Wikipedia:Teahouse

GoingBatty, 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

Unable to format my page for US rocket pioneer

Hello,

Because it doesn't exist I started a wiki page for American rocket pioneer Edward S Forman who was one of the founders of Aerojet Corporation. His name appears on many other wiki pages...Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Guggenheim Aeronautical Laboratory, Frank Malina, Jack Parsons, but there's no landing page for him). He has been written about in books as well as press. Unfortunately I completely stalled out because the formatting was way too difficult for me. My sandbox page start has now been sitting unfinished for 5 years. I'm a professional writer so the writing, references and citations are no problem. It's the page building. Do you have freelancers who will actually build the page for me?

Thank you LynnMaginnis (talk) 00:24, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

LynnMaginnis, all the references currently cited in User:LynnMaginnis/sandbox/Edward Forman are to a single book that's about somebody other than Forman. So, currently, the referencing is a problem. (Please see WP:GNG.) The freelancers would have to search for information about Forman. As for the formatting, you've done it pretty well; what's the particular problem that you face? -- Hoary (talk) 00:32, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi again, thanks for getting back to me. The article is much longer and uses multiple references. I had to quit writing in the sandbox so started writing the rest of the draft in Pages/Words. Getting what little is there on the page formatted was so frustrating and time consuming I had to quit. I can't do the sidebars, indexes, expanded photo boxes with birth, death, organizations, etc. I don't need freelance writers. I have plenty of sources. I need freelance page builders. LynnMaginnis (talk) 00:46, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

LynnMaginnis, I've already made a few edits to formatting. A sidebar or expanded photo box (or "gallery") is completely unnecessary. The list of contents has been generated automatically, and if you add or subtract headers then the list of contents will be updated automatically. Formatting tables prettily is tiresome but you probably won't need any table; formatting anything else is pretty easy: just try; and if you're stuck, ask here. (Free of charge!) -- Hoary (talk) 00:55, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

PS LynnMaginnis, if by "freelancer" you mean somebody who'd do this for payment, please forget the idea. It's unlikely to bring a happy result, for any of a number of reasons. -- Hoary (talk) 00:36, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

So who can help me? Wouldn't Wikipedia want to fill in the missing history of a person who is mentioned on your other pages? LynnMaginnis (talk) 00:51, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Really, LynnMaginnis, do your best to DIY. Easier for you, after a little initial irritation. If/when you get stuck, ask. If you're using Pages or Word, one problem you'll probably face is that plain, single quotation marks (' ') will be autotransformed into "typographic" single quotation marks (‘ ’). Their italicizing and emboldening functions will thereby be lost. Solution: Copy out of Word/Pages and paste into a text editor; use the text editor (I use Geany but any should be OK) to convert "typographic" quotation marks to plain ones; continue editing in the text editor. -- Hoary (talk) 01:05, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

LynnMaginnis, we can help you here at the Teahouse as often as you want, but you are going to have to do most of the work yourself. Your content should be in the draft where experienced editors can see it, not in some "Pages/Words" document off-Wikipedia. Do not worry about sidebars, indexes, expanded photo boxes with birth, death, organizations, etc. because all of that is secondary. What matters far more that that stuff is well written, neutral, well referenced encyclopedic prose. On another note, you uploaded File:Ed Forman1.jpg, a photo taken by a staff photographer at Noel Studio in Pasadena in 1931 or 1932. You claimed that photo as your own work. With all due respect, I consider it unlikely that you were a professional portrait photographer in 1931 or 1932 and are now editing Wikipedia in 2023. The math seems implausible. Please clarify the provenance of this photo. Cullen328 (talk) 01:24, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Teahouse Hosts are generalists, here to advise on Wikipedia practices, but not be co-authors. Consider the Malina and Parsons articles as models. David notMD (talk) 01:40, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

If we don't know when the copyright holder of the photograph died, and if we have no compelling reason to think that the photograph predates 1932, then according to Prof Hirtle we have to assume that it remains copyright until 2052. (Thanks, Disney Corp!) So I'd be looking for a published photograph to replace it. -- Hoary (talk) 02:27, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

So did you delete the photo and box that I had? This morning I see it's gone now. I wanted to fix it instead of start over. LynnMaginnis (talk) 16:00, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

@LynnMaginnis, it was removed by Theroadislong as a potential copyright violation. It still exists over on Commons (link) but it will be deleted in six days unless you can provide proof that it is not a copyright violation. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:06, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Of course I am not claiming provenance on the photo...the error is there because I have trouble with the tools. Even in Visual Editor, which is all I could use..,.forget html source code. I am using the Jack Parsons pages as a model. I am a 77 year old grandmother trying to fill in a gap of history. I'm pretty surprised at how unfriendly and critical some people have been on this forum. LynnMaginnis (talk) 17:50, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for this tip LynnMaginnis (talk) 15:57, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip Hoary on the text editor. LynnMaginnis (talk) 16:03, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

@Hoary ... I think it was you that cleaned up my citations (the a,b,c format with one source footnote instead of several), which was one of my issues. How did you do that? I've seen it on other pages but didn't know how it was done. LynnMaginnis (talk) 16:21, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

LynnMaginnis, yes it was me, and this (which incidentally is called a "diff" in Wikipedia-editing-speak) was the edit. It shows you precisely what I did, but I realize that it may not be so easy to understand and digest (one reason being that I moved one quasi-paragraph from the foot of the draft to its head, thereby getting other paragraphs out of sync). ¶ I noticed that you had several references to the same book, each reference being to a specific page, or page span, of that book. (What you'd done had a system to it, and it's an entirely legitimate way of referencing: please keep reading.) I guessed that this was a draft that would eventually cite a larger number of sources, and that (my personal preferences aside) the existing referencing system would make it unnecessarily hard to edit, without particularly benefiting its readers. And so I retained one of your references, renaming it from the opaque ":0" to the slightly less forgettable "angel", and removing the page number, for which I instead used Template:Rp. Thereafter, you, or I, or anyone, could refer to the book via combinations such as <ref name="angel" />{{Rp|page=125}} and <ref name="angel" />{{Rp|pages=32–34}}, etc.; the labeling of each instance as "a", "b", "c", etc would be automated by Wikipedia's software. ¶ As mentioned above, I happen not to like the system you had used (entirely separate references for each cited page, or page-span, of a book), but it is a system, and Wikipedia makes it very clear that "Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, or to make it match other articles, without first seeking consensus for the change." So, very unusually, I broke a rule here. I did so because in this particular situation "seeking consensus" seemed likely to do little more than further confuse and annoy. -- Hoary (talk) 23:11, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

By the way, @LynnMaginnis I think Hoary has picked the best citation style for new editors for you.* I used it for my first article. It makes it very easy to use the same source multiple times - if you're in Visual Editor, just click on the footnote, press ctrl+c, then paste it wherever you want to use that source again. imo, it's easiest to switch over to Code Editor afterward to go put the page numbers in.

`*Most established editors (at least in the hist/lit/bio areas I tend to work in) prefer Template:sfn, and I personally find that really easy for writing in with the source code editor. But sfn is almost completely useless in Visual Editor, so it's probably not something you want to use (yet). -- asilvering (talk) 03:30, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

@LynnMaginnis Have you tried using Visual Editor? That will look and behave more like a word processing program than source code. -- asilvering (talk) 05:14, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

asilvering, I only used the Visual Editor, and when I struggled with that I figured there was no hope for doing myself. LynnMaginnis (talk) 17:53, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Alas, sorry to hear it. But it really does look fine so far. Don't worry too much about making it look perfect. Most articles that go through draft reviews at AfC have some kind of formatting error or other. There are editors who seem to actually enjoy fixing those minor things, adding infoboxes, and so on, and it's perfectly acceptable to leave some of that for someone else if you're getting frustrated. If your draft has citations that are so broken a reviewer doesn't know what they are, that's a problem. Otherwise, don't sweat it. -- asilvering (talk) 08:45, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the insights asilvering. LynnMaginnis (talk) 15:55, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello LynnMaginnis. Back in 2010 I’d had a few magazine articles published, but was intimidated by the Wikipedia article process. Here’s what helped me. I created my encyclopedia article offline, adding the formatting as I wrote, using Help:Cheatsheet. For needed formatting I didn’t know I’d find a published article that contained what I wanted to learn, and clicked on "Edit" to see the formatting.

When my draft was finished I went to Wikipedia:Article wizard/version1/Ready for submission and, for my first article, I used the draft option. I copied and pasted my article title into “Enter your draft name here”, then copied my article manuscript, clicked on "Create new article draft" and pasted the article in the space provided below the Instructions section. After that I clicked on "Show preview" to see what needed corrected. The next step was clicking on "Publish page" which saved everything to the public drafting area. I then had the option to come back later to work on the draft some more, or I could click on "Edit" then add subst:submit (with double brackets around it) at the beginning of my draft, which indicted that I wanted my draft to be reviewed. I am thankful that I received a Notice informing me that my article had been accepted. I hope that you find this helpful. Karenthewriter (talk) 04:01, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks sooooo much Karenthewriter. This is the kind of nuts and bolts help I need. Glad your article was accepted! LynnMaginnis (talk) 17:40, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Lynn, don't worry about formatting, images, or anything else. Just do two things: read reliable sources and 1) summarize what they say in your own words (don't copy!), and then 2) cite those sources, as you have been. One more thing: to get your draft accepted, make sure you find some sources that have significant coverage of Forman—i.e, not just a passing mention, but multiple paragraphs; a whole book chapter about him would probably nail it, or a couple of independent newspaper articles that aren't an interview of him, but *about* him. (Note: different newspapers all printing the same news agency story, count as one independent source.) If you can get three solid sources like that, it's very likely your draft will be accepted. Once you have that, you can try submitting again, or if you wish, ask for review here again. Note that I've added a header and a section to Draft talk:Edward Forman which may help. Mathglot (talk) 20:34, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Lynn, I've done a bunch of changes to the page, some of which includes copying some text from the Jack Parsons article; as this overlapped some of the previous content that was there, there is some overlap, now, in various places. I think with the expansion, and the new sources, this now has sufficient references to establish WP:Notability, but because of the copying and moving stuff around, it's kind of rough and doesn't have a smooth flow. If you can pick it up from here, and consolidate duplicate content, provide better segues between paragraphs or sentences that seem to jump around, and just generally smooth everything out so it reads better, I think you'll have a releasable draft. Check with other helpers here to see what they suggest, as far as getting it ready to submit. Mathglot (talk) 00:33, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Location of publication, Place of publication

Visual edit has fields headed "Location of publication" and "Place of publication". The former is followed by "Geographical place of publication; usually not wikilinked; omit when the publication name includes place", the latter by "Publication place shows after title; if 'place' or 'location' are also given, they are displayed before the title prefixed with 'written at'". What is the difference? How should each be used?

I've searched the Teahouse and Help desk archives but not found anything mentioning both. Mcljlm (talk) 18:40, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Mcljim. These are explained at Template:Cite book/doc#Description. It says If only one of publication-place, place, or location is defined, it will be treated as the publication place and will show after the title; if publication-place and place or location are defined, then place or location is shown before the title prefixed with "written at" and publication-place is shown after the title. So place or location (they are alternative names for the same parameter), if used as well as publication-place, show where the item (eg a news story or article) was written.

These are the names used with the template in the source editor. I'm not quite sure how they map on to the fields in the Visual Editor, because I've never used it. ColinFine (talk) 20:04, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

In some cases at least I can tick/check the boxes in the Visual edit list for both which results in fields for both appearing. Mcljlm (talk) 23:17, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

VE uses the descriptions given in the #TemplateData section of most templates. Because of the length of Template:Cite book/doc, the template data section points to a subpage, Template:Cite_book/TemplateData, where the descriptions for |location= and |publication-place= in VE can be found. Mathglot (talk) 19:44, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Are there any Wikipedia pages that are so notable that they have meta Wikipedia pages about themselves?

For example, if the Wikipedia page Turkey itself was notable, then there could be a wikipedia pages called Turkey (Wikipedia article). does any such article exist? Michael7604 (talk) 04:24, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello @Michael7604 and welcome to the Teahouse.

I'm guessing you're talking about the disambiguation page? Here it is > Turkey (disambiguation) 🛧Layah50♪🛪 ( 話す? 一緒に飛ぼう！) 04:49, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

No, I mean like if a Wikipedia article itself was so notable in the media that that page itself had a Wikipedia article about it. Like an article about an article Michael7604 (talk) 04:52, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't think those kinds of articles exist. It's totally unnecessary to have an article about a Wikipedia article. 🛧Layah50♪🛪 ( 話す? 一緒に飛ぼう！) 04:59, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes: Wikipedia Seigenthaler biography incident is about the article John Seigenthaler; and there may be one or two other examples. -- Hoary (talk) 05:02, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Not to mention Wikipedia's own article on itself (since the very earliest months of the project), as well as separate ones for its foreign-language variants. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 20:06, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, there are quite a few that come to mind in fact. I was just looking at one of them today. You can find them in various places on meta and on Wikipedia. Lilbrownhole (talk) 05:04, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

It's Commons, not Wikipedia, but File:Macaca nigra self-portrait large.jpg has Monkey selfie copyright dispute. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 05:08, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes: Jar'Edo Wens hoax, as another example. But if anyone is looking at this discussion, thinking "If I create a great hoax, even after it's found out and deleted my feat will live on in Wikipedia history", and salivating, better think again. Living on in history will be very much less likely than a humdrum indefinite block, all for a squalid little incident known to no more than a dozen people. ¶ How about the opposite: a Wikipedia article famed for the right reasons? Unlikely, as Wikipedia is conservative: never perceptive or innovative, always merely regurgitating. -- Hoary (talk) 05:14, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

You may find something interesting in categories like Category:Wikipedia content, Category:Criticism of Wikipedia and Category:Wikipedia controversies. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:51, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Since it's "pages", we can also include wikipedia topics that have articles, such as ARBCOM's. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:30, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

@Michael7604: There is also Wikipedia:Silly Things/Wikipedia's article on George W. Bush which was an article once until it was brought to AFD. 115.188.159.190 (talk) 10:28, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Visual Editing vs Source Editing

Hi. I am still new to Wikipedia. One of the things which I wanted to ask is that whenever I am editing a page, I see the option of "Source Editing vs Visual Editing". And honestly speaking, I find the Visual Editing extremely easy as compared to Source Editing. Just wanted to ask which one is better? Visual Editing or Source Editing? Thanks Charsaddian (talk) 09:38, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

@Charsaddian, welcome to the Teahouse! Out of old habit, I use the source editor myself, but I think VE is easier for beginners for most things. I have been told that there are some things the VE is worse at, but I don't really know what they are. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:02, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Not just worse, there are some things which cannot be edited with VE at all (this list is not exhaustive)

• Anything which isn't using the wikitext content model
• raw editing of most HTML attributes, including style="" and id=""
• complex template structures (including Help:Conditional expressions and most other parser functions)
• raw editing of behavior switches (some can be modified via the page options dialog. Others not)

Plus several things that are doable but painfull

• <syntaxhighlight>
• variables (no autocompletion)

Additionally, VE has no support for resolving edit conflicts, and if you take too long (several hours) to save your edit, it might get lost irrecoverably. Victor Schmidt (talk) 12:32, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

@Victor Schmidt Thanks for the feedback. Right now I am only using SE when it comes to making edits in Tables/Templates. Charsaddian (talk) 20:25, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for welcoming me. Yes agreed that VE is easy for the beginners. I also find VE easy currently but maybe once I gain more experience, I will become more comfortable with SE as well. Charsaddian (talk) 20:23, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

@Charsaddian "Old hands" here tend to use the source editor since the VE only became available much later. It also gives you slightly more direct access to tricks from the cheatsheet. However, those who are familiar with modern word-processors will find the learning curve with VE much smaller than with SE. The main area where I find VE is inferior is in the way it handles named references. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:17, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

indeed, AFAIK reusing refs isn't great, and if a reference doesn't have a name, it will get something like autoNumber Victor Schmidt (talk) 12:32, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I generally enjoy visual editor more, but there are still certain features that it lacks. Sfn references (like Mike mentioned) are difficult, as are tables and lists sometimes. If I tried to use visual editor 100% of the time, there would be some errors I would never be able to fix. In addition, it's quite slow on larger articles in comparison to source editor. :3 F4U (they/it) 12:28, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Source Editor can open and edit just one section or sub-section of a page, whereas WP:VE opens the whole page at once. I tend to switch between them quite a bit. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:55, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes Thanks for talking part in the discussion. Do you think having Technical Background is important for getting understanding of Source Editing? Charsaddian (talk) 20:32, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

@Charsaddian Absolutely not. I don't know if you're old enough to remember a very famous piece of early word processing software called 'Wordstar' (precursor of WordPerfect and then MS Word). Every typist and office worker (like me) just had to learn a few simple characters to place before and after any word or sentence if they wanted to italicise it, embolden it or underline it. They all managed it and none had technical backgrounds. To be honest, it's very much like that.

There is one really useful (and often overlooked) editing icon in Source Editor that you should not ignore - it's a slanted grey pencil icon for 'syntax highlighting'. You can toggle highlighting on and off, which adds colour to all the tiny commands which make up reference templates, hyperlinks, wikilinks and usernames. It leaves actual text black, allowing you to ignore the coloured source code elements if you want to, rather than have everything on the page all one colour. It's really useful, and great for getting to the heart of any problem that's making something not display correctly. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:09, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

@Freedom4U I agree what you mentioned about the Tables and Lists. I found Source Editing very useful when editing Tables/Templates Charsaddian (talk) 20:28, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

@Charsaddian: Welcome to the Teahouse. I find it depends on what you're planning to do. If it's surface level like adding/editing citations or text, the visual editor is a lot better to use. If you're going to be editing a lot of tables or templates, you might want to get acquainted with the source editor. It's good to have some experience in using the source editor, as not all namespaces (such as article/user talk pages) allow the use of the visual editor. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:21, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

@Tenryuu Thanks for the detailed feedback. I feel due to lack of Technical Background, I will be having difficulties in using Source Editing frequently. Am I right? Charsaddian (talk) 20:34, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't think so. Michael D. Turnbull up above linked to the cheatsheet, so it's got basic formatting options for you that the visual editor covers. It's just that the visual editor has to go through more hoops than the source if you're trying to do something like putting parameters into a preexisting template. I personally like to be able to tell what's what in source, so I usually enable syntax highlighting so that it's easy to tell at a glance what's been italicised, what's a reference, and what templates are in use. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:40, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your response. Really helpful Charsaddian (talk) 20:50, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello Charsaddian. It's 90% personal preference. I think most new editors gravitate to the visual editor because it's more intuitive. And most experienced editors gravitate towards the source editor because there are many niche features only fully implemented in source mode. If the VE works for you, that's great. If you discover more things that you can do in the source editor and decide to use it, that's also great.

As far technical skill? No, not really. Try looking at a page that you've edited before in the source editor with highlighting on. Also, if you run into confusion in source mode, feel free to post back here and ask questions. Regards, Rjjiii (talk) 06:32, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

@Rjjiii Thank you very much for the detailed response. Really helpful Charsaddian (talk) 09:47, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Also, in the VisualEditor, you can't add template parameters if they're not in the TemplateData (most of the time, anyways). Templates are, on the whole, easier to manage in source mode. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 12:57, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

@Edward-Woodrow I agree that Templates are easy to manage in the Source Mode Charsaddian (talk) 11:55, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I use both, It is easier to add images and other media using the VE, but easier for templates in the SE. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 02:07, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

@PaulGamerBoy360 Yes I agree that SE is helpful when making edits in Templates Charsaddian (talk) 11:56, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Marking a not verifiable page

How do I add the 'this page doesn't cite reliable sources' warning sign? Lucuusb (talk) 20:49, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Lucuusb, and welcome to the Teahouse. You find the appropriate template in Cleanup templates - probably {{more citations needed}}, but you might find a more appropriate one - and insert it at the top of the article (in the double curly brackets). ColinFine (talk) 21:20, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

@Lucuusb: If you're referring to an individual citation, you can add the tag {{failed verification}} after the closing </ref> tag of the citation. It appears like this: ~Anachronist (talk) 02:53, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

The easiest way is with Twinkle. Preferences>Gadgets>Browsing, if you want to turn this on yourself. -- asilvering (talk) 03:35, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Please note that it's highly recommened to attempt to fix the problem yourself first before tagging the article, as the amount of articles tagged with cleanup templates grows rapidly. Also pay attention if the article is worth it, you can read WP:CTT for more information NotAGenious (talk) 05:53, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I think you're looking for {{unreliable sources}}, but consider fixing the problem yourself. You can just remove content supported by unreliable sources. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 12:53, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I learned. Lucuusb (talk) 01:27, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Tagging for update

Which tag do you use for asking an article to be updated? James Kevin McMahon (talk) 06:46, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

The Template:Update page will help you with documentation on how to use the update template Waterard ^water?(talk | contribs) 06:54, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks James Kevin McMahon (talk) 09:52, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

But it is the {{update}} template Waterard ^water?(talk | contribs) 07:01, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Translation attribution

I just created the article Sachiko Kiyono and it contains a translation from her Japanese article. However, I forgot to put that in my edit summary. Even though I put a notice on the talk page I know I made a mistake. What should I do? (Also, how do I connect her new English article to her Japanese article in the language tab up top?) I would appreciate any help.  theomached  (talk) 23:04, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

@Theomached: the credit you've added on the talk page is sufficient. Also, the language tab is done with Wikidata; it has been added and if you do a hard refresh you should see it. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:09, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt reply. I will keep this in mind for the future.  theomached  (talk) 23:11, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Elli, Help:Translation#License_requirements says that "[a] new, translated article must credit the source article"; the method being: "Provide in the first edit summary of the target article a statement of your translation, together with an interlanguage link to the source (translated-from) article." It describes addition of a template to the talk page as an optional extra (and one can infer that it's a desirable extra), not as a substitute for an informative edit summary for the article itself. However, this edit of Theomached's has done the job. -- Hoary (talk) 01:22, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

@Hoary: Ah, you're right. Hadn't read the relevant guidelines in a while and misremembered them, thinking that talk page attribution was sufficient. My apologies. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:32, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello Teahouse!

I was wondering if there was a way to merge two accounts. I just started a new account but upon discovering that my old account was still active wanted to merge the new one with the old one so there isn't a redundancy. Thank you! SacredForest (talk) 00:05, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello @SacredForest! There is no way to merge accounts. What you can do is to mention your previous account on your userpage to show that you own both accounts. Ca ^{talk to me!} 02:35, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. :) I'll consider doing this. May I also ask if it's possible to mask one's IP address on the contributions page or anywhere else it appears? SacredForest (talk) 21:27, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

You can ask to have any edits attributed to your IP deleted at WP:Oversight. Wikimedia Foundation is working on an IP masking system, but it will not mask previous IPs. Ca ^{talk to me!} 01:24, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! SacredForest (talk) 22:22, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

You can use the Template:User alternative account name for this. NotAGenious (talk) 08:07, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello, SacredForest. This may be a pedantic point, but the Teahouse does not have "moderators". Instead, the Teahouse has volunteer "hosts" who do their best to provide friendly and accurate answers to good faith questions. "Moderators" sounds similar to administrators, but Wikipedia administrators do not moderate content. I am an administrator. We deal with conduct issues mostly, and carry out the consensus of the community in various areas. In my five years as an administrator, I have never thought of myself as a "moderator". Cullen328 (talk) 08:18, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I've deleted the word "moderator" and will try to never think such thoughts again. ;) SacredForest (talk) 21:28, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Okay! Thank you SacredForest (talk) 21:27, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia Adventure Issue - Stuck. in a loop

I'm not sure what I'm doing wrong, but the Wikipedia Adventure seems to get stuck in a loop when WillKomen leaves a message on my userpage. I click the friendly reply and the loop starts, and I also tried adding my own personalized reply, and submitted is sucessfully but it still puts me in a loop. Southpaw70 (talk) 03:11, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Southpaw70. If you are trying to play The Wikipedia Adventure game on a tablet, laptop or smartphone using the mobile site, you may run into problems. Scroll to the bottom of any page on mobile to switch to the fully functional though sadly misnamed desktop site, that works just fine on most modern mobile devices. Cullen328 (talk) 08:26, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Another option, if you are confident enough, is to just stop playing that silly game, and just start boldly editing the encyclopedia, learning as you go along. Cullen328 (talk) 08:29, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you @Cullen328, I will try both of those things. Southpaw70 (talk) 19:31, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Steps to Create Account and Page on Wikipedia

Steps to Create Account and Page on Wikipedia Singh Pankaj7230 (talk) 06:44, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

@Singh Pankaj7230: as previously advised on the AfC help desk, you already have an account ('Singh Pankaj7230'), and you can create a user page compliant with the WP:UP guidelines. The easiest route to creating new articles is via WP:YFA, which also includes a wizard for submitting your creation for pre-publication review. Note that you are not allowed to create promotional material, or content which otherwise is not in line with Wikipedia's purpose and objectives. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:26, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Singh Pankaj7230, Wikipedia is not a place for people to try to promote themselves. As a matter of fact, that behavior is forbidden on Wikipedia. Use Facebook and Twitter and Instagram and LinkedIn and countless other social media sites to tell the world about yourself. Keep your self-promotional efforts off of Wikipedia, please. Cullen328 (talk) 07:56, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Editing a page

I wanted to edit the page about czech traffic signs, but only the first image and first paragraph showed up and i couldnt go lower. HolubyDoHuby (talk) 07:26, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

If you mean Road signs in the Czech Republic, you need to click the edit button beside the title of the section you want to edit. Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:48, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

@HolubyDoHuby: Welcome to the Teahouse. I assume you are using the source editor and clicked on the "edit source" link next to one of the headings, which will only display that particular section for editing. You can have access to editing the entire article by clicking on "edit source" at the top of the page. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:23, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

In the mobile interface, there's no icon to click in order to edit the full article at once. There are two options to achieve this functionality:

1. Switch into the Visual Editor and back into the source editor
2. Edit the URL such that instead of ending e.g. editor/0, it ends editor/all (in this case, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_signs_in_the_Czech_Republic#/editor/all)

User:HolubyDoHuby, may you know it. Folly Mox (talk) 19:12, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Help needed

Can somebody please correctly transclude this SPI page for me Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/SAMEBREED 202.164.131.11 (talk) 09:13, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello, IP, this has been  Done for you NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 13:58, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Need some assistance removing vandalism on the Farsi wiki

Hello, can anyone take a look at this and this page on the Farsi wikipedia? Please remove the references with text "SMM Panel," (social media marketing) as these are spam. Then, look at the user's global contributions list as I've found an account that spammed on multiple wikis and the same might be true here.

I don't know the language and the navigation is too different for me.

Also, I've been searching for `site:wikipedia.org "smm panel"` and the like on google, is this the best way to find similar vandalism?

Cheers Notlacanian (talk) 10:37, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

@Notlacanian, this is the English Wikipedia, and very few of our editors edit the Farsi Wikipedia, so consider requesting on the Farsi Wikipedia. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 10:41, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

@Notlacanian You can find articles which contain specific text in their source code using an insource search. A search for "SMM Panel" currently gives only legitimate hits here on en:Wikipedia. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:02, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, that's useful. Notlacanian (talk) 13:11, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Draft-copyvio dilemma

At the moment, I'm wondering how to handle Draft:Pleasantview (novel) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), created by one GxR18 (talk · contribs) back in early January and about to face G13. Pleasantview is actually within my regional/topical interests, as it happens to be a 2021 novel by Trinidadian author Celeste Mohammed; what we've found at ProQuest via WP:Library is promising by NBOOK standards. In its current state, it's tagged as a copyvio of this book guide, which I 70% doubt meets WP:RS according to its URL. Therefore lies the question: Should I tag it with {{copyvio}} and send it to WP:Copyright problems soon enough, or should I wait until G13 has passed to start anew and not cause a fuss? (Paging long-time TT contributor @Guettarda: One of the first I met on WP back in 2005, he might give us a bit of opinion just in case.) --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 11:14, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Slgrandson, I have deleted the "Characters" section, as a copy of part of the content of marmaladeandmustardseed.com/bookguidesblog/pleasantview. I searched within the latter for a number of distinctive strings that appear in the draft, but found none. Which other parts of the draft plagiarize? Copyright-violating text must be removed, and older versions including such text deleted, as quickly as possible. (Probably by somebody other than me, as I'm getting sleepy.) Once that's done, one can proceed to consider the text that remains, the reliability of the sources cited, etc. -- Hoary (talk) 12:04, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

@Hoary I've now done a WP:REVDEL on all the earlier revisions. Sleep well! Nick Moyes (talk) 13:30, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

[Deep breath] Slgrandson, marmaladeandmustardseed.com's page about Pleasantview is undated. The Wayback Machine only scraped it on a single day: 18 Feb '23. It then described the character Sunil as: "Consuela’s boyfriend convicted of stealing industrial tools, which he had done to make money to by Consuela back". Today (22 Jul '23), it says "Consuela’s boyfriend convicted of stealing industrial tools, which he had done to make money to by Consuela back" (unchanged).

GxR18 added the list of characters on 4 Jan '23, saying of Sunil: "Consuela’s boyfriend convicted of stealing industrial tools, which he had done to make money to by Consuela back" (precisely the same as marmaladeandmustardseed.com).

By 17 Jan '23 (I haven't bothered to check exactly when), this had become "Consuela’s boyfriend, escapes prison to save Consuela, ends up being shot by Mr. Jagroop in the prologue".

It's possible that marmaladeandmustardseed.com's page (i) dates from (or was augmented in) early January, in part plagiarizing material from the draft. But of course drafts can't be found via Google or other standards-compliant general-purpose search engines.

It's also possible that the draft plagiarized the character list within marmaladeandmustardseed.com's page. I find this a lot more likely. (GxR18 can't comment, as they're indefinitely blocked -- for a copyright matter, but one concerning an image, not text.)

Nick Moyes kindly deleted the versions of the draft that included the (presumably) plagiarized material. Except that my admitted sleepiness may have been contagious: he only deleted the 49 most recent offending versions, not the earlier ones. (A few minutes ago, I deleted 56 earlier versions.)

It was Stuartyeates who attached the copyvio template to the top. That was five months ago, but perhaps he'd care to say here whether the problem was limited to the character list. (If it wasn't, then it still isn't: deletion of the character list aside, the draft is unchanged since that time.)

Moving from the question of copyright violation to that of reliability, marmaladeandmustardseed.com is by Kate. Kate who? We're not told. There's no indication that the website qualifies as a reliable source. -- Hoary (talk) 00:03, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

• Sorry Hoary, but I have no memory of the article at that point in time. I've done dozens of AfC's since then and this one didn't stand out. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:54, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

• Stuartyeates, Slgrandson, you both brought up the matter of copyright violation. I believe that I've already put an inordinate amount of time into a start at sorting the matter out. Now, could one of you please see if the draft still violates copyright? If it does, please describe where/how (details aren't necessary); I'll then remove the material, remove the template, and do some more revdelling. If it doesn't, please say so, and remove the template. Thank you. -- Hoary (talk) 01:39, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

• No response, Stuartyeates & Slgrandson; and as Earwig says "Violation Unlikely | 26.5% similarity" of the source that the copy-paste template specified, I have removed this template. -- Hoary (talk) 06:30, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

• Hoary: No current copyright issues that I can see. I'd be included to prune the plot section, but fiction articles aren't really my strong point. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:36, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

How to adjust column widths

I pasted ia spreadsheet on to a page I'm composing, but the column widths need adjustment.  How can I adjust the column widths in the WSYWYG interface?  The page I'm composing is at: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?create=Create+new+article+draft&editintro=Template%3AAfC+draft+...

...and my OnWiki user name is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PatrickStingley if that helps.

Thank you PatrickStingley (talk) 17:01, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

@PatrickStingley Irrespective of the editor you are using, I think that the problem is the very long URL in the first entry, which the table software is refusing to wrap. I think that a better solution would be to link the first column to the URL and not have any second column. So you could use Adobe Enhance AI as the first column/first row. Mike Turnbull (talk) 19:41, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Another advantage of that approach would be that you would have space for a column linking to the related Wikipedia article, if there was one: Adobe Photoshop in that instance. Mike Turnbull (talk) 20:19, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Sock revert needed

Can anyone please help to undo these 2 edits made by the sock. [1] and [2] at Joy Alukkas. The user who made this edit is a confirmed sock as per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SAMEBREED. They have been abusing the page Joy Alukkas for a long period of time. 202.164.131.11 (talk) 18:05, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

IP editor. This looks to have been fixed by lettherebedarklight. Mike Turnbull (talk) 19:33, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Google chrome history deleted page, why?

Why was the google chrome history page deleted? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Chrome_version_history?source=post_page-----1e7d07966d6c---------------------- 188.24.213.176 (talk) 20:48, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. This page should help explain things: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Google Chrome version history (2nd nomination). We hold deletion discussions in which the editing community can make recommendations on deletion or retention, based on our Notability criteria. It would appear that the community felt a page of version release notes was more akin to a manual than an encyclopaedia, and should be removed. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:06, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Infobox problems

I'm having some serious trouble trying to make an infobox for a film article in my sandbox. Every time I try to make an infobox, it does not render. Does anyone have any suggestions or advice on how I can make a proper infobox and make it appear on a preview? Please and Thank you!

Love: The G-Man Gaered Linn (talk) 21:30, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

@Gaered Linn Welcome to the Teahouse. What I can see at User:Gaered Linn/sandbox looks absolutely fine to me. What specifically do you think is wrong? Note that WP:NONFREE images are only allowed in articles in mainspace, if that was the problem. Mike Turnbull (talk) 21:57, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Well when I try to make an infobox from scratch, it always doesn't render. So I copy and paste another infobox from a different Wikipedia article and make changes. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't, so it either feels like luck to me or if I'm doing something wrong. Gaered Linn (talk) 03:04, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

@Gaered Linn: I examined all your edits and didn't find a non-rendered infobox. If your code is broken then save it somewhere so we can see what is wrong. We are not psychic. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:33, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Is it just me?

How do i make the second thing on my menu go next to the first one instead of under? Here is the thing so far.

Userboxes I made

Userboxes

---

⌬ CH₃mificαtion! ⌬ 23:09, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

@Chemification: I think I understand your question. I've swapped them over on your master page at User:Chemification/Menu. Is that what you wanted to achieve? Nick Moyes (talk) 23:20, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I think @Chemification meant something like Special:Permalink/1166497068 instead. (But Chemification, please check the history and choose the one you want, or clarify your question. — Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 23:37, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: That works ⌬ CH₃mificαtion! ⌬ 23:39, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Secondary-ness of the Cornell Daily Sun source w/ respect to Cornell University

This issue concerns Draft:Cornell Jeb E. Brooks School of Public Policy - Wikipedia, which I authored. In my original draft, I relied heavily on internal documents of Cornell University's administration as sources, which I have now removed because Theroadislong pointed out their primary-ness was insufficient to show my article met WP:GNG. I have now, instead, used secondary sources from a local newspaper, the Cornell Daily Sun. However, I am not sure if the Cornell Daily Sun is considered secondary enough because it still hires editors from Cornell, even though it is independently owned.

In terms of meeting WP:GNG, I'm a little bit confused. I've seen a mixed bag of sources of varying degrees of secondary-ness. Some, like Cornell Ann S. Bowers College of Computing and Information Science - Wikipedia have been approved with sources that mostly come from school-affiliated newspapers, other drafts such as Draft:Akshara International School Wakad, Pune - Wikipedia have been denied.

What do you guys think? Adeqyateky (talk) 02:08, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Adeqyateky I think you need a mixture of primary and secondary, as certain things can only be proven with primary sources.

For example, filming locations in my city Bradford the 5th biggest city in England by population, the 6th biggest city in England by area, the UK's 4th City of Culture and the world's first UNESCO City of Film.

The MSM ignore my city (apart from when it comes to crime, poverty, religion etc), especially when it comes to things like Bradford's filming locations, actors, singers, rappers and entertainment in general, as they focus too much on cities which they incorrectly assume are bigger, even when Bradford has more filming locations than they do, or is the main location of a production.

For most Bradford filmed productions, you find no mention Bradford in the mainstream newspapers, and in the rare cases you do, they will briefly mention just 1 or 2 locations out of 5 to 10 locations.

Therefore the only ways to prove locations were used for filming, is with sources who were most likely involved in the filming itself like the 5+ local newspapers, the tourism office, the council, and the film office, along with the regional news sources and film office...

However you'd be better off asking me, the eagle-eyed location spotter, as even they only mention around a maximum of 5 locations in productions which have used at least 10.

Most of my city's filming locations are not on IMDB or Wikipedia, but in my head, as I haven't got around to updating the 1000s of productions (with tens of thousands of missing cast, crew, companies etc) and locations I know of yet. Danstarr69 (talk) 03:48, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Danstarr69, if I may continue the digression: I am but a subsidiary-stream medium, but for what I'm worth I haven't ignored your city. Four years ago I created the article Nudrat Afza; perhaps, using reliable sources, you can improve on it. -- Hoary (talk) 09:13, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Hoary I'm too busy updating IMDB on a daily basis. Where 10% of my time is spent updating Bradford and Yorkshire related stuff, and 90% of my time is spent updating random stuff I've come across along the way. In the last month I've updated productions filmed in or by people from London, Cork, Belfast, Conwy, Oxford, Sheffield, Leeds, Los Angeles, Mumbai plus many more I've no doubt forgotten. Right now I'm updating a Bollywood film which was mainly filmed in Yorkshire (specifically Bradford, Harrogate and York). Practically every single credit needs correcting or is missing. Some are in the wrong department entirely, a lot need name attributes adding as their names don't match the spellings on-screen, most have the wrong job titles, and practically all of them need a subtitle specifying things like the department within a department and/or place they were working in ie "camera operator: Mumbai" or "camera operator: second unit". Plus as with every production I update, there's countless duplicate profiles which need merging, although Indian productions always have way more than usual. I've added over a 100 companies to that single production so far, yet there's still 3 minutes worth of credits left to check, which is where most of the companies will be at the end of the credits. Then I'll have no go through the 1000s credits again once they're all correct, deleting any obviously false ones, and adding uncredited to the uncredited ones which are likely to be legitimate. Danstarr69 (talk) 13:04, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

@Adeqyateky Whilst admitting I have not looked at each citation in detail, my immediate reaction is that this draft would not meet our WP:NCORP criteria for notability unless you can find something other than local secondary source coverage. So I think User:Theroadislong was right to decline it at this point in time.

This is simply a department of a university with coverage about it in the local media. At best, in its current state, I would expect a brief mention in the main article about the university, plus a redirect from the draft's title. I note there is a similar article on Cornell Institute for Public Affairs. I have just tagged this for Notability and being written like an Advertisement. I may submit it for a Deletion Discussion if I return in a few months and don't see any improvement to it which demonstrates its notability as a stand alone degree program being covered in anything other than local or insider media. I hope this feedback helps. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:02, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Regarding My Article

I have Created an article Saroj Kumari Piploda some days ago , but why this article is still not shown in Google search. WikiAnchor10 (talk) 02:53, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello, welcome to the Teahouse! New articles that are unpatrolled are not indexed until ninety days after creation. Please see WP:INDEXING for more information on how articles are indexed. Let me know if you have any more questions. Happy editing, Heart ^(talk) 03:58, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

WikiAnchor10 To clarify, either New Pages Patrol (WP:NPP) will look at the article, and if approved, clear it for searches, or if NPP does not get to it within 90 days it is automatically cleared for searches. Until then, it can be found via Wikipedia search but not external search engines such as Google. David notMD (talk) 11:48, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Language of sources

If we are editing a page in English, is it acceptable to cite online sources in a foreign language? Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 03:40, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello! Welcome to the teahouse. Yes, reliable foreign language sources are acceptable, see WP:NOENG for more information. Enjoy editing, Heart ^(talk) 03:54, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the prompt reply! :D Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 08:07, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Citations on lists

If a list is a grouping of a bunch of events, do the entries on the list with their own (decently sized) articles still have to have citations? I know ones that don't should, obviously, but it seems a bit redundant when the item already is elsewhere. I'm guessing yes. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:58, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Also, should lists have short descriptions? PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:17, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, PARAKANYAA. You didn't cite an example, but my view is that there should be some sort of mention (with citation) in the main article that justifies that event, person or thing being included in the List article. If the main article doesn't mention that fact in a verifiable manner (and it's not sufficiently important that it needs adding to it) then, yes, a citation would be needed in the list article to justify its inclusion. 'Notable alumni' would be a good example. If the reason for the main article being included in the List article is clear and verifiable within that main article, then I would not worry about adding a citation in the List article.

Were it something like "List of fish in the River Foo", then I would not expect to see the River Foo mentioned in each fish article, but I would expect suitable citations to be included in the List Article. It certainly never harms to include references in List articles if you are unsure.

You may find the answer to your other question at Wikipedia:Short description. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 08:06, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

But if the main article provides a reliable citation for the fact that makes it included in the list, I don't have to cite it in the list article, right? Just link to the main one?

Also thank you. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:41, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Wait you answered my question lol I can't read sorry. Thank you! PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:49, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Should I create a separate page for "shared library"?

Currently 'shared library' is a part of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_(computing)#Shared_libraries and I am planning to add more description and coding and linking examples with it. But I am not able to take a decision that it should be a separate wiki page or just edit the shared section of this page? Any suggestions? Wikieditor 2027 (talk) 10:33, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, @Wikieditor 2027. Might a good way to proceed be to work to improve that section first? Then, if you find it has expanded to become too large, move the content to a new article, leaving just a summary of the topic in Library (computing) and a link to your new, 'main article'. An alternative route could be to develop that section in your sandbox and then link to it via a discussion on the article's own talk page to see what other editors interested in that topic feel? Does that help you decide what to do? Nick Moyes (talk) 11:14, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes Wikieditor 2027 (talk) 11:45, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Mystery jump in bytes

At LGBT rights in Pakistan, the page byte count suddenly went from 70,647 bytes when I made an edit here to 269,556, in 3 edits (by XI8Z). I cannot work out though, where this massive edit actually is in the article, or by looking at the diffs: [3] [4]. Is it hidden in some way, or ...? I'm not sure if it's a problem or not, but the article has been seeing some problem editing. Can anyone advise, please? AukusRuckus (talk) 12:18, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

@AukusRuckus Welcome to the Teahouse. I have undone the last three edits and returned the article to your version. In this instance, a user had duplicated massive amounts of content. But, because the article was already quite large, it made it rather hard to spot as it looked legitimate. The tip is to open a diff and use Ctrl-F to a sentence or set of unique words which you can search for in the article. That showed up the massive duplication which I have undone. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 12:35, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Nick Moyes. Possibly because I have some vision problems, when I tried cycling through to find repetitions of a phrase, the seek function did not appear to be moving on to a new part of the diff. So, despite it reporting that the sequence "Their presence in society is usually tolerated" was present 5 times, it appeared to me to be standing still, at the same spot. I considered doing a manual reversion to my earlier edit, but without understanding what was going on, was hesitant. Thanks for saving me from what for would have been an eye-watering task for me: I do not think I could have worked that out, my vision being what it is. AukusRuckus (talk) 03:45, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

@AukusRuckus: This sort of thing is not uncommon. (I suspect that there may be some aspect of mobile editing that causes inexperienced users inadvertently to duplicate large portions of articles.) The way I usually spot it is to notice duplicated section titles—especially "References" and "External links"—in the Table of Contents. I frequently encounter such situations when patrolling Category:Pages with malformed coordinate tags, since {{coord}} templates are among the things that get duplicated, and the presence of multiple coordinate templates with |display=title is among the problems that puts an article into that category. Deor (talk) 15:13, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for that tip, @Deor: Those elements would be the best check for this kind of situation. Appreciate this advice; I'll tuck it into my toolkit! AukusRuckus (talk) 03:45, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Why do I have Issues When logging into my Wikipedia Account

I am Having Trouble logging into my Wikipedia Account I’m not blocked but I have issues logging into my account 2A01:B340:66:541D:153E:68FF:C956:B274 (talk) 13:00, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

What is the specific issue you are having? Does an error message appear? It might sound obvious, but make sure both your username and password are typed exactly correct. 331dot (talk) 13:07, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Have you tried resetting your password? Shantavira|^{feed me} 14:04, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

It just won’t allow me to log in as usual that’s the problem & I tried resetting my password 2001:BB6:9028:5858:659D:7C25:F157:7949 (talk) 14:27, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

How to view recent changes across a specific language wikipedia?

I want to view recent changes made accross latvian wikipedia to combat vandalism and fix typos. Is there any way I can do this? Gatesby1 (talk) 14:08, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

@gatesby1: it's here. lettherebedarklight晚安 14:12, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

...and by clicking on that link out of curiousity, I got a nice welcome message from latvian wikipedia. They really need to stop doing that sort of thing. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 16:02, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Policy on bot-maintained database lists

Hi, do we have guidelines or policies to cover database lists created by bots (e.g. List_of_human_protein-coding_genes_1). To my mind, these can be very useful, but they don't really fit the existing concept of WP:NOTDATABASE, and I don't know how we decide which lists are useful (genes obviously are) and which are not (for example a bot-maintained mirror of socker stats probably wouldn't be deemed acceptable). Elemimele (talk) 14:27, 22 July 2023 (UTC)?

@Elemimele, list suitability overall is determined by WP:NLIST, which is admittedly not quite as well-defined as the notability criteria for non-lists. Whether the topic passes NLIST, rather than what was used to create it, is to me the more salient factor. Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_197#Wikidata_lists was a large recent discussion on a similar topic that may be relevant. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 14:35, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Strewth! That discussion takes some digestion. It was an informative read, but clearly opinions differ wildly on that one. Thanks for pointing me to it. Elemimele (talk) 18:34, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Article content after Ref. section

Hi, for article Michel Soto Chalhoub after the References section there are four plain list lines. Appear to be the person's membership & alumni information. Question: should a section title be added for this content? Or moved into body of article? Or just deleted? JoeNMLC (talk) 14:42, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

That list is clearly worthless and can be deleted. Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:11, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I took care of it. It looks like this was a very early attempt (many years ago) to provide references supporting the subject's notability. It seems that most of them were later incorporated as inline citations, but the plain text didn't get deleted after that happened. Larry Hockett (Talk) 15:27, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

How?

How do you get infoboxes Malaquia100 (talk) 15:18, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

You can insert an infobox onto a page by using an infobox template. A list of these templates can be found at WP:INFOBOXLIST. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 15:57, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Adding Campaign Boxes

What is the process of adding Campaign Boxes for a war? I'm only aware of the addition into the article by name such as Template:Campaignbox Afghan Sikh Wars, but where can the war template be made? RevolutionaryPatriot (talk) 15:41, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello, RevolutionaryPatriot, and welcome to the Teahouse. I know nothing about these, but I think you'll find the information you need at Template:Campaignbox/doc. ColinFine (talk) 15:59, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Which infobox to use?

Hello Teahouse,

I am about to write / translate an article on a ruined religious building (temple-ish?). The building complex belonged to different religious groups, including the Church of the East in China and the Buddhists. The complex was sold in 1920s and demolished in the 1950s. Only the ruins survive on the site today. I am not sure which infobox I should use for this article.

Some candidates include:

1. {{Infobox religious building}}: I am not sure if I can use this one, for the building is not there any more. Only the site and the ruins remain.
2. {{Infobox historic site}}: Good one, but this building doesn't have UNESCO designation or any designation this template supports.
3. {{Infobox ancient site}}: This is also plausible, but since the building complex was lost in the 20th century, I wonder if it could really be called "ancient".

If you wish to get more info on this site, please see [5] (in Chinese wiki) or [6] (in German wiki).

Many thanks in advance! TheLonelyPather (talk) 19:27, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Welcome, and thanks for adding articles to Wikipedia. I suggest working on the main part of the article first. Things like infoboxes can be added later. RudolfRed (talk) 20:05, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Christianity

Who were the first people to adopt Christianity? 2601:189:457F:3740:93F:49A:ED4:9AD0 (talk) 20:39, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello. The Teahouse is for asking and answering questions about editing Wikipedia. You can ask general knowledge questions at the Reference desks. We have an article Early Christianity. Cullen328 (talk) 20:59, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Weirdly referenced article

I came across this article: Opinion polling for the 2023 Spanish general election It claims to have hundreds of inline citations, but none of them lead anywhere when tapped, and the reflist is empty. Does anyone know what's going on? Jacob.yudkin (talk) 20:42, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Whatever caused it happened with this edit [7] Not clear what it was yet though! Theroadislong (talk) 21:02, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello Jacob.yudkin & Theroadislong! I don't think the problem was that specific edit, more that the size increased past the point Wiki can cope with. Seems like the article is too big, there are over 700 references alone. If you "Edit Source" the whole page, then click "Show Preview" a warning is displayed: Warning: Post-expand include size is too large. Some templates will not be included. I tested by removing a random chunk of the article (in preview only) & the references would show again once its size was reduced. Referring to this & I was able to confirm the article has crossed over the "Post-expand include size" limit. Probably time for someone to split the article up into more manageable chunks, or simplify it? Hope this is of some help in solving the issue. Take care, LooksGreatInATurtleNeck (talk) 23:35, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

@Jacob.yudkin and Theroadislong: LooksGreatInATurtleNeck seems to be correct in their assessment of the problem. I've added Template:Very long to the top of the article and notified the WikiProjects listed at the top of the article's talk page about the issue. Basically, the article is over heating so to speak because the software is being asked to do more things than it can handle. The only really way around this is to essentially figure out what content to leave in and what content to leave out. Content that is removed can be WP:SPLIT into another article is it's encyclopedically relevant or it can be discarded per WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Lots of the recent expansion shas been the result of enthusiastic and well-meaning users who probably haven't noticed any problems because they're editing one section at a time where everything seems to work fine. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:46, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

The limits are more what Wikipedia is willing to cope with, rather than what its able to. If I replace {{reflist}} with <references />, I can see that parsing breaks down at around citation 657 of 713, which is in #Voting preferences. Victor Schmidt (talk) 07:33, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Remove [1] from reference added.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_(computing), I added a reference numbered 22, but it printed like 22. ^[1]shared library, How do I remove the [1] from the text? Wikieditor 2027 (talk) 20:58, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

That is the link you added. When no title is given for a link Wikipedia just numbers them. You can use Template:Cite_web to cite websites. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 21:18, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Mahatma Gandhi

An editor removed (reverted) my edit in this article on the ground of criticism, but then how do some other articles contain a separate section (sometimes with a different headline) for it? Incase the editor had problem with the use of that particular word as headline, he should have just altered the heading, rather than reverting the whole stuff.

Again, unbiased info doesn't necessarily signify that only positive facts about the person in question are to mentioned, so what's the problem in including some well sourced stuff? Expecting intervention from a veteran user. জয় হিন্দ জয় বাংলা (talk) 21:19, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello, জয় হিন্দ জয় বাংলা. Please read about the bold, revert, discuss process. You made a bold edit, another editor reverted your edit, and now you should discuss it on Talk: Mahatma Gandhi. Please be aware that there is an ongoing disagreement about article content being discussed there right now. Cullen328 (talk) 21:52, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

@জয় হিন্দ জয় বাংলা, many older/less-well-maintained articles have criticism sections, but the best practice is to avoid them. For a highly watched, high-quality article like Gandhi's, I would suggest proposing changes at Talk:Mahatma Gandhi first rather than making them directly, particularly given the risk of getting drawn into an edit war. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:49, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Where do I rate an article?

Where do I rate an article? Can it be only done by those are chosen? Wikieditor 2027 (talk) 21:34, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

@Wikieditor 2027, anyone can rate an article, although you should familiarize yourself with the guidance at WP:Content assessment before you do so. I tend not to rate my own articles, instead leaving that to others. Make sure that your articles are tagged with at least one WikiProject on their talk page. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:44, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

No. Providing you fully understand the WP:ASSESSMENT guidance, you can rate articles. However, I note you have less than 60 mainspace article edits, so do please ensure you do genuinely understand what is involved. See WP:RATER for a very useful tool to help with article assessment. If you'd like to give it a try and ask for our feedback on your assessment grade, you'd be most welcome. It's an easy (and extremely helpful) task to determine if the numerous 'Stub' articles are still deserving of that assessment, or merit either a Start or a C assessment grade. Going above that level of assessment is not recommended for inexperienced users. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:44, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

How do we add languages to a wikipedia article that has been published?

Hello, How do we add languages to a wikipedia article that has been published? I researched this and I am confused as to how the Languages tab works on the upper right corner and how languages are added. I'd appreciate you pointing me to the right direction so that I can add translations to the pages I have created. Thank you! Songuitar333 (talk) 01:50, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

@Songuitar333: Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. You'll have to go to the Wikipedia for that different language. We are at en.wikipedia.org now, for example the Chinese Wikipedia is at zh.wikipedia.org. If you know the language, go ahead, but machine translations (such as Google Translate) are very poor, and may not make sense to some readers. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 10:05, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Confused email

I received an email from Wikipedia that confused my user name with my email address. How do I correct? E3barr (talk) 02:00, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Superman: Legacy movie

Please, approve the Draft:Superman: Legacy draft, the movie is in production 190.21.173.225 (talk) 02:38, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

You may place {{subst:submit}} at the top of the draft to submit it for review. RudolfRed (talk) 03:01, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Actually, you probbably shouldn't, until the actual filming has started. As the notice on top says: This draft should not be submitted for review or moved to the mainspace until filming has begun, per WP:NFF. The filming start date is currently scheduled for January 2024. Please see the draft for more information. Victor Schmidt (talk) 07:12, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Submitted Draft Article Flagged as Conflicting with a Redirect Page

Hi everyone,

I tried search for the answer myself, but I've got chronic fatigue syndrome, so that limited how much searching I could do.

I've submitted a draft article for publication on the Favorite Betrayal Criterion. Wikipedia has alerted me that there is already a redirect page on the same topic, which links to a single sentence within a much larger article.

What is the process for dealing with the conflict?

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasavina (talk • contribs) 03:17, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

@Jasavina: There is nothing you need to worry about right now about that. If the draft at Draft:Favorite_betrayal_criterion is approved, then the conflict will be dealt with by the approver. RudolfRed (talk) 03:20, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

@RudolfRed: Thank you! Jasavina (talk) 04:22, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

How long does google take to index a new wiki article?

How long does google take to index a new wiki article? Songuitar333 (talk) 03:34, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

@Songuitar333: New articles are marked as no-index for 90 days or until they are reviewed by WP:NPP. After that, it is up to the search engine. RudolfRed (talk) 03:48, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Draft Rejected (Draft:Tonle_Bet_Commune)

Hi everyone,

I recently submitted a draft for review (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Tonle_Bet_Commune) but the article got rejected saying that it does not contain reliable sources. However the article clearly references the National Committee for Sub-National Development (NCDD) which maintains the official lst of all administrative divisions in Cambodia. What am I doing wrong? Dcwilkie (talk) 03:50, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Dcwilkie. Your draft was declined not rejected. "Declined" means "please improve your draft in response to feedback you have been given, and resubmit". Rejected, on the other hand, means "this topic is inappropriate for a Wikipedia article, so stop trying". Your draft includes only a single primary source. I recommend that you add several independent sources to reliable, published sources that devote significant coverage to this place, and summarize what they say. If you cannot find those sources, then maybe it is better to cover this place in a list article, instead of a freestanding article. Cullen328 (talk) 07:48, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Template linked in 'See also' section

Hello Wikipedians! I was just reading Homo naledi and the articles 'See also' section contains a link to the Template:Human timeline template. I think it looks rather strange and I did see this, and replace it, before. Now I'm wondering if this is actually a Wikipedia guideline or something, but can't find anything. So my question is if putting a link directly to a template into the 'See also' section is the norm? Thanks! RealLifeRobot (talk) 05:53, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

how many licks

does it take to get to the bottom of a tootsie pop? CSROME5893 (talk) 06:19, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Perennial Saturday-morning-commercial favourite, yes; Teahouse material, not quite. You might wish to try your luck with that at WP:Reference desk/Entertainment. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 07:05, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Wrongfully Deleted (or Not)?

Hello Teahouse Team Members,

Hope this message finds you all well. I’m writing because about a year or so back an article that was written about me and had existed for many years was deleted. The page was not initially created by me but, in full disclosure, I did correct or amended it from time to time over the years to keep the information accurate. When I noticed the page was marked for deletion, I reached out to the editor who marked it as such to ask why, explained who I was and what I just detailed above here for you. My inquiry was met with a snarky response accusing me of creating the page myself, using it for self-promotion, etc. (I was just being honest and didn’t realize at the time that editing a page about me personally, without following proper guidelines, was frowned upon). Soon after, the page was deleted. Ultimately, after doing some research, I’ve come to learn more about what is and is not acceptable in this space and believe that the article that was deleted was not promotional in nature, just a listing of facts and written, I believe, in a fairly neutral tone. I also think that it met notability criteria. As such, I believe the article was wrongly deleted. It also bears mentioning that the rude editor I corresponded with and who I believe deleted the page has since been dismissed from Wikipedia for misconduct. For your reference, the article in question was listed (under my name) as, “Mark Bacino.” I was hoping one of you might be so kind as to take a look to see if the article as is (or an amended version) could be reinstated. I’ve been told that the article could be submitted for “deletion review” but in looking into that process a bit, I’ve found it to be extremely overwhelming for a Wiki novice such as myself and furthermore, since the article was written about me personally, I’m not sure if my submitting a review request would, in itself, be seen as a conflict of interest. As such, I’m at a bit of a loss. Obviously, I would like to see the page (or an amended version need be) reinstated as I believe it was a good resource for those interested in my work, but at the same time I would like it to be done in keeping with the rules and guidelines of Wikipedia. Any help you all could offer would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. QueensEnglish (talk) 08:03, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The Marc Bacino article was speedy deleted as unambiguous promotion. I can still view it as an administrator, and I must agree with the deletion. If you want to tell the world about your work, the best place to do that is on social media or a personal website that you own and control. If you truly believe that you meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person(or perhaps the narrower notable creative professional definition) and there is significant coverage of you in independent reliable sources, you are not forbidden from attempting to create and submit a draft about yourself via Articles for Creation- but writing about yourself is highly discouraged. My suggestion is that you go on about your career as if Wikipedia didn't exist, and if you are truly notable as Wikipedia defines it, someone will eventually write a proper article about you.

Be advised that an article about yourself is not necessarily a good thing. There are good reasons to not want one. 331dot (talk) 09:06, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello 331dot,

Thanks for your reply. I appreciate your review of the original article, your feedback and advice. A few other questions - After reviewing the article, do you believe it could be edited in such a way as to remedy its “unambiguous promotion” issues? And if so, how might that be accomplished since only an administrator can currently gain access to the article? Would another administrator have to do that in this case and is there a way to request that someone do that? Please forgive my ignorance in these matters.

Thanks again for all your help! QueensEnglish (talk) 10:35, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Is grunge.com an acceptable source?

Eaton Township Weis Markets shooting contains the unsourced claim: "By 2014, however, he announced that he was going in a different direction with his content, citing numerous unfortunate events that had occurred in his life during the previous year; this led to the creation of Ember's Ghost Squad (EGS), a fan-based animated series focused on a fictional organization based on the Nickelodeon animated series Danny Phantom due to his obsession with the character Ember McLain." This is verifiable through primary sources (which would be bad to cite, especially in this context). The closest thing I can find to a news source on this is this article which seems to be true. The site seems a bit... pop media-ey though so I'm worried about the reliability of it PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:20, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

The Sword Interviews Unblocked - Request

Hello, I posted this in another area but I'm not sure it was the right place. I'm hoping someone can help. I'm looking to whitelist two interview links:

• Link requested to be whitelisted: https://www.thesword.com/wakefield-poole-interview-part-2-on-his-masterpiece-bijou-and-his-30-years-of-celibacy.html

I am requesting that this interview on thesword.com – WAKEFIELD POOLE INTERVIEW PART 2: ON HIS MASTERPIECE, ‘BIJOU,’ AND HIS 30 YEARS OF CELIBACY – be unblocked so that I can use it on Wakefield Poole's Wikipedia page.

• Link requested to be whitelisted: https://www.thesword.com/talking-with-legendary-night-at-the-adonis-editor-bob-alvarez.html

As well, I'm requesting that this interview on thesword.com - TALKING WITH LEGENDARY ‘NIGHT AT THE ADONIS’ EDITOR BOB ALVAREZ - be unblocked so that I can use it on the Hand In Hand Films Wikipedia page. Digitalkidd (talk) 08:18, 23 July 2023 (UTC)digitalkidd

Topic ban

I've been Topic banned from but can I add paraphrased text to an article citing a source that mentions many countries, perhaps even India or Pakistan (but not mention India or Pakistan in the paraphrased text)?-1Firang (talk) 10:50, 23 July 2023 (UTC)