crown Heights riot is considered a Black American riot.

That's 100% slanderous and false. It has nothing to do with Black Americans.

Two South American children were hit by a Jewish man's car. A Jewish ambulance assisted the Jewish driver and passengers and left the SOUTH AMERICAN children under the car dying. This caused an IMMIGRANT from TRINIDAD to be angry and seek revenge. A TRINIDADIAN killed an innocent Jewish man with no relationship to the accident. How the hell is a neighborhood of immigrants running amok classified as a Black American riot. It's a Caribbean and South American versus Jewish riot. This trash misinformation is typical and in MILLIONS OF ARTICLES. 2600:8802:3A12:E700:443D:5588:38BA:EEB3 (talk) 19:45, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources say about a topic. If those sources are accurately summarized here, but are in error, you will need to take that up with the sources. 331dot (talk) 19:52, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Could you please provide identifiable proof of this being the cause of the riots? Explodicator7331 (talk) 20:03, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a place that anyone can edit - if this is true I suggest finding a reliable source, citing it, and editing the article LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:04, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

It's not about sources.

The source and the Wikipedia article clearly say the children are Guyanese immigrants and a Trinidadian guy killed a Jewish guy. ZERO TO DO WITH BLACK AMERICANS. There is no excuse. The article is slander. 2600:8802:3A12:E700:443D:5588:38BA:EEB3 (talk) 20:31, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

If you think that the sources are not being accurately summarized, you can either edit the article yourself or start a discussion on the talk page. If you are reverted, you should then definitely start a discussion on the talk page. This is how Wikipedia works. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 20:36, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

If the issue is the article does not use the term Caribbean Americans (if those were the principle communities involved in the unrest) then you can make that change as long as you provide appropriate sourcing. It seems like many other sources, such as https://www.baruch.cuny.edu/nycdata/disasters/riots-crown_heights.html, refer to the division as between the African-American community and the Jewish community. I also think it is quite problematic that you use the term "immigrants running amok" - seems like you may need to analyze your own biases. regardless, this discussion is better suited to the relevant pages talk page. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:41, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Of course, after lying it became a Black American riot. It was all immigrants and anybody saying otherwise is a liar. Trinidadians and Guyanese are not Black Americans no matter how much you lie about it. 2600:8802:3A12:E700:443D:5588:38BA:EEB3 (talk) 20:48, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia summarizes what reliable sources say. If you think the article does not reflect what is said in reliable sources, you can try to fix it. If you think the sources are unreliable, you can try to challenge them (we have a place for that - WP:RSN). Calling us liars is not going to accomplish anything. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 20:53, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I'll refer you to this article. I think you are letting some personal bias impact your thoughts on this issue. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:54, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Your racist narratives wanted this to be a Black American riot. The media refused to classify Gavin CATO (a Spanish name) as a South American boy. Do you know where Guyana is? It's not America's 51st state. How is he Black American? 2600:8802:3A12:E700:CD98:4710:36DD:848C (talk) 21:00, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. I suspect that you think that administrators control Wikipedia: that's not really the case: they have access to certain tools that other editors don't (including deleting articles and blocking users) but generally operate according to a consensus of editors. Setting and changing policy is not done by administrators, but by editors (including the admins) in discussion.

We certainly have millions of articles that are unsatisfactory, and a proportion of those will certainly contains errors. 331dot is right that you can talk about problems with individual articles on those articles' talk pages. But if there is some more general issue you want to discuss, the Village pump is probably the best place. ColinFine (talk) 19:32, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

See Reliability of Wikipedia and Wikipedia:General disclaimer. David notMD (talk) 19:34, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

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

Information Hunting

So, I am pretty new to Wikipedia. I was asking about tips and tricks that people use to find helpful sources to expand on a page. It seems like for every piece of information I find, someone has already discussed or talked about. Is it usually a hard process to find new information or is there something that I am missing that could help enhance my knowledge? Any information is greatly appreciated.

Thank you Devin Bender (talk) 22:47, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

yeah it is hard - what types of pages are you primarily looking to edit? LegalSmeagolian (talk) 22:57, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Devin Bender, it certainly can be hard to find, from reliable sources, information about popular subjects that neither has already been added to the relevant articles nor is mere trivia. But I've never had trouble finding subjects that clearly don't interest many other Wikipedia editors but do interest me. Which subject areas are of interest to you? -- Hoary (talk) 22:58, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

@Devin Bender It really helps to read some articles about how to use Google and other search engines effectively. (Try some of these). Having basic skills at searching for (or exclude) particular set words or phrases, or using Google Books to find Reliable Sources is a very valuable skill to acquire for a Wikipedian.

There are literally tens of thousands of articles (if not millions) of articles that need people like you to use their search skills to find and add citations to unsupported statements in articles. All these articles have been flagged up in one way or another. Here's just one tip to find ideas for you to work on:

• In desktop mode, next to your User Page tab, you'll see a 'Homepage' tab. Click on it.
• It will offer you 'suggested edits' to make. But before you do anything else you ned to click on 'Easy Edits' and deselect all the options shown.
• Now, in 'Medium edits' select only the box marked Find references (sources for existing articles)
• Click 'Done', and now you can rapidly scroll through around 20,000 suggested article titles that need improving with citations until you find titles that interest or intrigue you.

...the rest is up to you!

Hoping this is of interest. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:36, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Finding sources is tricky, and it can take some practice. A lot of it depends on what types of articles you're working on. For most subjects, you can use Google Scholar or a similar academic search engine, especially if you have access to paywalled articles (check with your university and your local library, they usually offer some form of digital access). News articles are useful for current events, but make sure they're from reliable outlets. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources gives a rough idea of how reliable different sources are considered to be. And as Nick said above, Google Books is incredibly helpful. One other valuable resource that every Wikipedian should know: The Internet Archive. It can give you access to old webpages that might otherwise have disappeared, and it has a huge collection of books available to borrow for free. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:55, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

oh yes - a very good point. The Wayback Machine is wonderful for retrieving non-functioning links and finding new ones that work (or linking to archived versions). Never delete a dead link, as this can still be used by others to find current sources. Just flag it as dead like this: . Nick Moyes (talk) 00:02, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

how to find suggested highlighted edits from the Wiki editor

I received my article back, declined, with some places in the footnotes marked in red, I need to see what was marked in order to see what I need to correct. Now I can't find the view that had these red letter markings, just the draft in regular black and blue. Where can I find this version? Florence S. Boos (talk) 01:44, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Florence S. Boos, I think you're asking about some aspect(s) of Draft:William Thompson Boos; unfortunately, I don't quite understand which. Perhaps somebody brighter than me will be able to help. Meanwhile, and independently of that, your user page looks like an article draft. Please either (A) move it (e.g. to User:Florence S. Boos/Florence S. Boos, or Draft:Florence S. Boos) and work on it as a draft, or (B) alter it so that it does not look like an article draft. -- Hoary (talk) 02:04, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

It was an article submission of a draft: William Thompson Boos, and the submission was rejected. Shall I still move it under my name? This could be confusing because I had to submit a self-description, and I don't want the two to be confused.

The issue is that the editor sent it back to me, but with markup. I can't find his markup, and I need this to make the revisions. Florence S. Boos (talk) 02:09, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Want to link to a YouTube page of Michael Scott from the Office on my userpage... whitelist?

I want to link to a YouTube page on my user page. It is a fun and short clip talking about wikipedia. I thought it would be cute to include on my userpage, but the site is blocked. I get it. It's YouTube, probably should be blocked, but I want to include just this one clip. Please help me to whitelist it for my user page.

Since I can't even paste the link here for informative purposes, if you google , "Michael Scott on wikipedia", it is a 13 second clip with about 609,000 views as of this writing. That is the exact link I want to include on my userpage as a light hearted little reference to the project that we are all working on in the brackets with the 'here' word on my userpage. TY — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 03:38, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

@Moops, full YouTube links are not blocked, but ones put through URL shorteners often are. Is this the link you wanted? 1 97.126.96.89 (talk) 03:57, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes. I will try that now then. TY — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 03:58, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Got it up. My request is satisfied. Should I delete this post then now that it has been fulfilled? TY — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 04:05, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

@Moops: No need to do that. The information here may be useful to others. The "why can't I link to Youtube" question does come up now and then because the URL shortener domain youtu.be is blocked. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:10, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I guess a follow up question then... Why is the shortener blocked, when the full URL is not? Seems silly, but maybe I am missing something. TY — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 04:12, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Edited Draft:SM City Bacoor

not done to edit help in teahouse 112.206.193.27 (talk) 04:14, 10 February 2023 (UTC)