Is there any tool that can be used to plug in and modify a given example of a piped internal link across pages, such as those that might have changed or need redirecting due to a page move, split or other change that affects page navigation? [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 08:48, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Is there any tool that can be used to plug in and modify a given example of a piped internal link across pages, such as those that might have changed or need redirecting due to a page move, split or other change that affects page navigation? [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 08:48, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
:This might be a better question for the [[Wikipedia:VP|technical board]]. [[User:FishandChipper|FishandChipper]] [[User_talk:FishandChipper|🐟]][[Special:Contributions/FishandChipper|🍟]] 08:53, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I disagree.
The name of the inventor should be listed with the patent number and description.
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)[reply]
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.
Margesson, I'm afraid it's not the ideal book. So far as I can see, it's listed as authored by Abalone Industry Association of South Australia and also published by Abalone Industry Association of South Australia Incorporated (and also authored by a specific person, Eric Kotz, who has self-published books in the past). This leaves it with a suspicion of being self-published, or published with little editorial oversight. Written paper sources don't have to be available on Amazon, but it's generally a really bad sign if a book is neither available in major libraries nor from Amazon! Is there anything from a mainstream news-source or publisher? Elemimele (talk) 15:44, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your assistance. I thought the book (AB YARNS) which was compiled by the fishing industry in South Australia would be considered a very good reference. 
Another secondary source: THE NATIONAL MARITIME MUSEUM SYDNEY.
under the heading Covering your tail: inventing the self-propelled cage. 
I will forward another article in the magazine by the California USA Abalone divers association. I can forward newspaper articles when I learn how to. I look forward to the same rigour being applied to some of the claims made about the shark cages on Wikipedia. Margesson (talk) 01:56, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Thank you! After increasing the font size by pressing Ctrl = ("=" instead of "Shift +") twice, I'm able to read the pages without some type of magnifier. And testing, by opening new Wikipedia pages, my new font size selection remained as my default. If I lose my new selection after turning my computer off, then on, and opening Wikipedia, I know, now, how to correct the font size.
@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)[reply]
Thank you! Your instructions seem to apply to a time in the future, perhaps, when I would want to create content for/in Wikipedia. I was not clear enough in my question that I just wanted to be able to read Wikipedia pages which, for some reason, began appearing in tiny font. I never intentionally changed the size of the font on the pages. I suspect that Sami, my female cat who likes to place herself between my keyboard and me forcing me to reach over and around her, especially when she sits up, may have caused this change. When she lies on her side she often stretches her "arm" onto my keyboard and has, more than once, triggered a change to my screen. (That's my story excuse and I'm sticking to it.)
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
@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":
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
... 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)[reply]
Oringarcejs You have more than 10 edits, not quite four days, yet you created Brunello Rosa as an article rather than going through AfC. It is possible the article has flaws that a reviewer would have identified. Instead, this will be looked at be a New Page Patroller, who may accept, kick back to draft, or delete outright. David notMD (talk) 20:47, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, the article is poorly written, does not establish notability, and will either be kicked back to draft, or deleted. If not, then an AfD should be started. David notMD (talk) 20:56, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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.
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
i have finished publishing my wikipedia page in the sandbox, but its still showing draft
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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! 💜 melecietalk - 07:22, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Wikipedia guidelines are very broad and open. I often read them for clarity. As you mentioned in your previous comment, 'most articles published directly end up being quickly deleted.' Here, I want to understand if we create an article that adheres to WP:NPOV and presents the information in a friendly manner, would it still be subject to deletion? Love2read&write (talk) 06:30, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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:
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
(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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. Catalk to me!14:55, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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 conflict of interest here? -- Hoary (talk) 12:45, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. Catalk to me!14:53, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Hi, I'm guessing this is prompted by Special Executive. You have a valid point. A lot of editors watch recent changes. This means that a low-quality article can survive for a decade provided no one actually edits it, but the act of editing means it becomes visible, and someone suggests deleting it; improvement leads to deletion! Worse, AfD is desperately short of good contributors. If you take away the hard-core deletionists and keepers, who always !vote the same way (with little explanation), many AfD's come down to the opinions of two or three people at most.
The whole point of AfD is to discuss, so in a sense it doesn't matter whether the discussion is there or on the talk page. If getting engagement is difficult even at AfD, you'll probably get even less engagement on the article's talk-page. Also, talk-page discussions tend to be dominated by one or two individuals who keep that subject on their watch-list. Many of us are discouraged from talk-page discussions because whatever we say is met by a polite response that boils down to "It's been like that since I wrote it, and I know I'm right, so it's staying that way, because I have arrived at consensus with myself, and any disagreement with what I agreed with myself was right when I wrote it is obviously against this consensus." AfD discussions tend, at least, to be a bit more genuine. Elemimele (talk) 15:21, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Special Executive is what caused a bit of a boil-over, yeah, but without giving you a boring guided tour of spats it's not the first time similar has happened over whole articles or individual edits. IMHO the problem with AFD as a first point of debate is you're on the clock, and like you say there are Christopher Chopes in the area who just vote delete as a point of procedure, often as a mere drive-by. It's incredibly frustrating, and doesn't help when there's the usual cherry-picking of policies and dismissive jargon involved. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 15:26, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The clock isn't as bad in practice as it looks. You have various options. If you think the article is salvageable but needs more time, you can always ask for draftification instead of deletion. If the article is deleted, you can also ask the deleting admin to refund it into draft-space or your sandbox for further work (it's a good idea to accompany your request with some evidence that the article can be improved, e.g. a source that exists and hasn't yet been properly used). And very often the 1-week clock at AfD becomes a 2- or 3-week clock because the closer (rightly) doesn't feel that two barely-justified !votes is enough. But we need more editors applying diligence at AfD. Elemimele (talk) 11:14, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The clock is a bad thing when I can only pull so many publications from storage at a time and am currently focusing on other areas (having returned the related material for Captain Britain, Alan Moore and the SE in favour of a ton of Fleetway stuff as there was no indication the sources already included weren't satisfactory until some random discovered Twinkle and started mass-prodding) and AFD voters' due diligence largely involving hammering the article title into Google.
Draftification would in this case be a soft delete, IMHO - the only thing harder than clearing a new article past review is clearing a new version of a removed article, due to the aforementioned double standards. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 11:44, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello BoomboxTestarossa, confusion or exasperation seems warranted regarding the talk pages. I have had wildly different experiences, depending on the article. Sometimes it can just depend on who is interested. For example, I took part in a productive discussion on the seemingly niche topic of Giant human skeletons, but am still waiting on any kind of response over at the more widely watched Wikipedia:Manual of Style regarding how to cite comic book references. It can help to {{ping}} major contributors to an article or the specific editor who added material; this will create a notification for them when they log in.
On any Wikipedia article you can go to Tools (menu) >> Page information >> Revision history search (all the way at the bottom), and copy and paste a line from the article into the "search for" box. This will let you find out who added material into an article. For example, here are the results for "Prince Charles" on the Lion (comics) article. The diff shows that Terencemagee added this material back in November 2013 with the summary Just remembered an interesting fact about 'Lion'. I was the office boy in 1960 and had the job of sending issues off, including to Prince Charles!, indicating that his update was from personal experience. It doesn't hurt to leave a {{ping}} on the talk page, but as he has made less than twenty edits in the past decade, it's not likely that he is still an active editor. Rjjiii (talk) 15:15, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've begun an informal RfC here regarding the potential removal of a timeline from an article. It hasn't generated any discussion yet, but I'm going to leave it open until I'm finished updating the rest of the article. My question regards my intended action should consensus fall on removal or if I still have WP:SILENCE.
Apologies that I don't know how to link directly to it, but there's a template at the bottom of the talk page template here that says,
What does that mean for me practically in regards to removing the timeline from the article? Would it be allowed? Would I break anything important? Thanks in advance. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 15:17, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User:DrOrinScrivello, you're all good to proseify the timeline content and cut anything that doesn't seem relevant. The talk page template is saying the standalone timeline article shouldn't be deleted; there's nothing forbidding editing the material that's been split to the Roanoke article. Folly Mox (talk) 02:44, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I'm not an admin, but the article already has a cleanup tag for promotional content. It is the tag at the top that says "this article has content that is written like an advertisement." You may want to start a discussion on that article's talk page or add a request at WikiProject Cleanup. Grumpylawnchair (talk)19:59, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@JesseSeverson, do I understand it correctly that you want to put a logo on Draft:Modern Rail Capital? Logos don't go on Commons, that site don't accept "non-free" stuff. HOWEVER, IF your draft is accepted as a WP-article, you can then (not while it's a draft) upload a logo on Wikipedia, go to Wikipedia:File upload wizard and chose "Upload a non-free file". But again, only if and when your draft is accepted. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:09, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
JesseSeverson, in my opinion, that logo should not have been uploaded to Wikimedia Commons under a free license. You have allowed anyone to use the logo as they see fit, including competitors or railfans making t-shirts and coffee mugs. Was it your intention to dilute the copyright like that? This is intellectual property that your company has pretty much given away at this point. If that was not your intention, you should go to Wikimedia Commons and explain that it was uploaded in error, and ask for it to be removed. Try this page. Cullen328 (talk) 20:25, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cullen is right of course, but if that is the company's intent, then I'm wrong above. They may have to prove that JesseSeverson represents the company though. I see also that the logo is marked "It does not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection," but I wonder if that's correct here. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:47, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a Wikipedia copyright maven, but I am a former professional publisher's editor and consequently somewhat familiar with copyright and graphic design – I am absolutely certain that the logo does meet the threshold of originality. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.177.243 (talk) 16:22, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
marblemedia Inc wiki page seems to have been removed and wanted to know if there is a way to get it back. I work with the company and have been asked to see if this is possible? If not what would be another option RLD360 (talk) 20:01, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the help. I believe i was able add the disclosure correctly. Any chance you could confirm I have done it correctly? RLD360 (talk) 20:33, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@RLD360: Hi there! Thanks for adding the disclosure to your user page. I removed the <nowiki>...</nowiki> tags so the disclosure displays properly. GoingBatty (talk) 20:55, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this. Some good insight. Im going to pass this along and then maybe i wont have to do anything at all! :) RLD360 (talk) 21:37, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can a dynamic IP evade a range block?
Hi, there's a long-term, disruptive, Chile-based dynamic IP who was taken to AN/I and range blocked (previously 1 week, then 1 month, now 3 months). If they again engage in disruptive editing, from IPs outside the blocked range, (a) is this block evasion and (b) should we give them a clean slate and begin with level 1 user advice, or should we give them sterner warnings (as would be the case for a fixed IP or registered user)? I made a note of the blocking admin's username. Note: it's clearly the same user's M.O.
@Esowteric If the block is still active, then it's block evasion. This would merit a level 4 warning, stating on their talk page that you believe them to be the blocked IP. I'd go straight to WP:AIV and report them, explaining your beliefs. An admin would then look at the IPs talk page and probably check out the contribs of the other IP and make an assessment. You could go back to WP:ANI (or to the original blocking asdmin), but it might be easier to report them immediately to AIV, and resort to ANI if your report gets turned down. (I turn down quite a few reports on the grounds of 'insufficient warnings' so anything that helps me quickly appreciate this is a block evading IP, or someone now using a different address but the same modus operandi is most useful.)
Hi! So I'm kind of confused about the categorization policy and stuff. I did read the help article but since I'm new, it's kind of hard to know where to draw the line especially since the help article in question only had a few examples.
1. How many categories should an article have?
2. Can someone give me a few examples of good and bad categorization? I'm kind of struggling with what is too broad a category and what would be okay.
3. Would 'Fluid Dynamics' be a good category for 'Thermal Pressure'?
given it's a special page that comes packaged with MediaWiki, i don't think it's possible to remove it anyway (or if it was, it'd be more effort than it's worth) 💜 melecietalk - 23:46, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, you declined my page, i warmly understand, however, you should understand that my article is clearly promotional-free. In this case, because you don't understand Nigerian references dosent mean you should be immediate to disregard. I spent 2 days doing research, editing and committing. Moreso, the subject is duely qualified, with backup references to which i have referenced. The funny thing is that, you guys only review nonsensical articles which dosent deem fit. With my Other wikipedia account before i migrated here, i and the team at some point are appointed by the National Security Adviser Himself to create a digital presence. We worked on the wikipedia, with valueble references. But a random reviewer like you just trashed the work, claiming it to be pointless. I think its basically getting to a limit of racism and not education bro. I cited atleast 20 references in my recent work and you trashed it, claiming Nigerian references are Ambigous to you, GND and stuffs?? No vulgar, i should have said my mind.
Wikipedia shouldn't be easy to access i understand, but not with legit access. You guys are really making it tough. Please be considerate Amalgoni (talk) 02:15, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@amalgoni: third sentence of the article. Whingan has dedicated himself to making a positive impact on society through his charitable endeavors. this is obviously promotional, and sentences like these are rampant throughout the draft. lettherebedarklight晚安02:21, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SO MUCH promotional phrasing, also duplication of content in Lead and text, ditto duplication of refs. This has nothing to do with the subject being Nigerian. Do not disparage reviewers. Do not resubmit without addressing what the reviewer identified as not adequate. Quantity of refs does not count; quality does. David notMD (talk) 03:41, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Questions to be answered
Hello, I have a few questions about Wikipedia. First, you know those words at the top of Wikipedia articles? Like For other uses, see Word (disambiguation).? What is that called? And on talk pages, I see people with cool looking usernames. How do I get one by default? Waterard (talk) 03:12, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, due to a recent edit summary on Wikipedia:Requested articles/Arts and entertainment/Internet and tech culture, I was wondering if there are requested articles listed under "...Requested articles/United Kingdom" or something similar. It would be nice to let me know so that I can transfer one of the requested article entries into that page, if that page is appropriate for such entry.
Should this character list be formatted in a table?
I'm currently copyediting this article. As I've observed, some of the character descriptions go on for a few paragraphs and have no citations, while some of them are too short (one sentence long, to be precise). Would it be completely fine to format the character list into a simple table with basic summaries? Thanks, TarantulaTM (speak with me) (my legacy) 04:13, 7 July 2023 (UTC).[reply]
@TrademarkedTarantula: It's looking good! A quick glance back at the history shows how much more usable the Table of Contents has become. Also, those dark grey blocks in the "Miyagi-Verse" section should probably have something like ''none'' as their contents. Rjjiii (talk) 07:25, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draft:CHINT Group
Good afternoon, please help me with my article. I want to publish an article, that I have already written. I specifically chose the topic for an article about a well-known company whose products I come across every day at work. I found a lot of great references in different languages and in the most reliable sources, but something went wrong. I want to publish an article so that I can expand it later. Thanks for the help friends LTTB (talk) 09:38, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the Teahouse, LTTB You have received various comments on your draft, and you should also read these notability criteria for businesses. Unless mainstream media have written about any business in detail and in depth - and you should ignore insider business newspapers and press releases - an organisation would not merit an article. There are millions of businesses in the world, and only a few get noticed by the wider public and get written about. Find sources that do that, and your problems are solved. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 11:42, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understand, but I thought that my sources covered these requirements in full. because I have Significant, Independent, Reliable and Secondary referenses. Although I understand that I am most likely mistaken, since we are having a conversation here, and the article has not yet been in article space=) LTTB (talk) 16:43, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for starters, nothing called a "company profile" is likely to be of any help for notability, and most information that comes only from such sources is probably not appropriate for an encyclopaedia article anyway. 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.
I've drafted and submitted an article for the sandbox. With assistance from the Response Team, I moved the text to the Draft page and made some corrections. That page reads "Editing Draft: History News Service." "Edit Source" is underlined toward the top on the upper right. I'm told that I have only to hit the "Submit for Review" button. But I don't see such a button anywhere. All that I see is a button at the bottom that says "Publish changes." In short, I'm stuck. What must I do to submit the piece for review? Jmbanner35 (talk) 14:19, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Publish changes" should be understood to mean "save", it does not mean "publish this to the encyclopedia". I have added the appropriate information to your draft to submit it, this is provided automatically if you create drafts via WP:AFC. Please read conflict of interest as well. 331dot (talk) 14:27, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, I'm nervous about hitting a single button! So how/where do I find the "appropriate information" you've added to my draft? Simply hit the "reload current page" on my browser, or go to some link that you can provide? And will I find a place before submitting the piece to indicate my consideration of conflict of interest issues? Gratefully. Jmbanner35 (talk) 14:37, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, now I see. It now says "Submit the draft for review." But one problem: I can't seem to change the font size of Note 5. Also, is there any place where I can acknowledge the possible issues regarding conflict of interest--that, necessarily, I have to be the author and submitter of a piece about an organization that I co-founded? Jmbanner35 (talk) 15:01, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed up the formatting a bit and added a References section at the bottom. If place your references in the body of the article using our standard format - see Help:Referencing for beginners - they will automatically appear in the bottom section (due to the {{reflist}} template I placed there). 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:07, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My great thanks for your tweeks and the suggestion about a disclosure statement. But 1)I can't find an example of one to use as a model and 2) I don't know where I should add it to the text you've been kind enough to edit. I don't want to submit it until I get your advice on that score for fear of jeopardizing the submission. So can you help me there, too? Jmbanner35 (talk) 16:36, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmbanner35, I gave you an example in my first post. There's also an example at the page I linked, WP:COIDISCLOSE - it's in the box labeled UserboxCOI template. Another option is to click the blue link here - {{UserboxCOI}} - and read the Usage section. You need to add it to your user page, User:Jmbanner35. I can't do it for you since user pages are protected against IP edits (though someone with an account may volunteer to help).
I see you like to use the Visual Editor, which tends to insert <nowiki> tags in unhelpful places. Remove them if they pop up (or, again, perhaps someone will come along to do it for you if they appear). 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:44, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On my user page, I have taken care of the grounds for anyone's misconstrual of my authorship of the piece as a conflict of interest. But you've confused me with your re-do of the footnote, and I can't figure out how to return it to its original place and form. Might you restore it so that I can, even in this perhaps defective footnoting style, submit the piece? A novice, I don't want to take risks; but also, like you, a busy man, I want to get it off my desk and in the works. Jmbanner35 (talk) 17:17, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Publish changes button? Issues with it have been brought up more than once, but apparently it was an "above our heads" type of decision (see relevant help desk post for background and links to more background). 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:32, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Edward-Woodrow The decision to have the button say "publish changes" was made by the Foundation and its lawyers, I think, in order to emphasize that all edits to Wikipedia are public. 331dot (talk) 17:47, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Once I get a reply about the errant footnote from Mike Turnbull and correct it, should I then just hit the "Submit the draft for review" prompt? Jmbanner35 (talk) 18:36, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jmbanner35, I highly recommend that you convert your references into proper inline references before submitting your draft. This makes things much easier for reviewers. To any experienced editor, your references appear to be a confusing mess. Please read Referencing for beginnersCullen328 (talk) 18:46, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jmbanner35, you have not fixed your references. You have numbered them manually. Properly formatted inline references are numbered and displayed by the software, and readers can navigate back and forth from the content to the references with just a click. Please take care of this. It is important. Cullen328 (talk) 20:21, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Click this button!The references are not properly formatted, as the reviewer and Cullen328 commented. Do not just type numbers in square brackets, like this: [4]. If you are using the VisualEditor, click the "Cite" button, and it will help you generate and edit a reference. Proper references look like this [1]. I strongly suggest you use the Visual Editor, which, besides being easier to use, allows you to generate references based on a URL. We want to help you, but you can't ignore this problem. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk]20:38, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
References
^Meshew, Catherine. "Scolopendra gigantea". Animal Diversity Web. Archived from the original on 20 Mar 2023. Retrieved 2023-06-03.
Wikipedia Page "Longest pieces of media by word count"
Hello, Bobbyjones81. I see that your draft lacks references to significant coverage of this topic by reliable sources. Such references are essential to creating an acceptable Wikipedia article. What leads you to believe that "Longest pieces of media by word count" is a notable topic? Cullen328 (talk) 18:38, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I didn't think of that. I do think there is a good chance however that there are non-fiction pieces that have similar lengths. It is a lot to compile, and the stuff currently on the page serves as an example for what the page might look like. However if it would increase quality to focus specifically on fiction for the page, then that would definitely be better than what I currently have as the title and description of the page. Bobbyjones81 (talk) 18:56, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am just compiling the list and seeing what the layout might be right now, I'll add sources.
as for notability, I was looking at List of longest diaries and others, I figure it would be beneficial to compile a comprehensive list of longest pieces of media by word count. This not only serves as an interesting comparison across various types of media, but also provides a resource for those interested in the topic of long-form content.
Of course, I am aware that simply having a list is not enough. Each entry would need to include references to reliable sources discussing not only the word count, but also the significance of the work itself. This is my next step and as soon as the guidelines for the list are nailed down, I intend to immediately work on this aspect, most of the information currently on the list can be cited, and entries that cannot, would of course be removed.
Bobbyjones81, I suggest that you read WP:BACKWARDS. Unless you can find reliable sources that devote significant coverage to the topic "Longest pieces of media by word count", then I do not see how it is possible to create this article. Cullen328 (talk) 19:00, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I see what you meant. I was thinking that it would be possible to use sources that show word counts of the pieces of media, and compile the list together. I guess you are right because this has never been done before to compare this many different types of literature with their word count. What is WP:BACKWARDS? Bobbyjones81 (talk) 19:03, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was looking at List of longest diaries and figured I would do a similar type of list, just a list of diaries that have large word counts. Is it not possible to do the same thing with a broader range of types of literature? Or is there a reason why such a thing is not possible? If it's not possible, would it be possible to do exclusively stuff like novels and series? Bobbyjones81 (talk) 19:09, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is it truly essential to have a news article as a primary source for collating and comparing the word counts of books in a chart? Much like the "List of longest diaries" page, these pieces of media are notable for their exceptional length, both in terms of word count and duration. I fail to see the absolute necessity for a news article to precede the creation of a page dedicated to comparing the word counts of books. I believe that with appropriate references and citations, this page can still maintain the standards of accuracy and reliability that Wikipedia upholds. Bobbyjones81 (talk) 19:16, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is it truly essential to have a news article as a primary source for collating and comparing the word counts of books in a chart? Not for the exact contents of the list, no. Per WP:LISTN, The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Basically you just need to find sources that establish notability of the concept of "the longest pieces of media", which I would think shouldn't be tremendously difficult. WPscattert/c19:44, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So, the article Patit Pavan Mandir is up for deletion. It's a Hindu temple, and the nomination description is the temple is "totally not notable". It's the first temple that was built to allow all members of society to enter. Sounds significant right? I even found a newspaper with a two part, in depth article ABOUT the temple. [2][3]. I added it, and it was removed twice for "not being a reliable source" by an editor... the same editor that nominated the article for deletion, and I just realized it.
So, the guy who encouraged the temple to be built has his own article, and when he was in some kind of exile, he did a bunch of stuff for the lowest caste in his society, and none of that is in HIS article, that whole section of his life is blank when it's obviously important and... there is some political land mind here I don't comprehend.
The replacement for the text I added is a book that only has two sentences about the temple in it. And the text they used from the book is before that sentence (not about the temple) and the second sentence, but... careful skips the sentence that actually mentioned the temple.
Something is up and I am not sure where to go with it, but it looks like this period of this person's life (where they advocated for the most disadvantaged people of their society) is being erased from Wikipedia on purpose. Denaar (talk) 19:06, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! The sources you've cited are from News Bharati, which seems to be a local newspaper that isn't citing any sources. The about section on News Bharati's website states that they "clear doubts resulting out of this left-liberal-secular propaganda." This points to a non-neutral source. All of this combined probably made that editor say that it isn't a reliable source. I'm pretty sure there isn't a cabal to erase this person's life off Wikipedia, guessing by the page's deletion discussion, where the consensus seems to be leaning towards "keep." Grumpylawnchair (talk)19:23, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! What exactly do you mean by "start a new topic around the web?" If you mean to start a new article, please use the the Article wizard. That will create a draft article that will not be in the main Wikipedia article space. Once you are done editing the draft, you can submit it to articles for creation by clicking the blue button on the top of the draft. It can take several months for it to be approved, but when it is, it will be moved to the main article space. Hope this helps! Grumpylawnchair (talk)19:28, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Feedback appreciated on first article
I've written my first article about a musician. It's currently a draft in the Articles for Creation space. Since I'm an autoconfirmed user, I guess I can take the article out of AfC and publish it directly – but I'd like to get feedback here if possible, to make sure it's good enough in the first place. I mainly used secondary sources, but I also used two sources that seem to be somewhere between primary and secondary (at least the way I understand them).
Hello, CerebrumNonHabeo. AfC is entirely optional for autoconfirmed editors. In my opinion, your draft good and is ready to be moved to main space. No need to add to the burden on the AfC reviewers. Thanks for your contributions. Cullen328 (talk) 20:36, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@CerebrumNonHabeo I agree with Cullen328 that your draft is fine to be moved to Mainspace, especially since AfC has a large backlog at present. It will still be reviewed by the WP:NPP but I don't think they'll see any issues. Mike Turnbull (talk) 20:59, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The bolding in the draft as it currently is looks correct to me. As a note however, you shouldn't be emailing organizations to find out their preferred name. Not only is it pointless since it's not verifiable, the title of articles (and in fact everything in them) should be supported by what reliable sources are saying. WP:OFFICIAL titles are often not the proper ones for articles. See WP:TITLES for more info. WPscattert/c20:39, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, would like an uninvolved editor to have a look at this one. I reverted a recent edit which had a summary suggesting CoI ("Revising article at artist's request ... "), and which was unsourced. I posted to the editor's Talk page re CoI. Editor has reverted my reversion and the addition I'd made of copyedit and BLP sources tags. Editor has left a summary implying that I may have a CoI - I don't, I'd never heard of this person until the article came up in Recent Changes. Not sure what to do here as further changes might just suggest further that I have a CoI, but I would prefer not to leave a BLP article in a poorly sourced state. Thanks. Tacyarg (talk) 22:56, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I'm interested in completely rewriting the article for Junkie by William Burroughs. The current article looks like it's barely changed since ~2005, nearly every paragraph has a Citation Needed tag dated 2017, it's filled with emotionally charged language like "agonizingly candid confessions", etc. It doesn't seem like there's much that's worth keeping.
Is there an etiquette to essentially ripping everything out of an article and starting from scratch? Should I create a draft and go through the new article review process? Is it better to make gradual changes instead? Or am I overthinking this, and I should just go ahead and be bold? Ghosts of Europa (talk) 23:27, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With an article with just one citation, you shouldn't get pushback as long as you properly cite your version. It really depends what state the article is in whether a rewrite without discussion is acceptable by etiquette or not – on articles that are already decent, you should probably bring it up on the talk page or another place where interested editors will see, even just as a courtesy measure. Here though, basically anything with better sourcing is an improvement. Skarmory(talk •contribs)00:02, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Wikipedia:RECKLESS is a good[reply]
(edit conflict) Welcome to the Teahouse, Ghosts of Europa. Yours is a laudable aim. The only thing to definitely avoid is trying to create and submit to AFC a duplicate article that will run parallel to this one. Stick with fixing this one. My advice would be to start on the article talk page and explain your concerns and plans to improve the page. Point out the things that are wrong. Invite others to express an opinion. Leave it a week to get any feedback, and, if nothing comes of that, yes, WP:BEBOLD applies.
Now, you could work on a rewrite in your sandbox and invite other editors to contribute. When you're ready, you could then replace the article contents with your new version. Obviously, it should be based on Reliable Sources. You could even approach the major contributors to the page. The most active (and currently active, too) of them looks to be User:23skidoo. They might be able to offer an opinion and maybe even collaborate with you on a rewrite. Just remember that rewriting a whole article based on reliable sources is harder than making piecemeal improvements, using clear edit summaries of each step you make. Hope this helps a bit, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:07, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ghosts of Europa: You'll get varying advice on this because people disagree. Some regular FA contributors seem to prefer ground-up rewrites. Most editors seem to work gradually.
My advice: start looking for sources and make a talk page entry. Mention you're doing a rewrite and list your sources on the talk page as you find them. If anybody wants to contribute they can join in at this point. Once you have the sources, you can just edit the article where it currently is. Also, if you change the awkward header like "Ginsberg as editor and literary agent" to something clearer, a bot may leave an error message on the article's talk page. The soulution is just to use the {{anchor}} template where appropriate in the rewritten article ({{anchor|Ginsberg as editor and literary agent}}). Hope this helps and feel free to {{ping}} me if you run into a snag, Rjjiii (talk) 04:47, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i need a wikipedia editor who can make our wikipedia.
i want to get my wikipedia page made, i am a youtuber. i have 0 clue about how this wikipedia works. please help. i have been scammed alot by fake wikipedia editors alot. Dilrajsinghmih (talk) 04:57, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Dilrajsinghmih An article about you has already been deleted more than once following this discussion. It seems very unlikely anyone will want to assist you create another version, unless there are now many decent sources of information about you that could be used. If there are, please list them here in this thread. Mike Turnbull (talk) 08:31, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Moving....
...Need a Admin to move everything from User:Unfriendly Aliens to User:Nuclear Sergeant. I attempted to log on here, got thrown out by a bad pass code on the former user page repeatedly. This is NO sock at all. Can the old User:Unfriendly Aliens page, etc. be deleted so that no one will have to worry about socks, worse? Thanks.Nuclear Sergeant (talk) 06:37, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Depiping tool
Is there any tool that can be used to plug in and modify a given example of a piped internal link across pages, such as those that might have changed or need redirecting due to a page move, split or other change that affects page navigation? Iskandar323 (talk) 08:48, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, 
Courtesy link: Draft:Oluwaseun Sesi Whingan
