Wikipedia:Teahouse

AlanM1, 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

Important articles not yet reviewed

Hi, I recently created two articles on Wikipedia that are not "Patrolled" by anyone. However, both are important and are currently being searched on Google. The articles are about the Bhagwa Love Trap conspiracy theory, which is a topic trending on social media; another is about Sampat Prakash, a renowned Kashmiri Pandit and Trade Unionist who passed away on July 1, 2023. Kindly do the needful. ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 02:03, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

TheChunky Teahouse Hosts are not New Page Patrol reviewers. Only after your articles have been NPP approved or lacking a review, 90 days pass, would the articles be visible to search via Google pr other. Per your Talk page, you are an experienced NPP reviewer, and know all about this. David notMD (talk) 03:31, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a news source or social medial There is no deadline. ColinFine (talk) 10:46, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

there is a deadline.

these are fun twins. 85.147.66.47 (talk) 00:07, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I wish to add information about Prof Ram Takwale, How can I do it

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ram_G._Takwale Usp.uday (talk) 05:37, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Usp.uday Your changes to Ram G. Takwale were reverted because what you did was capitalize words that should not be capitalized. You are permitted to add new information, but it must be referenced. Separately, I have concerns that you were also editing the article as User:USP Panchpor and User:Usp pn. This is forbidden. Use only one account. David notMD (talk) 10:56, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I did not release this. I will delete one of the account and maintain only one account. Can you help in understanding the method of referencing the new information Usp.uday (talk) 11:40, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello again, Usp.uday. Accounts cannot be deleted, but you can simply stop using two of the accounts and stick to one of them.

For referencing, see WP:REFB. ColinFine (talk) 12:59, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. NmWTfs85lXusaybq reverted your edit, and several by Usp pn and USP Panchpor, with the comment "Vandalism". While that comment does not seem right, and I would caution NmWTfs85lXusaybq to read carefully what Wikipedia means by vandalism, much of what they reverted was unsourced information.

The proper thing for all of you to do now is to discuss the matter on Talk:Ram G. Takwale and attempt to reach consensus. I have pinged all the editors involved here, so you will see this item; but please continue any discussion on the talk page, not here. ColinFine (talk) 10:56, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I commented their edits by "Vandalism" because they placed external links (may be spamming) in the template link, inappropriately capitalized words and added unsourced material with an obvious sockpuppetry confirmed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Usp pn. I'm not sure if Usp pn or Usp.uday is their sockmaster. Usp pn is inferred to be the sockmaster from their edit history. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 14:02, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Besides that, the potential of their WP:COI with Ram G. Takwale should be concerned because of their sockpuppetry. USP Panchpor and Usp.uday are obvious SPAs for Ram G. Takwale while they use Usp.uday to comment here. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 14:11, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks you so much for your understanding. I am slowly learning the process. Usp.uday (talk) 11:42, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

You wrote "I am slowly learning the process." but if one of your accounts is Usp pn, that has existed since 2008, and was editing Ram G Takwale back in 2012. All three accounts may be indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry. If you are left with one, I strongly recommend abandoning any efforst to edit the article in question, and instead turn to other articles that need improvement. David notMD (talk) 15:28, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Professor Takwale was mentor and so I wish to edit the information. I have worked with him for more than 15 years USP Panchpor (talk) 09:44, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

@USP Panchpor: Welcome to the Teahouse. If you have worked with him for more than 15 years, I would exercise caution about directly editing the article as you have a conflict of interest. I strongly suggest you use an edit request to make suggestions instead. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:36, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Citing an offline source, inserting a digital version of a newspaper.

Hi! Could you tell me how to include offline sources in a Wikipedia article draft? I have digital newspaper articles, can I include them as images in the article or in the bibliography section? Thank you! Franca47 (talk) 10:13, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

@Franca47 Do not upload copies of the articles unless they are very old - 75 to 100 years depending on the country of origin. Doing so would most probably violate the newspaper's copyright. You can use {{cite news}} to provide the necessary reference details; newspaper title, article title, date, author, page number, etc. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:26, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Franca47. I'm afraid it would not be OK to insert any image of a newspaper article into Wikipedia pages, as the content would be copyright. The only exceptions might be a) if it was an image of a very old newspaper which had gone out of its copyright period (often around 70 years - I'd have to check) or b) if you were using an image of a newspaper front page to illustrate an article about that particular newspaper. Then it would need to be inserted directly into the Wikipedia article, and not placed on Wikimedia Commons, as it would need a WP:FAIRUSE rationale to justify inclusion of a copyrighted content into a Wikipedia article (and not a draft). I hope this has answered your question? Please be more specific if you need further advice. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:27, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello Franca47, and welcome to the Teahouse. The bit that neither Dodger nor Nick has explicitly said is that sources do not need to be online. As long as they are available somewhere (eg in large libraries) and the citation gives enough information for a reader to find them, that is enough. In most cases, a URL is a convenience for the reader not a critical part of the citation. ColinFine (talk) 11:04, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Specifically, if you have a link to the digital article, add it in the url= section of the template (or in the box under URL in the visual template editor, depending on what you're using). An article I primarily wrote that was promoted to GA recently, Hurricane Heather, has a fair amount of these links if you want a reference point. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 01:25, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't think they would have asked the question if they had a link to the digital article. ColinFine (talk) 09:33, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

New Tittle for my self please - John

Hallo

My Name is John A, M, i am musician, and online ecommerce person. I just want to create an article for myself. My first attempt to write article wasn't successful some time back before pandemic.

I try to contact few writing company but the prices put me off. I wonder if there is any assistance around TEAHOUSE.

I will real appreciate if i can get some one to give me some advice on where to start.

As you might have seen my profile name is Njiwa Jogoo, but in real, those are just my AKA's.

Thank you all for the best work you do. Wikipedia have been like my second home online for a loong time.

best regards

John Njiwa Jogoo (talk) 18:39, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Have you read the autobiography policy as well as this page? 331dot (talk) 18:40, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

And regarding "few writing company" I suggest you read this. Shantavira|^{feed me} 19:50, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

You need reliable secondary sources about yourself and you have to be wp:notable.

If you're not notable, there is nothing you can do to get a wikipedia article. 85.147.66.47 (talk) 00:18, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Linking to a foreign language Wikisource page

Is there a way to link to a foreign language Wikisource page using Template:Wikisource-inline? I want to include this page as an external link here. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 06:15, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Fikaia, and welcome to the Teahouse. It seems to me from reading the documentation, that you ought to be able to use links=[[:el:s:Φαρμακεύτριαι]], but I haven't tried it. ColinFine (talk) 09:36, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

{{Wikisourcelang-inline}}. Folly Mox (talk) 10:49, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Question about CSS

Resolved

 – QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 07:26, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I recently changed my global.css to include the following:

.extiw{
	color: #ff0080;
}

.extiw:visited{
	color: #ff69b4;
}

with extiw being the class for interwiki links.

However, I still see interwiki links as blue instead of the hot pink that I expected them to be. I cleared my browser cache, but it still isn't showing up correctly. Custom CSS for Redirects does seem to be working however.

Thanks in advance, --QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 07:20, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Got it! Needed to add !important --QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 07:26, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

References

Article

My article has been declined as the article heading was common to other article but th3e content is going to be different from the already present one but I want to add few external links to it with reference. Guide me to write a new and prefect article. Tejal98 (talk) 07:49, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

No, Tejal98, it wasn't declined because "the article heading was common to other article". It was deleted, for multiple reasons. One of these was copyright violation. -- Hoary (talk) 09:05, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Tejal98, Hoary is correct and Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Do not violate copyright again. In addition, we already have an article about Saguna Baug, as you know since you have edited it. The Articles for Creation process is for new topics and content should never be submitted there when an article already exists. Cullen328 (talk) 09:14, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

why my article got rejected

why my article got rejected Anjana anna (talk) 08:23, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

You submitted a blank sandbox User:Anjana anna/sandbox there is no content so nothing to review and accept. Theroadislong (talk) 08:28, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Is it possible that you had created content about India, but forgot to click on Publish - which acts as Save - before submitting a blank Sandbox? David notMD (talk) 11:48, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Retrive a page that had been deleted

Hi, I'm Aayushma Sharma, and I would like to request the undeletion of the Draft:Wibool Piyawattanametha deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page so that I can make edits to it. It was deleted by user Liz before. Thank you. Aayushma Sharma (talk) 08:43, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Aayushma Sharma Hello and welcome. Please make your request at WP:REFUND. 331dot (talk) 08:48, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Aayushma Sharma, 331dot said pretty much what I had been about to say until five minutes ago, when I realized that there was already an article, Wibool Piyawattanametha, about the same person. (You should know about this, as you created it.) You might work to improve the existing article. Or if you still want access to the draft in order to help you improve the article, be sure to make this clear when you ask for the "refund". -- Hoary (talk) 09:00, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

hey, i am the owner of the page you have mentioned. i recently completed the draft the wanted to submit for review. however, while i was trying to submit it pops up this screen with the message "

A page with this title has previously been moved or deleted.

If you are creating a new page with different content, please continue. If you are recreating a page similar to the previously deleted page, or are unsure, please first contact the user(s) who performed the action(s) listed below.

• 18:29, 7 August 2022 Liz talk contribs deleted page Draft:Wibool Piyawattanametha (G13: Abandoned draft or AfC submission – If you wish to retrieve it, please see WP:REFUND/G13) Tag: Twinkle (thank)"

Aayushma Sharma (talk) 09:06, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

and when i tried to publish it, idk what happened but the link redirects onto the talk page instead. i want to redirect to article. please provide me some suggestions. Aayushma Sharma (talk) 09:08, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Just for your information, pages do not have owners, even the writer. Pages belong to the community as a whole. 331dot (talk) 09:13, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I wanted to say I created that page instead. Sorry for the misplacement of words. 161.246.149.110 (talk) 09:16, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Aayushma Sharma, if you work for KMITL, you're going to need to make the mandatory paid editing disclosure. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:06, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Cruft

I wanted to nominate Jordan Maron to GA. However, I'm unsure how to tell if there is too much cruft on the page. A previous article about a YouTuber I nominated was quickfailed. — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 09:40, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Display, Reader or Download?

When you want to add a reference for a document from somewhere like CORE, which link for the document would you use?

• The Display version - Which is just a summary of what's in the article.
• The Reader version - Which can be read online, without the need to download.
• The Download version - Which can also be read online, without the need to download.

Danstarr69 (talk) 10:00, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm struggling to differentiate between the second two versions you've presented, but in general for cases like this, where a publishing service has an info page from which you can access the full text of the publication, we tend to link to the info page. This is where a DOI will usually point, allows the site to change how it stores and presents publications without causing link rot, and is usually in front of any paywall, rather than behind. Linking to webpages instead of (e.g.) PDFs also increases accessibility. Hope that helps. Folly Mox (talk) 20:17, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Folly Mox Sometimes PDF links (and links for other files) automatically download when I click on them. However the download link on CORE doesn't automatically download.

I'm not entirely sure what your answer is, but as I've finished what I was doing, here's some specific examples:

• Here's the Display version, with the summary https://core.ac.uk/display/4898275
• Here's the Reader version, with no options to download https://core.ac.uk/reader/4898275
• Here's the Download version, with an option to download/print https://core.ac.uk/download/4898275.pdf

Danstarr69 (talk) 21:28, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Ok thank you for demonstrating the difference between versions. It's probably best to point your url to the Display version. That's what we typically do if there's a summary page, and you can see the DOI is visible on that page. I apologise if my answer was unclear. Is there a specific bit I can try to explain better? Sometimes I don't express myself well. Folly Mox (talk) 21:44, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Folly Mox I suspected you meant the display page, but I wanted to make sure.

With things like Google Books, where sometimes all of a book is available to read, and sometimes just some of a book is available to read, I usually use the link where you can read the book/page itself, rather than the description/front cover page...

...As a recent example I came across on Google Books (I can't remember what book), didn't seem have a link to the readable bits of the book on the description/front cover page. Unless there's simple way to get the pages of the book from the description/front cover page which I don't entirely understand, as I usually stumble across these readable Google Books links from the Google Search itself.

However with websites like CORE it seems to have everything, as both the Readable version and the Download version are displayed on the Display version, unlike Google Books, therefore any of the links seem decent. Danstarr69 (talk) 22:09, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah that's very true that any of the three links would be good to put in your citation template. Google books is a very different beast than CORE. Google books is mostly non-open content, although you can often get results on pages that cannot be previewed in full by using the "search within this book" functionality. Links to the overall Google book entry also allow you to cite multiple pages within the book without needing to provide a different URL for each separate page number, which causes a lot of reference bloat and information duplication.

It seems like CORE is mostly open content, so linking to the Display page has a number of benefits: readers can choose whether they want to download the PDF or read the full text in the publisher's reader thingy; the publisher can choose to restructure the URLs for the full text versions without breaking the link; the publisher can choose to paywall the full text and we would still have access to the abstract and publication information; and any citation created from the DOI will point to the Display page.

Not linking directly to the full text does require readers to perform a second navigation task, but it's my opinion that the benefits of linking the Display page outweigh that, and it's also our most common practice here. Folly Mox (talk) 22:27, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

self propelled shark proof cage.

I have supplied three secondary sources of information and they have not been listed Also the name of the inventor of the shark cage,( number 4166462.) James M Ellis of Port Lincoln south Australia, is not listed. regards Margesson (talk) 11:15, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Margesson and welcome back to the Teahouse. Were you logged-in when you made the edits? I can only see Teahouse interaction in your list of contributions. Nothing at Shark cage diving or the article's talk page. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 11:22, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

HI esoteric. 

I thought I was logged in.

Will try again.

I have been asked to add a secondary source which I thought I had done. I sent three articles to someone.

Who do I forward them to.

Regards Margeson Margesson (talk) 12:17, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Previous thread: Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_1192#who invented the shark cage. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 11:30, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Margesson, if you're saying that somebody here should add the information you supplied in Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_1192#who invented the shark cage to the article Shark cage diving, no. It's for you to post an edit request in Talk:Shark cage diving. Please make the request as precise as possible, and complete with references. -- Hoary (talk) 11:45, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Shark cage diving includes a subsection: "On September 4, 1979, US patent number 4166462 was issued for a self-propelled shark-proof cage;[6][7] being designed to allow abalone divers to collect abalone without becoming vulnerable to attack.[6] Thanks to the propulsion system, abalone divers would exert themselves less and, therefore, be able to collect their prey for longer periods of time.[6] The patent abstract details a self-propelled cage with at least one access opening and a mounting frame that carries both an air motor and a propeller. Buoyant material is attached to the frame so that the cage may be made neutrally buoyant.[6] This patent expired on September 4, 1996.[6]" Both references name James M. Ellis as the inventor. I see no need for his name to also be in the article, as the refs are sufficient. David notMD (talk) 11:53, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I disagree.

The name of the inventor should be listed with the patent number and description.

Regards 2001:8003:B081:F900:D491:BF4C:AD98:C4C (talk) 12:51, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

As advised above, you should really make an edit request at the article's talk page. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 12:59, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi Margesson, if you feel strongly that the paragraph on self-propelled cages should remain in the article on shark cage diving you have two options: either find a good secondary source, or tiptoe quietly away and hope no one notices the article! The current situation isn't great. The paragraph is sourced to a patent and to a MentalFloss article. The problem with patents is that an enormous number of things get patented, but never make any impression on the world. For this reason, a patent is viewed here as a primary source, merely indicating that someone once had an idea - it doesn't mean that anyone picked up the idea and did anything with it, to the extent that an encyclopaedia would write about it. We are not interested in the millions of ideas that got patented and never used; we need proof that the idea was written-about, at least considered seriously by someone other than its inventor. The MentalFloss article is secondary and independent, but it's of the light-hearted click-bait sort, "here are some things you didn't know about a concept we thought might grab your eye", and it says nothing apart from the fact a patent exists. It's very weak. What you really need is a write-up from a nature, diving, or recreational magazine describing how some organisations actually use self-propelled cages, or something similar. Elemimele (talk) 16:43, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your assistance

A secondary source article.

The book AB YARNS. 50 years of blowing bubbles( 1969-2019)

History and folklore of the south Australia western zone abalone fishery. Eric Kotz. All the divers use the shark proof cage. I will forward some more facts.

Regards margesson Margesson (talk) 00:17, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

The page numbers of the book AB YARNS. under the headings

The evolution of the shark cage. 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97.

Also on Jim Ellis who conceived built and patented the shark proof diving cage pages 211 212 213 214.Thanks again

Regards margesson Margesson (talk) 03:33, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion

Hi. Been a long time user. I was wondering ( and I've searched for a bir before coming to the Teahouse) if it's possible to filter out certain pages from the "Random" function. Imagine, for example, I have no interest in Sports. What I'd like to be able to do is to set a filter as to not get any results for "Sports" when I click to generate a Random article. I know this would require all articles to be classified acording to subject, but that probably already takes place. So, I believe you catch my gist. Thanks for any reply, thanks for making Wikipedia great! :) 93.63.145.35 (talk) 11:50, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. That's not something I'd ever thought about, so I visited WP:RANDOM. Although it can't do what you asked about, it did point me to WP:Enhanced Random Article. There I saw that one can change certain settings to exclude some types of article. Then, a visit to its Talk page showed that someone had asked about that very same question (albeit no reply). I suggest you might liek to add your voice to get that suggestion highlighted. Of course, there might be other scripts that do similar, so the list of scripts could be worth checking out, too. If that doesn't yield anything, you could repeat the question at WP:VPT, lest someone is aware of any alternative solution.

I must admit that the complete randomness is one of the things that puts me off using it; it would be nice to have a random article offered within a somewhat narrower category of topic. regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 13:09, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

The option to produce random articles within a certain set of categories you specify is offered by the template {{Random page in category}}. It uses a toolforge call which you may find easier to use directly at this URL where there is additional documentation. I don't think it can be used to give "anything EXCEPT sports". Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:16, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

There's also a page in the Special namespace with similar functionality: Special:RandomInCategory. Unfortunately it does make you pick a single category to include, rather than one or more to exclude. Folly Mox (talk) 13:46, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Would this be worth an RFC?

See this edit request. I've never added the RFC template before, and would rather not get socially annihilated if I invoked it for some bad reason. Deauthorized. ^(talk) 12:16, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia:RFCBEFORE might give some guidance in this matter, and also consider notifying Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism and/or WP:THIRD. Just bear in mind that the article is a contentious topic. ContributeToTheWiki (talk • contribs) 14:59, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Deauthorized, I think all you need to do is verify a citation, and see whether the current version or suggested version is accurate. You don't need an RfC for that, just an editor who can read Hebrew. It looks like the text is old and public domain, so accessibility shouldn't be an issue. Posting a question to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism is probably all that's needed, unless you have trouble attracting any editor to the task. Folly Mox (talk) 22:54, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I'll probably ask there sometime later then. Appreciated. Deauthorized. ^(talk) 22:55, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Help with citation errors

Hello there! I am currently translating a draft, and I have encountered several errors on 2 citations in particular: Citation 7 and Citation 10.

I know it's because of some invisible characters, but I can't for the life of me find them or remove them. Any help would be much appreciated! --QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 12:32, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

@QuickQuokka Welcome to the Teahouse. When I view your citation using WP:Source Editor, I see a myriad of red characters used as spaces in the quotes. If you can't see them, I suggest you work through all the quoted text and manually replace them with a normal space character. That should fix it. Although it may not show here, this text contains those red characters which, evidently, the reference creation process doesn't like

(sample: text

Раз­би­ра се, всич­ко то­ва вър­ви пон­яко­га под опа­ков­ка­та, че те ува­жа­ва­т граж­дан­ска­та иде­нтич­нос­) Hope this helps, Nick Moyes (talk) 12:58, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: I do not see red characters in the source editor (I have syntax highlighting enabled), and I did replace all the spaces, but that did nothing. --QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 13:13, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

@QuickQuokka OK. Let me do it for you. There's over 100 of them. Might take me a few minutes. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:18, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

@QuickQuokka Right - that was interesting. I gave up doing it manually. So first I tried copying the source code into MS Notepad, but that didn't work. So I repeated by pasting the source code into MS Wordpad. I then copied one of (what I was seeing as) the red characters, and did a Find/Raplce in Wordpad. That did identify them and replace them with plain old hard spaces. I then replaced the text of your draft with the cleaned up text and saved that edit. The warning messages have now gone.

I can't explain why I was seeing them, and you were not if, as you say, you had "Syntax Highlighting" enabled in the editing tool. The purple reference text and red dots turn back to being black text and clear spaces when I turn off syntax highlighting in desktop view in Chrome, and reappear again when I hit the sloping grey pencil icon to turn syntax highlighting on again. To be frank: I never edit in source code with it off. Hope this has helped. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:31, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Buffalo AKG Art Museum

The museum has been given a new name (formerly Albright Knox Art Gallery) and i try to add info on the renovation and namechanging into the German wikipedia-article on the museum. But i have difficulties to understand of which buildings the museum consists. In English-articles various places are given, also with asigned names, but i still have difficulties to understand the structure and i would love to have a list of the buildings. And even better would be if someone would visit the museum and take pictures for commons so that we could add pictures into the article. Can anyone help me? Naomi Hennig (talk) 13:05, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

are you asking people to visit the museum for you?? lettherebedarklight晚安 13:28, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

@Naomi Hennig Welcome to the Teahouse. I think these suggestions are best made at the relevant talk page. I assume you'd hope visitors might add to the existing image collection found here? I'm afraid your request is really not suited to the Teahouse, as this is a help forum aimed at assisting people with using the Wikipedia editing tools, not actually to research content matters. But thank you for dropping by. Good luck with your work! Nick Moyes (talk) 13:37, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, Nick Moyes, i did not know that. Yes, i really would be thankful if someone could add the newly renovated buildings and pictures from inside. I guess, i will just call the museum and ask if they would give us some pictures. I'm sorry, i did write this request on the wrong page, please excuse me! Naomi Hennig (talk) 19:41, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi again Naomi Hennig. No worries. However, please don't ask the museum to send you the pictures to upload. Instead invite them to upload them themselves (as they are the copyright holders, not you) or, as kif they would be prepared to complete one of outrstandard release forms and email them to the right section shere o twe can upload them on their behalf, and their release form can be checked and approved as part of that process. We take copyright ownership very seriously, so you can't simply upload them on their behalf as it would be you who would be claiming image ownership, and that would not be true. It would also be sensible to specify what image gaps you have identified that they can fill, rather than simply say Give me lots of pictures!

Note: I'm going to have to ask a fellow host to supply the link to the release form as I am being called away as I write this. I'll check back later and add it if nobody else has. regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:54, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Nick Moyes, i take rightholderissues very seriously as well as i used to work as a journalist, when i was still working... i thought, i just then - if they are willing to accept the licence - , send them the email which they have to send to permissions? When i use the upload wizzard, it always asks where the picture is from and who is the rightholder, so the procedure should be okay?! Naomi Hennig (talk) 20:59, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

@Naomi Hennig The problem with you saying where the picture is from when using the upload wizard is that this doesn't give you the right to release the copyright: only the owner can do that and your naming them doesn't help unless they also contact the volunteers on Commons who keep track of these things. The way for copyright holders to release material to Commons is via the email templates listed at c:Commons:Email templates. That page has a full description of how to do things, which includes the possibility that you upload files on the copyright holders behalf and have them contact Commons in a separate step. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:45, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Of course it is not me that has the copyright, that is why i send them the email to send to permissions and meanwhile add the "pending" template - and when the permissions-people have received the permission of the museum, they change the info on the page of the picture. We do have a template for the mails we send to rightholders in the German wikipedia and even the text in English as well. But we don't even know yet whether the museum is at all willing to give us the permission - i have to wait until 4 pm my time to be able to talk to someone there. Maybe they don't want to give the permission. I'll keep you updated. I guess, i already uploaded 100 pictures to commons and as said, i'm very concerned about rightholder-issues and of course do follow the protocoll every time!!! Trust me a bit :-) Naomi Hennig (talk) 12:13, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Visual editor

Hi, why I don't have a visual editor? It suggests only edit source. I can't attach an e-mail here. Actually the interface is very confusing :( Grigory M (talk) 14:15, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

@Grigory M You have to set it up in your preferences at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:18, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, I have preferences like these

https://ibb.co/L5XYQQG Grigory M (talk) 14:25, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

@Grigory M That seems to show you have chosen "remember my last editor". You need to choose one of the other options! Note that the VE doesn't work on Talk Pages, it's mainly useful in article space. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:31, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

thanks, that helped Grigory M (talk) 14:35, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Reliable secondary sources

An article I submitted abut a playwright needs more reliable secondary sources to be accepted. Can you please help me with what does and doesn't qualify? I realize this is a multi-part question, so thanks in advance for your help.

Are the following acceptable sources:

- Reviews in newspapers and online (e.g. N.Y. Times, Albany Union Times, Playbill, Backstage, Library Journal, etc.)

- Publisher websites (e.g. Random House, Dramatists Play Service, etc.) that list the author's works. Some may add reviews, a bio and synopses.

- IMDB

- A college student’s honors project that analyzes one of the author's works

- Online blog interviews, e.g. “I Interview Playwrights” by Adam Szymkowicz who has interviewed 1100 playwrights

Anything else that would be helpful to know?

Thanks again. ArtsAdventurer (talk) 15:02, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi ArtsAdventurer let's take a look at your list:

- Reviews in newspapers and online (e.g. N.Y. Times, Albany Union Times, Playbill, Backstage, Library Journal, etc.)

• Yes, these are mainstream press sources and are usually acceptable.

- Publisher websites (e.g. Random House, Dramatists Play Service, etc.) that list the author's works. Some may add reviews, a bio and synopses.

• No, publishers have a direct interest in selling the works.

- IMDB

• No, the content of IMDB is user-generated with little or no editorial oversight

- A college student’s honors project that analyzes one of the author's works

• No, unless it gets published in a recognised journal after peer review. Run-of-the-mill student works are not rigorously reviewed or generally published in journals or similar outlets. However, occasionally a Ph.D. thesis does attract the attention of subject experts who might comment on it, such commentary and critique may be useful.

- Online blog interviews, e.g. “I Interview Playwrights” by Adam Szymkowicz who has interviewed 1100 playwrights

• No, interviews are primary sources.

Hope this helps Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:22, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Roger! That's very helpful, and I definitely appreciate it. A few last questions, if that's ok...

- Some of the author's older works were produced, published and reviewed several years ago, or pre-internet, so finding online sources is more difficult. The same is true with some awards. How is it best to handle those? If something doesn’t have a specific citation, do I cut it?

- Some works or awards have a very basic listing on a website, e.g., a brief listing by the British Film Institute, a famous artist colony, or an awards website. But the listing includes no discussion of the work. Are those citations worth including?

- An article briefly mentions the author, but it is mostly about the subject of a musical they wrote and gives historical context. Is that helpful to include?

- The university that the author graduated is briefly mentioned in an article but not discussed. Do I still include it?

Thanks again! Happy 4th! ArtsAdventurer (talk) 15:57, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Reliable references that minimally discuss the subject can be added but will not contribute to notablility. And I would mention the university as long as the source doesn't come from him or the university. ✶Mitch199811✶ 16:08, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Mitch. ArtsAdventurer (talk) 16:24, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

ArtsAdventurer, you wrote Some of the author's older works were produced, published and reviewed several years ago, or pre-internet. There is no requirement that article sources be available online. When citing offline sources, the most important factor is to provide complete bibliographic information about the source. Please read Wikipedia:Offline sources for the details. Cullen328 (talk) 17:04, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

ArtsAdventurer BFI Collections https://collections-search.bfi.org.uk/web is better than the standard BFI website, plus it's where they're adding/moving most of their stuff today.

It includes short summaries most of the time (and occasionally long synopsis') which the standard site doesn't contain.

However it's wording for credits rarely match what's written on screen ie "written by" (on-screen) vs "script" (BFI), plus it's not always correct with the type of credits, for example today on some 60+ year old TV episodes I've noticed that:

• One person was listed as a presenter by the BFI, but was listed as a reporter by the BBC Programme Index.
• One person was listed as a narrator by the BFI, but was listed as a reporter by the BBC Programme Index.

I'm not sure who is correct (as the BBC Programme Index lists people as unknown a lot of the time, plus they contain a lot of spelling/grammar mistakes), but as it's a BBC show, I added them as the BBC Programme Index said. However the second person was definitely a voice credit going off the episode description on both, as he reported/narrated on something happening in a country he wasn't in.

I've now just remembered that the BFI said that a producer was both the director and the producer on an episode. However the BBC said that someone else was the director. Danstarr69 (talk) 21:00, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

@Danstarr69 I think you have the wrong thread. ✶Mitch199811✶ 21:02, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Mitch199811 I have the right thread, I just tagged the wrong person.

"- Some works or awards have a very basic listing on a website, e.g., a brief listing by the British Film Institute, a famous artist colony, or an awards website. But the listing includes no discussion of the work. Are those citations worth including?" Danstarr69 (talk) 21:05, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, for the confusion. ✶Mitch199811✶ 21:07, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Font size changes

How do I increase the font size to Wikipedia's page, not necessarily items in left and right borders? Squay (talk) 16:35, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Most browsers allow you to change the display font size. The pattern is often CTRL+ for larger, CTRL- for smaller, and CTRL 0 for default size. I don't believe there is any such facility in Wikipedia itself. ColinFine (talk) 18:56, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

@Squay: There is actually a way to change only the font size in articles. You can create your common.css page, and place only the exact text #mw-content-text p { font-size: 1em; } on that page – to alter the font size you can change the 1 to any other value like 1.5, which would make the font 1.5 times larger than normal. Tollens (talk) 17:34, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I cannot seem to correctly write the classification list.

I cannot write the classification list for Eaukaryotes. Nephellium (talk) 18:50, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Nephellium, and welcome to the Teahouse. Your question is not very clear, but I'm guessing that this is about Draft:Nephelium aculeatum, and that you are referring to the Taxobox. Please see Template:Taxobox for how to use this. (It may be worth viewing, or even copying, the relevant part of the source of an article on a similar organism, and then making changes as necessary).

For how to do references, please see WP:REFB. A generalised reference to a resource, rather than to a specific page or entry, is not usually regarded as very useful.

I always advise new editors to spend some time making improvements to existing articles and learning how Wikipedia works before trying the very challenging task of creating a new article. ColinFine (talk) 19:02, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! Nephellium (talk) 19:25, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Finding who to write about

Hi there, I am interested in Canadian businesspeople and politicians, and I have written a few drafts but am struggling to find people to write about that are notable enough but also do not already have a wiki page. Is there a forum somewhere that has names of people who should have wikis (because of notability) but do not yet? Thanks Qgrunklebert (talk) 20:03, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Qgrunklebert. Wikipedia:Requested articles is a place to get ideas. However, there is no guarantee that the topics listed there are truly notable. If an editor has done enough research to be sure that a topic is notable, then it is a fairly easy matter to write the article. My sense is that most requests come from inexperienced editors who lack the skills to assess notability or write an acceptable new article. At least it is a source of ideas. Here are subpages related to your areas of interest, Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics and Wikipedia:Requested articles/Biographies/Political figures. Worth noting is that national and provincial legislators have a strong presumption of notability according to the notability guideline for politicians. You should be able to find many 19th century and early 20th century Canadian parliamentarians who lack biographies. Cullen328 (talk) 20:21, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Also applicable is Wikipedia:Requested articles/Biography/By nationality#Canada. Cullen328 (talk) 20:24, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Qgrunklebert, the Women in Red project keeps lists of women who might be notable but don't have articles. Here is the list for women from Canada. But like any article, make sure you check for sources before you create it so you can make sure the person is notable. And make sure that the sources you use are independent from the people you write about; their own personal website and promotional material don't count. Alternatively, you could add things to articles that already exist so you don't have to worry about notability. Here is a list of Canadian businesspeople who have really short articles which need more content. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:47, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Check out petscan and search other language wikis for Canadians who don't have an english page but do have a lot of links directed to them.

There should be an example of this query for english into dutch. 85.147.66.47 (talk) 00:28, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

@Qgrunklebert:, another way to find them, is to mine foreign Wikipedias for articles that they have, which we don't. There's a tool that will help do this, by category. It will create a list of articles in your area of interest that do not exist in English, and then you can write those. (If you are bilingual and can read the foreign article, then you can translate it into English.)

Using this tool for Politicians in Quebec will get you a list of 257 politicians without English articles, that do have articles in French. See, for example, list of the first 100 Canadian politicians from Quebec who do not have articles on English Wikipedia. (Hit next to get another 100.)

So, how do you get to that link?

Let's try this out. Say you are interested in "politicians in Quebec":

1. The category for this is: Category:Politicians in Quebec
2. This category is available in 9 languages (left sidebar on desktop), including Arabic, Chinese, French, and six more. Let's pick French, as the most likely language to have articles we don't.
3. Clicking French gets you to Catégorie:Personnalité politique québécoise. Copy the category name after the colon: Personnalité politique québécoise.
4. Go to Not in the other language tool at Toolforge.
5. In the top row, for 'In language' type fr
6. In the next row, type en for 'Not in language'
7. For 'Category tree', paste the saved value Personnalité politique québécoise, and for 'Depth' (same line) type 2.
8. Leave 'Page title' and 'Page pile' blank
9. Set Output Format=HTML.
10. Click Do It.

That will give you the list above. Hope this helps! Mathglot (talk) 07:21, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE and factual detail

I'll phrase this as a hypothetical because it's a bit hard to explain:

After a widely covered public divorce, an artist, who is a multi-talented dancer, puts out a statement on their marriage while break-dancing. The statement is also widely covered with the breakdancing specifically included in many RS headlines and present in the text of all of them?

The question: Is it undue to specify that the genre of dance was breakdancing when describing the artist's statement as it could be argued the reaction would be the same if it were another form of dance? Like, "Artist gave a statement while dancing..." vs. "Artist gave a statement while break-dancing.."?

I've been watching a disagreement on a talk page/edit history record where Undue and Noteworthy are being used by some experienced editors, and I'm a bit confused as to what the issue about including the "break-dancing" is! I'm not really interested in that particular disagreement, but I am perplexed so I thought I'd come here for clarity on the issue, as the sections related to noteworthiness/undue/balance mainly address the status of viewpoints, not reported details! Thanks for everyone's help! Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 21:10, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

The problem with hypotheticals is that sometimes the person posing the hypothetical doesn't distill all the elements of the actual example correctly, and inadvertently leaves out details that may be pertinent or even crucial to answering the question. The fact that whatever the actual issue is perplexes you may indicate there's subtleties in the disagreement that you're not seeing. We always need links to the actual discussions or articles so we have all the information before we're able to answer questions to any degree of confidence. Folly Mox (talk) 23:00, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Ah! That makes sense! The actual disagreement has been occurring in the edit history of the Colleen Ballinger article, and in a few threads on the talk page. It seems like multiple editors keep trying to include the fact she is playing the ukulele in a widely covered response video, while a few editors have been reverting the change each time it's added. The rationale for the undue/noteworthy remarks seems to be that if it were any other instrument and the reaction would have been the same, therefore it's not encyclopedic to include. My confusion is the same as described in the first post! Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 23:11, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Goodlucklemonpig, I suppose I can see both sides of that argument. The BBC source even mentions the ukelele in the title of their article. I believe the argument the people against inclusion of the particular instrument relies on the idea that in the whole scheme of accusation, apology, and reaction to the apology, the ukelele is not significant. If there were an article specifically about the apology song video, the ukelele would definitely be encyclopaedic to include, but since it doesn't seem to play a role in the larger events of the paragraph, it's not necessary to mention. Having said that, it is an interesting detail, and I wouldn't personally remove it from the article if it were in there. I hope that helps explain things a little bit. I don't feel like I've done a much better job than the editors on the talk page. Folly Mox (talk) 01:00, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Editors citing WP:DUE are probably relying on this part of the guideline: Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail... (emphasis added). Folly Mox (talk) 01:03, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

You definitely cleared things up a bit, especially the direct "depth of detail" citation and contextualizing the paragraph vs. a hypothetical article! I'm partial to including the aforementioned ukulele (as a fairly unique instrument in a fairly unique video), but the reasons given make a lot more sense now! Anyways, from the number of reverts I've seen, it seems like a sore subject not worth getting involved in. Thank you for the well-put explanation :) Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 01:35, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Links: Dead in practice but not in effect

So recently, a source I consult quite frequently, Página Siete, shuttered its doors. Given that the paper's website remains online, links to previous publications are all still live. In practice, however, their usability is rendered moot by a subscription block—now inaccessible, for obvious reasons. (Here's an example) The question, then, is whether I should mark the links as dead when citing so as to direct users towards an actually usable archive, or continue marking them as live and tagging them as subscription-only. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 04:41, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

They're live, and the links remain valid. There is nothing wrong with referring to subscription-only sources (though obviously it's lovely if information is available for free, and many editors will favour open-access sources). We are an encyclopaedia summarising information that can be traced back to reliable sources by someone wishing to do so; we do not guarantee that the information is available for free, nor do we have any moral viewpoint on the freedom of other people's information - only on the free availability of Wikipedia itself. So no action is absolutely necessary. Elemimele (talk) 09:11, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Given that you can no longer sign up for a subscription to gain access to the content, I would certainly add archived snapshots, if any are available (assuming, that is, that the archiver, eg the Wayback Machine, has itself been able to navigate past the paywall). Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 09:30, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

... just being pedantic, but if you do add archived links, you should, technically, check that the archived version says what we claim. The original citation applied to the source on the date the original editor inserted it. Most magazine and newspaper articles shouldn't change, but a situation I've met before is where someone's inserted a Wayback Machine link to an archived error page instead of (presumably) the original content. This is worse than leaving the original, unavailable link, because it now means that I've no idea of the date on which the information was once available. Elemimele (talk) 16:51, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

For me, I always add archive links for every source, whether its dead or not. I think the meat of my question, then, is whether a subscription-only source where the subscription is no longer accessible should be marked as dead (because it practically is) or not (because it technically isn't). Krisgabwoosh (talk) 06:15, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Outing users

Users 1 and 2 edit a page together to add a mention of a certain person to a different page. User 3 takes note of this and discusses that the person should be deleted. User 4 sees the discussion and while doing a search, notices that a Twitter thread talking about pushing to get the information included on the Wikipedia page, and mentions that the author of the sources used on the page is helping them edit. The Twitter poster uses their real name. In a discussion about the content's inclusion, User 4 posts a link to the Twitter thread, which shows that the author of the sources used on the page is also attempting to add content to the page. User 4 does not attribute or connect the poster or the author to any Wikipedia editor. It is not obvious or clear which editor(s) out of many are named in the Twitter thread. However, it is possible to make a plausible not uncertain guess based on shared interests if one were to search more about the Twitter poster. Does User 4's actions violate any policy, such as outing? What should User 4 have done differently in this scenario, if anything? Chamaemelum (talk) 07:42, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Chamaemelum, if you have any doubts, then it's safer to privately email your concerns to an administrator (here is a list of active administrators). Protecting users' privacy will always take priority even if there are concerns about conflicts of interest or canvassing. Of course, it's not considering WP:OUTING if a user has already (voluntarily) self-identified. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 19:10, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Chamaemelum I read all this expecting you to have a problem with users 1 & 2. Yet it seems you have a problem with user 4 who's trying to show the information might not be true? Make me make that make sense.

It seems to me that user 4 is doing everything right.

I can't remember what the term is, but there's a word for people like users 1 & 2, who are trying game the system, by pretending to be unconnected to the subject...

In a similar way to what a lot of new filmmakers try to do on IMDB, by asking the cast, crew, their friends and their family, to give their new productions a 10/10 rating to game the system.

However what they don't realise is that IMDB removes high ratings which are done in bulk, in a short space of time, especially when they're done by new users, as it's very likely they have a connection.

If the person they're trying to add is also famous and is connection I don't see a problem with people trying to add them, however it doesn't change the fact that users 1 and 2 are not doing it in the correct way.

However if the other person isn't famous, then user 3 and user 4 can remove them, even though that's a Wikipedia policy I disagree with, as when people are in the public eye, people like their family will be in the public eye too, whether they like it or not.

Pretty soon I will be adding the brother of a late TV presenter/journalists article, once I've updated the TV presenter/journalists article a bit. However there should be no problem with me adding the brother, as the late brother was a TV cinematographer/cameraman, so was in the public eye too. Danstarr69 (talk) 21:28, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, that's helpful. I'm specifically wondering how the outing policy works in this weird circumstance where it's relevant to a COI, semi-public, and not explictly connecting a Wikipedia user with a name (but someone could infer if they chose to look). Chamaemelum (talk)

It's all nonsense imo. If their social media profiles have the same name as their Wikipedia accounts, and are open for everyone to see, then it's their own fault. If they don't want everyone to see their little schemes, then they should've changed their privacy settings.

I got banned from the IMDB "community" by the founder Col Needham around 18 months ago, for stating the fact that roughly 95% of the admins are useless, as they ignore unanswered/unresolved community posts for months (only bothering to resolve a few of the newest questions/problems a day), and decline contributions because they don't know how to read or click on references. He banned my 3 other email addresses in quick succession too, as soon as he noticed me, even though I had done nothing wrong on those occasions.

The first time he noticed me was when I had proven a female co-director was lying. She claimed a man had not worked on any of her productions, so she wanted them all removed, even though he had co-directed, produced, edited etc and starred in them all. He was listed in the credits of the publicly available films themselves on her public Youtube and Vimeo channels, plus on her public Facebook profile, there were photos of them all together on the sets of those productions. I had posted screenshots of all the credits, the films themselves, along with all the cast and crew photos. They had clearly fallen out over something, so was trying to ruin his career.

She might have been able to persuade the gullible admins her lies were true, if I wasn't around, or if all her videos and profiles were private. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danstarr69 (talk • contribs) 06:49, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Possible advertising content or self-promotion

I work for the company which I was trying to edit according to their task. I understand that the issue is about self-promotion but it's only because I am the new member and never did it earlier, anyway I am following all the guidelines. I see I can be adopted but they say that if I never did edit in Wiki, then I cannot be adopted. But I'd like to gain trust to my account of course so that my work is not wasted and the content is not removed.

https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Job_Today

Could you please help? Ira Roven (talk) 08:38, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Ira Roven,

If your problem is about the article on the Spanish Wikipedia, I think you need to contact the support there as we can't do much from here. But as far as I know, if you're following the guidelines from now on and disclosing your Conflict Of Interest (you shold do this as soon as you can), you should be all good. I would take a second look at WP:NPOV and WP:WHATNOT if you haven't already. If your edits haven't been neutral, they have probably been reverted on both Wikis. Feel free to review your edits and redo them as edit requests according to WP:DISCLOSE while keeping the guidelines in mind, and choosing a rather neutral point of view.

Let me know if you need any more assistance. NotAGenious (talk) 09:43, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

@Ira Roven: On Spanish Wikipedia, the rules concerning conflict of interest and paid editing are found here: es:Wikipedia:Conflicto de interés. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 17:22, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Dropdown menu bug in other wikis

Moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) § Dropdown menu bug in other wikis

Bug in question

I recently came across a bug in every wiki except for Wikipedia. I have no idea how Phabricator works, so can somebody please file a ticket for this? Thanks in advance, QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 10:04, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

@QuickQuokka I've never been able to get my head around Phabricator, either. I'd suggest posting at WP:VPT might get the attention of more technical folk. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:12, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes:  Done --QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 10:54, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

How to view talk page discussion on a redirected page

Just wondering if it is possible to view the talk page of a page that existed in the past but has now been redirected. Obviously when you try to go to a page with a redirect you get sent to the destination page of the redirect, but the discussion from the old page doesn't appear on the talk page of the new destination of the redirect.

When the page gets redirected, does the talk page just get deleted? Or is the discussion saved somewhere?

Thanks! Chagropango (talk) 14:09, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

@Chagropango When you go to an article via a redirect, there will be a link at the very top which says "(Redirected from [what you searched])". If you click on that, you'll be taken to the page where the redirect exists and you can then view its Talk Page or History tab in the usual way. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:19, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Wow, that's actually very simple! Thanks for the help. Chagropango (talk) 14:23, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

@Chagropango Another trick is to go to the target page, e.g. Joe Biden, click on the option "What links here" and then on the page that comes up, check the boxes "Hide transclusions" and "Hide links": leaving only "Hide redirects" unchecked. Then when you click "Go", you'll see all the available redirects for the article. In the case of Biden's article that's a whole lot of redirects! Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:43, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Question regarding to publishing

Hello! I need to be helped as a new editor. Can a new user confidently publish an article to main space if he or she is sure of it notability? Oringarcejs (talk) 16:22, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. To directy create an article you must be autoconfirmed(account is 4 days old with at least 10 edits). If you are, you are free to create articles, but if are doing your first one it is highly advised that you submit it via WP:AFC. 331dot (talk) 16:26, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

... and there is no penalty for submitting an article on a non-notable subject via AFC beyond getting it declined! Find the best independent sources you can; you don't need to include huge numbers. If you can find three good sources writing about the subject independently, and in reasonable depth, then you stand a good chance. Have a go, and listen carefully to the advice you get from whoever reviews it. But be patient, it may take some time to get reviewed. Elemimele (talk) 16:45, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Question about screenshot of free, open-source software

I want to upload a few screenshots of Mastodon to Wikimedia Commons of a free and open source program known as Mastodon (since there don't seem to be any screenshots of the administrator, moderator, nor advanced web interface). It's a self-hosted instance by me, so I'm wondering what license I should use when uploading and if there would be any troubles doing that, or even if I shouldn't do it in the first place. Thanks! Technogod (talk) 16:44, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

This looks like a commons question. Maybe ask at the help desk there (commons:COMMONS:HELPDESK) Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 16:53, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

New ship propulsion/ Direct Thrust Propulsion .

Patent number 11-584-492-b1 2-21-23 John 'Jack" De Maria Inventor. Ship propulsion for the 21st. century. 2604:2D80:ED04:8400:1D9C:DF83:7675:54E0 (talk) 17:18, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Did you have a question about using or editing the English Wikipedia? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:05, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello. If you are trying to publicize a newly patented invention, please undersatnd that Wikipedia is not the place to do it. Until there are multiple independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the invention, it will not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and no article is possible.

Also note that even if/when it reaches that threshold, Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. ColinFine (talk) 18:55, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Delta Air Lines citation link fix

Hello. Go to above article, scroll down to hijackings section (below accidents and incidents). The February 21, 1968 incident, citation #183. Go into edit window. I cant link it to the article.Name of article is: From FAA Peace Officers to Air Marshals. I know I typed in the link exactly as it appears in the URL of the article.Thanks for your time.Theairportman33531 (talk) 19:37, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Never mind. Please disregard request. Fixed problem.Theairportman33531 (talk) 20:42, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Help me?

I'm so lost... HilarysaurusRex (talk) 19:41, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi and welcome to the Teahouse. What are you looking for? WPscatter ^t/_c 19:43, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

A new start HilarysaurusRex (talk) 19:48, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

If you are looking to start over with a new account see wp:FRESHSTART. If you are concerned about getting reverted, don't worry, learn from your mistakes and keep editing. ✶Mitch199811✶ 20:51, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

@HilarysaurusRex: That date in the "advertisement" maintenance tag isn't something that needs to be updated. Were you planning to improve that article? Feel free to ask questions. This is the place for stupid questions. And Mitch is right, we all get reverted sometimes. Rjjiii (talk) 08:08, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Teahouse

I want to know what a teahouses 2601:2C1:8800:8E70:A119:C9C2:8937:2294 (talk) 21:38, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi IP editor!

For information about teahouses in general please see its article. The Wikipedia Teahouse is a place where newer editors can ask questions. ✶Mitch199811✶ 21:45, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

References

From Slim8029.  I am working on a draft article.  My current focus is on completing the references.  When I go to the article it shows a triangle with an asterisk in it and I am unable to add any more references.  When I click on the triangle, the pop-up says "1 Notice.  Find sources and references google, NYT and other acronyms.  But these are not relevant.

Whoever made the notation was perhaps objecting to a reference to academia.edu.  Is that possible?  How do I fix this so I can move forward?  Thanks.

Draft:Michael Shapiro (Journalist) Slim8029 (talk) 23:13, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

It seems that you tripped an edit filter because you tried to add a blacklisted link to the article. Can you tell us what sources you tried to add? Ca ^{talk to me!} 00:18, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Slim8029. Your ref name=":0" and ref name=":1" are in the wrong place. Inline references belong in the wikicode for the body of the article, right after the content that they verify. They do not belong in the "References" section itself. There is also some unconventional coding in the "References" section. Try Template: Reflist instead, which is the standard way to organize references, and is used in over five million articles. Cullen328 (talk) 00:47, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I'll work on Reflist in the next few days. I've got some busy days coming up so may not get to this immediately.

Regards. Slim8029 (talk) 01:13, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

It was probably academia.edu. Is that likely? I assume if I delete the reference the problem will go away? I'm searching for an alternative source for the information.

Thanks. Slim8029 (talk) 01:11, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Slim8029, academia.edu is not blacklisted, and is cited over 40,000 times throughout Wikipedia. What are the references you've been trying to add to the ones already present? Folly Mox (talk) 02:44, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I am swamped the next few days but will get back to you when I get my head above water again. Helpful to know that academia.edu is okay. Regards. Slim8029 (talk) 14:36, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

i have finished publishing my wikipedia page in the sandbox, but its still showing draft

I have finished working on the page, but in the sandbox, i am still seeing "draft", when will it published? Amalgoni (talk) 02:42, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello! You need to click on the blue button that says "submit draft for review." If it's not there, add {{subst:submit}} to the page. Once you click that, you need to wait for a Articles for creation reviewer to review it. This can take a couple of weeks. Hope this helps! If it is accepted, it will be moved to the article space from the draft space. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 04:13, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Meanwhile, Amalgoni, your creation Draft:Oluwaseun Sesi Whingan is grossly promotional. If you submitted it in anything like its current state, a reviewer would decline or reject it and would certainly not accept it. -- Hoary (talk) 08:02, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Amalgoni, please explain the Royal tamily of Maseno? According to Google searches, Maseno is a Kenyan term, not a Nigerian term. Cullen328 (talk) 09:12, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Kindly understand that there is prounciation difference in africa, same word can yeild different pronunciation which i understand that english also entails. the Kenyan Pronounciation is slightly diffrent, maseno in kenya is pronounced as /masenoo/ while the yoruba peoples pronunciation is /macenaa/ /macenoo/ or something like that because the yoruba people understands A as O in any context. However kindly note that there is nothing as word/name copyright in Africa, as something entirely diffrent in Kenya can prove to be something else in Nigeria. The Nigerian Maseno Kingdom is of a small group of people who dates back to the early Nigerian Slave trade. They settled in Badagry, Lagos Badagry the slave center of Nigeria and are currently. The person i am writing about is a prince there. please reference to this "[1]https://www.jstor.org/stable/1159502" Amalgoni (talk) 15:04, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello there, I am glad you advised, however, note that all content here comes from my research. I don't understand how promotional my content is but right now, i am trying to remove anything promotional from it...For me, i think i should be referencing the thirdparty, in whose favor i am writing. His Achivements and everything. After Observing for a little of time, i observed what you mean. However, i don't mind if you give me a guide on how to remove promotional reference from context. I will be glad if you reply me back, i need a guide please Amalgoni (talk) 15:08, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Indexing the page

Hi Everyone, i need to know should we publish page directly or submit the draft and wait for the reviewer to publish it. Also, is there any indexing issue if we publish the page directly? Love2read&write (talk) 05:31, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

There's no requirement that an article be first submitted as a draft; in other words, anyone can be bold and create an article in the mainspace if they want. However, there's no guarantee that anything created directly in the mainspace will not quickly be nominated for deletion if it's found to not meet relevant policies and guidelines. If whatever is created in so bad that it's unsaveable, it might end up being deleted rather quickly without any warning or discussion. This is why newer or newish users without much experience at creating proper articles or who aren't very familiar with Wikipedia's various policies and guidelines are encouraged to submit drafts to Wikipedia:Articles for creation for review. This gives more experienced users a chance to assess a draft and provide suggestions on what they think needs improving. It also gives the draft creators a chance to work and learn at their own pace. Most drafts are going to be left alone unless they suffer from serious problems that require attention asap, but articles in the main space are there, for better or worse, to be edited by anyone who wants to edit them and there's not real way to stop others from editing them. Now, if by chance you're someone connected to the subject you want to try and create an article about, you probably should take a look at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for reference. What I posted about still would apply, but there are some other restrictions that may come into play depended up the nature of your connection to the subject of the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:22, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

hi @Love2read&write and welcome to the Teahouse! in addition to the above, pages are not indexed in search engines at first, however they are indexed after being checked by a new page patroller or after 90 days, whichever comes first, however I think those who do go through the AfC process are likely to be reviewed quicker if not immediately (though having created exactly zero articles, I don't really have firsthand knowledge on this). happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 07:22, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello Love2read&write, most articles published directly end up quickly deleted. The idea behind submitting a draft and waiting for a reviewer, is that new users get feedback on why their article would be deleted and can fix those issues before publishing. Good luck, Rjjiii (talk) 08:13, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Also, I don't know if you've already seen this, but Wikipedia:Writing Wikipedia articles backward is great introduction to creating new articles. Rjjiii (talk) 08:15, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Love2read&write Who is the "we" that you refer to? 331dot (talk) 08:16, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

How to work on this issue "This biographical article is written like a résumé."

Hi, I am trying to create this biography page of Wibool Piyawattanametha. I have followed the format of these ( Feng Zhang and Olav Solgaard) previously published pages from wikipedia. However, I am having some issues with the format. How is this article considered as a resume although I have followed the same format of those 2 pages. Please provide some suggestions and advice on the necessary steps I need to follow in order to publish the page! Thank you! I would appreciate your advices. Aayushma Sharma (talk) 08:10, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Aayushma Sharma, you should reach out to the editors who placed those tags, which in this case would be Cordless Larry and Gråbergs Gråa Sång. Also, were you paid to edit on Wikipedia? Regards, Rjjiii (talk) 08:19, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

@Aayushma Sharma: disregard my question about paid editing. I see your post now where you say I am a student of Prof. Wibool. Many editors would still consider that a conflict of interest on Wikipedia. If you check out the link posted by 331dot, it describes something called a "request". No matter how closely affiliated you are, you are still always welcome to use the {{request edit}} template to update his page.

Additionally regarding looking for examples, Wikipedia has two tiers of peer review. The lower tier (WP:Good Articles) are reviewed usually by a single editor, and the higher tier (WP:Featured Articles) are reviewed by a group of editors against a stricter standard. Here the links for biologist biographies that have been reviewed at each of those levels:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Biology_biographies
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_articles/Natural_sciences#Biologists

Good luck, Rjjiii (talk) 08:37, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Note that even as a student they could still be receiving compensation(a better grade, consideration for a job, etc.). 331dot (talk) 08:39, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. But how do I consider a conflict of interest although I have clearly clarified who and why i am making edits onto this article. Could you please provide further explanations? Aayushma Sharma (talk) 11:39, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

@Aayushma Sharma: the WP:COI policy page puts it like this, "You should generally refrain from creating articles about yourself, or anyone you know, living or dead, unless through the Articles for Creation process. If you have a personal connection to a topic or person, you are advised to refrain from editing those articles directly and to provide full disclosure of the connection if you comment about the article on talk pages or in other discussions. Requests for updates to an article about yourself or someone with whom you have a personal connection can be made on the article's talk page by following the instructions at WP:COIREQ." Rjjiii (talk) 14:50, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

(ec) Aayushma Sharma Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. It's preferred to refer to the content of the encyclopedia as articles, not "pages" which has a broader meaning. Though it sounds like it might be, it is not always a good idea to use any random article as a model or guide, please see other stuff exists. It could be that these other articles are also inappropriate and you would be unaware of this. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible to get inappropriate content past us. We can only address what we know about. If you want to use other articles as a model, use those classified as good articles, which have been vetted by the community.

Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about someone and their accomplishments(that's why your article was tagged as looking like a resume). An article about a person must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. Sources should describe what they see as important or signficant or influential about the person, not merely describe their accomplishments.

If you have an association with this person, please read WP:COI and WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 08:21, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

An example of "reads like resume" is including stuff like "Invited to be on a Plenary Session on Ethics in Science Communication at the World Science Forum, Budapest, Hungary." and " Senior Member Status" under "Awards and honors". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:56, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Gråbergs Gråa Sång could you please check the page again. I have made some edits onto the education and honors section. Since the status itself is a "Senior Member Status" I believe that is already in neutral point of view because I am not promoting any awards but listing the particular name of the award. Thanks. I appreciate your response. Aayushma Sharma (talk) 11:37, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Suggestions on editing Wikipedia

Hello there, I have my own user page, I present myself as a newcomer on that site, could you please help me give me a suggestion on how to edit Wikipedia? And do I need to cite sources while inserting content into articles? Thanks. |-CrayonOfWorld92(talk) 09:32, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

hi @CrayonOfWorld92 and welcome to the Teahouse!

1. yes, you do need to cite your sources when inserting content to articles (unless when uncontroversial or sky-is-blue obvious)
2. you may check check your editor homepage or the Task center for easy things to do.

happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 09:36, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Even uncontroversial facts need citations. For a new editor, I recommend adding a citation to every fact you add to articles, no matter how mundane. Ca ^{talk to me!} 14:55, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

fr:Modèle:Unité?

Hi, does an equivalent of fr:Modèle:Unité exist in English Wikipedia (I can't seem to link; it's trying to transclude or something)? It's a template for formatting of numbers, e.g. AFAICT it puts in commas, spaces or points as thousands separators, according to the reader's locale settings. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 10:48, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

@AlmostReadytoFly Please see MOS:DIGITS for how we handle this on the English Wikipedia. See also Help:Magic words#Formatting Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:25, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Y Thanks, {{formatnum:}} looks like what I need. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 12:34, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

article submission was declined

Hello, I'm made article on English about Dubravka Oraić Tolić, and he was declined. I would like to know why??

Regards. T 185.62.72.176 (talk) 11:41, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi,

I think that you should have been left a notification on your talk page with the reasoning for the deletion. Did you create the article using an account? NotAGenious (talk) 12:01, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

@TomislavGorsic (Please log into your account every time you edit Wikipedia). As the declining reviewer said on Draft:Dubravka Oraić Tolić, the problem is lack of reliable sources. Here on the English Wikipedia we insist that everything stated in biographies of living people are very fully backed up by inline citations. None of the biography section you drafted has any such citations. Please read the links I have supplied carefully and try to comply in any re-draft. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:02, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

The draft was created by TomislavGorsic. It contains a photograph, clearly created with the cooperation of the subject. The photograph was taken by TomislavGorsic. This suggests to me that the subject and TomislavGorsic are acquaintances. Is there perhaps some [[WP:COI|conflict of interest}} here? -- Hoary (talk) 12:45, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Can I remove the "citation needed" statement

Should I remove the "citation needed" from article after inserting the citations? Aayushma Sharma (talk) 11:49, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, @Aayushma Sharma. Yes, please do remove these tags, provided you are sure that the citation you have added covers all the information now in that part of the article. So, for example, if the tag was at the end of a paragraph and your citation covered most but not all of the information in the paragraph you might move the tag to be next to the portion that was still lacking a citation: the point being that we want readers to be able to verify everything present. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:55, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks. How do I attach the citations regarding the completion of certain educational degrees if we can not find the records because it was a long time ago? Should I add the link to the educational site or shall I leave it as it is? Aayushma Sharma (talk) 12:02, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

@Aayushma Sharma I see you have been editing Wibool Piyawattanametha, so let's take that as an example. It had the tag at the top of his "Education" section but now has a perfectly good citation for the fact he is an alumnus of KMITL. However, the UCLA "citation" is worse than useless as it just links to the top level domain of that university. Hence, while you could now remove the section's tag, I would be inclined to delete the UCLA link altogether (it is misleading) and place a {{cn}} tag at the end of the relevant sentence. At some point in the future, another editor may be able to find a good citation to back up his MS and PhD credentials. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:14, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Getting clarification on declined article

Hi there, I've submitted quite a few notable, published, secondary sources from major fashion/editorial/mainstream publications for Andrew Kung. Can you please let me know specifically what the issue might be? If a few of the sources are just passing mentions that verify Andrew's awards/prizes, should I take them out and leave the larger features/pieces for a secondary review? Thank you! Chocobunnee (talk) 12:49, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

None of the awards are notable so do nothing to establish any notability are you connected to the subject by any chance?. Theroadislong (talk) 13:01, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

What are talk pages *for*?

These don't seem to be used for anything anymore... You put questions on them, people don't answer. Instead of raising questions or discussing the article there, just go straight to prodding and AfDs or use edit summaries or just hack out/restore information. It just seems so pointless putting any sort of comments into the things. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 14:37, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello, since Wikipedia has 6 and a half million articles, it is possible that no one is keeping an eye on talk pages. If you haven't received a response, you may contact the relevant WikiProjects' talk pages. When I have useful information/sources to share, I like to put them in talk pages so other editors can reference them. Ca ^{talk to me!} 14:53, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Eh, it's more a general trend than any specific article. I realise people don't always have time to chat away on the talk pages or answer literally any question, it's more when people make reversions and the like without checking the talk page for reasoning, or prod rather than opening any sort of discussion about a page's problems first. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 15:03, 6 July 2023 (UTC)