Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
→‎Question: new section
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit New topic
Line 722: Line 722:
:::
:::
:::The more salient question is how Crimea should be handled on Wikipedia. I think CiaPan did the right thing by looking back to the source. I also think that if it's not necessary to label Crimea "Ukrainian" or "Russian" in a given context, it's best not to label it. It's probably also best to avoid stating "Crimea is a part of Russia" or "Crimea is a part of Ukraine" in Wikivoice, anywhere, due to the ability for users to cherry-pick sources to justify their POV and turn the page into a battleground. [[User:Pecopteris|Pecopteris]] ([[User talk:Pecopteris|talk]]) 21:20, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
:::The more salient question is how Crimea should be handled on Wikipedia. I think CiaPan did the right thing by looking back to the source. I also think that if it's not necessary to label Crimea "Ukrainian" or "Russian" in a given context, it's best not to label it. It's probably also best to avoid stating "Crimea is a part of Russia" or "Crimea is a part of Ukraine" in Wikivoice, anywhere, due to the ability for users to cherry-pick sources to justify their POV and turn the page into a battleground. [[User:Pecopteris|Pecopteris]] ([[User talk:Pecopteris|talk]]) 21:20, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

== Question ==

Hi I am new here and really want to start editing different articles here on Wikipedia. My question is how do I find articles to edit and is there some sort of software/bot that will automatically send me stuff I can start editing if I don’t know where to begin? Also, is there some sort of tutorial on making sure I’m following proper guidelines when making edits? Any help would be greatly appreciated as I start my journey here on Wikipedia. [[Special:Contributions/2600:100D:B026:E491:7C2F:A20E:8E6D:9B79|2600:100D:B026:E491:7C2F:A20E:8E6D:9B79]] ([[User talk:2600:100D:B026:E491:7C2F:A20E:8E6D:9B79|talk]]) 22:15, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:15, 1 September 2023

Skip to top
Skip to bottom


Grammar checker?

Which Grammar checking software is allowed on Wikipedia? I know Grammarly inst but which are? or are they all not allowed? Subariba (talk) 20:36, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and welcome! As far as I know, spellcheck software is not banned on Wikipedia. However, be careful with spellcheckers, as it could mess up markup if using the source editor, and they are not really smart enough to detect things such as American vs British English (as Wikipedia uses both). Lastly, it's best not to use autocorrect, and instead manually check detected errors. 2NumForIce (speak|edits) 20:45, 28 August 2023 (UTC) edited 20:47, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which one is the most used by editors? Subariba (talk) 20:54, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I actually don't know which spellcheck software is most used, but I would say either the one built into the browser/operating system or one made by Wikipedians. Again, I didn't verify this, but this is my assumption. 2NumForIce (speak|edits) 21:00, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Subariba: See Wikipedia:Don't use Grammarly. It is quite clear to me that grammar checkers aren't used in Wikipedia articles, because I am often correcting grammar in them. I have also not seen a grammar checker that can do as good a job as a human with a good grasp of written English. You can participate in Wikipedia:WikiProject Grammar if it's still active.
As for spell checking Wikipedia:Spellchecking has some guidance about tools and techniques. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:10, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Spellchecking is a good summary (but I'm afraid I have no idea what, if anything, Wikipedia:Don't use Grammarly is supposed to mean).
One thing missing from Wikipedia:Spellchecking is that you should not use tools like Grammarly to check other editors' work. The tools lack subtlety, and will often attempt to "correct" things that were actually correct (but rare) constructions, into things that are incorrect (but common) phrases. The tools cannot handle ambiguity, even if they recognise it. And they very rarely improve readability; a slightly "foreign" flavour in English written by a non-native speaker is rarely a problem.
Bottom line: if your English is bad enough that you need Grammarly, you won't be able to recognise when Grammarly has messed up, so you're not safe to use it. If your English is good enough to assess Grammarly's output, you don't need to use it. I will be rude, and suggest that the whole premise behind Grammarly is to convince people who can actually write quite clearly, that they cannot. Elemimele (talk) 14:43, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Anachronist, @Elemimele - I think the intention of Wikipedia:Don't use Grammarly is to warn people that Grammarly can mess things up in the source editor, and the stuff at the bottom is supposed to be an illustrative diagram of that. Something like this?.Either way, all of that is in Wikipedia:Spellchecking, so not sure why we have two of them. casualdejekyll 22:43, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also think so. Probably turn off autocorrect features and add the Wikipedia:Spellcheck dictionary to the allowed words. ~~2NumForIce (speak|edits) 22:45, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Casualdejekyll:, that makes sense. Your tabulated sand-box version showing the source code before and after being mangled by grammar-checking is much clearer. I like it! Elemimele (talk) 12:41, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't use grammar/spell checkers. Given my edits are in the area of palaeontology, spell checkers constantly flag up genus and species names as incorrect spellings when they are not, as for grammar, sometimes phrasing which may not appear grammatically correct to some software is actually correct. Lavalizard101 (talk) 15:01, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Help required for Article Ajay Gupta

I am seeking for help regarding Draft:Ajay Gupta. Wanted to check whether the person is eligible for creating an article or shall I go for deletion? I read about notability, however, not able co-relate. If anyone can explain it than it would be better. As per my understanding, all the references were reliable from newspapers. VKG1985 (Talk | E-Mail | Contrib) 13:13, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's going to be really tricky. As well as WP:NBIO, have a look at WP:NAUTHOR in case his book helps. The difficulty may be that he is in that middle category of jolly good people who've done something useful, but not big enough to have attracted enormous independent attention. Step 1: To demonstrate notability, you will need newspaper articles or similar about him and his work that were not prompted by him, and are not blatant interviews. Just three such articles would be a more powerful demonstration of his notability than a large number of interviews and articles prompted by press-releases. It is also unhelpful that he has a very common name, which makes Google searches difficult. Step 2: Remove all language that seeks to emphasise his exceptional achievements, and instead just write, in very "boring" terms, what he has done. "He set out on his entrepreneurial journey when he was merely 16 years old." is not appropriate for Wikipedia; instead just say what he did, aged 16. Unfortunately in this example your source won't help, as it also neglects to say what he did. Hopefully you can find better ones. Elemimele (talk) 15:15, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Elemimele, It helped a lot. Let me check for reliable sources & I will also change the content as per the guidelines. VKG1985 (Talk | E-Mail | Contrib) 06:26, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please help. Draft article rejected

Hello!

I am a newbie here. I have drafted a page, but my article has been declined. Could you please assist me by reviewing my rejected article draft?

Draft:JAY (iKON)

I would appreciate it if you could take a look and help. Thank you! Kentzeli (talk) 18:27, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On the top, it explains the reason for rejection. Cwater1 (talk) 18:44, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Kentzeli, Cwater1, declining a draft is not the same as rejecting it. This draft was not rejected; it was declined. The reason given is that the references provided "do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject". I can't comment on whether this is a fair criticism because I am as ignorant of South Korean boy group starlets as I am of, say, Japanese girl group starlets (so I might not recognize "significant coverage" if I saw it) and perhaps also because I can't read Korean. However, I note that you (Kentzeli) aren't asking (let alone complaining) about the non-acceptance of the draft; you're asking for a review. The way to get a review is to submit the draft. To submit it, click Resubmit. -- Hoary (talk) 21:58, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Kentzeli I read that "Jinhwan's exceptional artistry shone through in his participation in the "Dracula" musical," [my bolding], cited to a website that merely has a brief mention confirming that he would appear in a supporting role. Such PUFFERY is one of the reasons that drafts are declined. You need to stick to the facts and remove all material not explicitly stated in the sources. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:19, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What happens next?

I uploaded a file that seems to have some issues since it is non-free content. Apparently a bot has already correct it but I'm not sure. Can any administrator please shed some light for me? Thanks! File:El Torito mural by Amado de la Cueva.jpg Mizaelc (talk) 21:07, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) @Mizaelc - there appears to be a bit of a mess going on there. The file is still marked as non-free content and the first revision of it will be deleted next Monday, but not the current version. The licensing says something about book covers even though this is a painting, right? I see it's been sourced from a 2018 book, but de la Cueva died in 1926, so the mural is in the public domain, at least according to the guidance on Commons... so why can't you just upload it to Commons? casualdejekyll 21:35, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See also {{PD-art}}: Wikipedia's policy is that photographs of 2D works of art are not eligible for copyright protection separate from the original work of art. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:17, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your guidance. I uploaded the picture this way because didn't take it myself. If you guys think it is suitable for Wikimedia I'll give it a try. Mizaelc (talk) 02:54, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Name Question

ccan i have the president of amaricaa username? Ministry of amarica (joke) (talk) 06:52, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse.
No, you cannot use the President of the United States (Joe Biden) as your username as it is against Wikipedia's username policy. See WP:MISLEADNAME. 🛧Layah50♪🛪 ( 話す? 一緒に飛ぼう!) 07:18, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Layah50 Yes, that would be against the Wikipedia rules. Usernames have to be appropriate and safe, without spilling any personal information. Thank you. StrawberryChi'sCake (talk) 07:21, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Misleading usernames are not permitted, Ministry of amarica (joke). Throwing (joke) into such a username is not a good idea, because it may indicate that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. Cullen328 (talk) 07:23, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Reviewers (Help)

I'm fairly new to creating articles on the encyclopedia but I have been learning about the acceptable tone used on wikipedia for some years now and I'm trying to create a creative editing streak by creating quality articles that meets wikipedias notability policies and moving it directly to the mainspace without being speedy deleted. Im leaving the article here if any autopatrollers or new page reviewers are interest in copyedit or simply reviewing the page. You can find it here Doc Shebeleza (South African musician)

You can leave a message on my talk page if you want to talk further.


Cheers! Frankymulls (talk) 10:57, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Frankymulls, welcome to the Teahouse!
You have some language issues which break WP:NPOV. You need to write in a dispassionate, neutral tone. You have some WP:PEACOCK wording which should be removed. Not sure its ready for Mainspace yet: you could move to Draftspace or wait for a reviewer to come along. Qcne (talk) 11:57, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Qcne, it seems that Frankymulls has already started a draft article by the same name on 27 August. See Draft:Doc_Shebeleza_(South_African_musician). Note well that Doc Shebeleza (South African musician) is a separate page from Draft:Doc_Shebeleza_(South_African_musician).
Some admin assistance might be needed to remove the mainspace article?
@Frankymulls, thanks for being constructive and starting an article in the draft space. I encourage you to work on Draft:Doc_Shebeleza_(South_African_musician) for the time being, until it is good enough to be moved into the main space. I think it would be good not to do anything to the article Doc Shebeleza (South African musician) for now. Cheers, -- TheLonelyPather (talk) 15:44, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How can I find out who put a particular photo up on the Force's page, please? Tjffje (talk) 11:05, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Tjffje: the short answer is, from the article's edit history.
The slightly more nuanced answer is that nobody "put a photo up" in an article, as such. It was uploaded (either to the English Wikipedia or to Wikimedia Commons), and then someone added to the article an image link to it. The uploading and the linking may have been done by different users. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:13, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh .... many thanks!
Still none the wiser, I'm afraid, because some years ago the photo wasn't on the page and a couple of years back it appeared. I am actually trying to find who did it because I have more photos on the same subject and am wondering if he/she would be interested in seeing them.
Just family histories/links etc. etc.! Tjffje (talk) 11:25, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tjffje There are currently three images in that article and you don't say which one you are interested in. However, the article's edit history is not very long and it is easy to find this edit which added one of them, along with a good EDIT SUMMARY. Note how the diff I linked allows you to step through all the edits in turn, either earlier or later. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:26, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for this too. I am completely new to this and have no idea what I am doing!! .... to which my wife thoroughly agrees!
The photo I am referring to is the one of Col. Paley. My father also served with the TJFF and I have a photograph album with a few photos of the Colonel and his daughter taken in 1946/7. Just wondering if I can find any connection, with whoever put his photo on the TJFF page, who might be interested in seeing them. 101.190.194.173 (talk) 13:00, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tjffje (Please remember to log in before editing). That image of Col. Paley is a low-resolution charcoal sketch. If your father took good photographs in 1946/7 and you are now the copyright holder by virtue of inheritance from him, then I would suggest you scan the best image(s) and upload them to Wikimedia Commons so that they can be used in any article, including the TJFF one. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:21, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Tjffje. The image was uploaded to Wikimedia Commons in 2013 by User:Robitsju, who has never edited the English Wikipedia, and has not contributed to Commons since 2013. This website has some information about the artist: Leo Arthur Robitschek was born at Vienna in 1893. In the mid-1930s he settled in British-Mandate Palestine, and over the next decade or so produced some 600 portrait drawings of the upper echelons of Levantine society, notably a large number of senior British officers and administrators, both resident and passing through, during WWII. Soon after the war, and before the foundation of Israel, he moved with his wife and son to Venezuela and died at Caracas in 1961. The person who provided that information speculated that Robitsju was his grandson. Cullen328 (talk) 00:04, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The image was added to the article at 12:37 UTC, September 21, 2020 by User:Protozoon, who has been active on Wikipedia as recently as a month ago. Cullen328 (talk) 00:17, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks everyone. All very interesting and you all seem to know what you are doing, and what you are talking about, but I'm afraid I don't. To start off with, may I ask what Wikimedia Commons is? Tjffje (talk) 02:40, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In very short terms: a repository where media files, images and the like which are freely usable with attribution are collected; it can be found here Lectonar (talk) 10:36, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Aaaahhhh I say very quietly. Not to worry though because somehow, this evening, I stumbled across a whole load of photos on some site (Flicker or something) which had umpteen of the very same photos that I have in my album of the TJFF Cavalry Regiment show at Samakh. A daughter then explained to me where these photos came from (National Archives UK) and we came to the conclusion that someone has probably donated their photo album to the National Archives who have for some reason put them up onto Flicker. The Archives (or Flicker) did mention that the photos were from "Israel and the occupied territories of Palestine", so I put up a comment that they were in error and that it was in Transjordan. So, relatives of Col. Paley, whose photo is on the Fli... site, may have found them by now. ... or maybe not! No worries though, I will leave it at that.
Thanks every for your understanding and help though. Tjffje (talk) 11:01, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Certified Trainers from Namibia

Good day all, hope you are all well and keeping good. I wanted to ask if any of you knows any Namibian Wikimedian that I can reach out to. I am from Namibia and in the process of organizing a project in Namibia. I will be good to engage and collaborate with a Namibian.

Thank you. 197.243.233.54 (talk) 11:39, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Go to Wikipedia:Userboxes/Location/Namibia and click the links marked "linked pages". See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Namibia. Shantavira|feed me 11:46, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

references

There is a reference list and locations in the article's body that link to list items. Which do I develop first, the reference list or selected items in the body? Additionally, some items in the reference list are associated with elements in the body while others are simply on the list with no corresponding word or sentence in the article's body. Is this okay or does every item in the reference list need to have a corresponding element in the body?

Specifically, I have a list of ten items under the title "Select Books" but only five are cited in the body. When I format a book entry it automatically adds a superscript at the beginning. Therefore, as I format every list item, each one will have a superscript...yet only half of them will be reflected in the body. For instance, the first book in the reference list:

[1]Tienken, C. H., & Mullen, C. A. (Eds.). (2022). The risky business of education policy. Routledge. ISBN 9780367622466

...isn't cited in the body. Does that matter?

Maybe I'm overthinking this but I'm confused. I wish there was a "Wikipedia foe Dummies" book available! Co1umbus (talk) 14:41, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:Carol A. Mullen - 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:52, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Co1umbus The declining reviewer pointed out that you have not used the referencing process correctly. In particular, it is the software that automatically adds the bracketed links to the references, not you as creator of the draft. Please read WP:REFB and then ask any further questions here at the Teahouse. For a biography, it is not necessary to list everything that the subject of that biography has published and your main job is to show how the individual meets our specific notability requirements. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:07, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'll second the recommendation of WP:REFB — that's the reference part of our tutorial, which is the closest thing we currently have to a "Wikipedia for dummies". Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk 15:09, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Tienken, C. H.; Mullen, C. A. (2022). The risky business of education policy. Routledge. ISBN 9780367622466.
@Co1umbus: Good questions! Wikipedia always tries to build content following the sources, so the way most experienced contributors work is to find and read sources for a topic first, and then to build the article up based on those. Having generic sources at the bottom that are just used for the article overall, rather than to cite specific elements, is generally less optimal. If a source is useful enough to be included in the article, then it's presumably useful enough that it should serve as a citation for some of the article's content. For some articles, particularly those that rely heavily on books, it can make sense to have a list of books and then use shortened footnotes to cite them. That can be more complicated than the normal way of having a single reference section, though. Not sure if that answers all your questions, but hope it helps! {{u|Sdkb}}talk 15:08, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your feedback and coaching on my Wikipedia effort. I have a truly stupid question: How does one "save" work in-progress? I've added formatting to books in the Reference section and, while I see a Publish icon at the top of the page, there's no Save button. After doing my work, Firefox crashed and my edits were gone when I reopened my Wikipedia page. I'm not yet ready to Publish since there's more work to do. But maybe that's what Publish does...save the work without presenting it for a formal review. Co1umbus (talk) 16:26, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Co1umbus Yes, that's correct. The lawyers at the Wikimedia foundation decided that "publish" was a better term, since all saved edits are available to others to read, if you know where to look: and you are committing your edit to an irrevocable CC license. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:32, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

please help

I uploaded a Non-free logo(file:Girlsfrontline logo.webp), but later I realized that I uploaded it in the wrong format (I originally planned to upload it in png format, but it was uploaded in webp format). Now I am unable to upload a new version in png format on this file. What should I do? SKBNK (talk) 15:25, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SKBNK: Welcome to the teahouse; I have uploaded the png for you at File:Girlsfrontline.png and replaced the webp with the png in the article (at no extra cost!). You can tag File:Girlsfrontline logo.webp with {{Db-g7}} or simply wait for it to be deleted (as an orphaned non free file). —Matr1x-101 (Ping me when replying) {user page (@ commons) - talk} 15:43, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your help! SKBNK (talk) 15:47, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SKBNK: @Matrix-101: What is wrong with webp? It seems to be a flexible format that supports both lossy and lossless compression as well as animation, and supported by all browsers. I admit I don't see it often but once in a while I run across a website that uses it for most images. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:58, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
According to practice, when uploading transparent images, I still prefer the png format. SKBNK (talk) 17:01, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Talk Page Moderation approaches

Hi there, I am interesting in learning more about how Wikipedia moderates contentious articles. For over a month, I have been studying the Talk Pages archives for articles with active community sanctions. I notice that sometimes an unhelpful Talk Page discussion is hidden, collapsed to just an orange or green bar with a short description of the discussion. I have reviewed Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. While these guidelines explain the process for closing Talk Page discussions, they don't go into detail on the various tactics I have observed (e.g. collapsing discussion sections with orange or green colored bars). I would appreciate any insight you have! Allora0 (talk) 15:31, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Allora0: There is no guideline for duration or closing general discussions on article talk pages. There is a type of discussion known as a Wikipedia:Request for comment (RFC) and typically those can be closed after a week if it looks like there's consensus (not unanimity) of views among participants. Other types of discussion such as renaming also generally last a week unless there isn't enough participation to determine consensus. Discussions don't need to be "closed" either. Look at most article talk pages, and their archives, and you'll see that the vast majority of discussions just end by themselves. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:54, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Anachronist: Thank you - I have noticed that most Talk Page discussions are not closed, but I am more interested in the edge cases. For example, here is a Talk Page discussion that has been closed in the color orange and collapsed (i.e. you have to click "show" to view the discussion). Here is another example of a closed discussion, but it is highlighted in green instead of the standard purple. Can you explain the significance of 1) orange versus green in closing discussions instead of the standard purple, and 2) when/why would a discussion section be hidden and who has the ability to take this moderation action (an extended-confirmed editor or higher perhaps?). Allora0 (talk) 17:18, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Allora0: There is no real significance to the color, they're just whatever color the template designer used. There are several templates for encapsulating discussions. In the cases you linked, one used {{hat top}} (identical to {{archive top}}) and another used {{collapse top}}. Each template has a corresponding "bottom" template also to complete the wrapping, such as {{hat bottom}} and {{collapse bottom}}, respectively. You can see the plethora of related wrappers at Category:Wikipedia archived wrapper templates and Category:Collapse templates. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:08, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Where to put References

I'm trying to make a Wikipedia page about a book but don't know where to references. Why are references important, anyway? Girly Fungi (talk) 15:41, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Girly Fungi, and welcome to the Teahouse. References are important because they help ensure that that the information comes from actual, reliable sources. If your draft doesn't have any citations, it will be more likely for it to be deleted or declined from the Articles for Creation. I would recommend you see Wikipedia:Citing sources. StrawberryChi'sCake (talk) 15:47, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Girly Fungi hello and welcome to the teahouse. What StrawberryChi'sCake said is correct. If you wish to apply citations, it would be great to look at templates such as {{cite book}} or {{cite web}}.
That being said, I assume that you are a new user. I encourage you to edit a few more existent articles before proceeding to create a new article. If you really wish to create one, you should also create the new article through the Wikipedia:Articles for creation process. Please also consider WP:BACKWARD as a helpful guide. Cheers, -- TheLonelyPather (talk) 15:52, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please read Wikipedia:Notability (books) to see if the book you have in mind satisfies the notability requirements. TheLonelyPather (talk) 15:55, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It does look very likely that this book meets notability guidelines. We just need the references to show it, and it'll be fine. -- asilvering (talk) 23:23, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Girly Fungi, I see you've taken a photograph of a book cover and uploaded it to Commons. Unfortunately, this is probably a copyright violation, as you do not hold the copyright to the cover art - most likely that belongs to the publisher. If your draft ever becomes an article, you could then upload an image locally, to English Wikipedia itself, under the non-free content criteria - WP:NFCC. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:09, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. This would be considered a copyright violation, which is against Commons rules. StrawberryChi'sCake (talk) 16:44, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To answer the "where" question that appears to have been overlooked: at the end of one piece of information, put a footnote to the source you got the info from. So if you have a statement like "The book won the PW Best Book Award in 2017", you want to put a footnote right after that with the URL of the page on PW's website that says this. -- asilvering (talk) 23:25, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy: Now at Draft:Real Friends. David notMD (talk) 16:07, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The author's own website as a ref is not considered independent. What is needed are references to reviews of the book. David notMD (talk) 16:07, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Where to add SELFPROMOTE notes?

Hello, is there more that needs to be done beyond this edit? Should I note this fact on the talk page of the article or anything, like {{COI editnotice}} or something? Not sure what to do here... --Engineerchange (talk) 17:24, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would notify the user you reverted on their user talk page, but otherwise the edit is sufficient. If the action is repeated, you can try notifying WP:COIN, but the ball is in the other editor's court now. --Jayron32 17:28, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, did just that! Appreciate the quick reply! --Engineerchange (talk) 17:32, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Level 4im Warnings

Is it appropriate to use a only warning when an vandal outright calls somebody a Nazi? Seawolf35 (talk) 19:26, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, @Seawolf35. I assume it wasn't Putin who was editing, so I'd suggest that such a warning might well be appropriate, although it depends very much on context and the perceived intent of the insult, and even who made it. In general, it is always better to warn someone in a gentle way about the language they use towards others. Is it a one off 'moment of madness', or a typical pattern of behaviour being used towards one or people on a regular basis? All these things create that context. Without it, it's rather hard to say. If it's a vandalism-only account with a fair dollop of self-entitled aggressiveness on top, then I'd be happy to give them an instant indefinite block. But I'd really need to see their edits to decide how to respond. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:14, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Content assessment

I am confused on how content assessment works exactly. I have read the pages discussing it and know that we can request for articles to be assessed, but what about the articles that have been assessed already?

Is there a time frame for when they may be reassessed? Does that process happen automatically for some (especially if they are of high importance) like when the articles are updated, or are we supposed to ask for them to be looked at again?

If I were to change the rating of an article, how/where do I give the reasoning for it? Is it on the talk page of the article, as a separate comment? And, eventually, will every article need to have an assessment rating on here? ViveLaSuisse (talk) 21:45, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're free to reassess an article at any time, if you feel that the previous assessor missed the mark, or if you feel that the article has substantively changed since the last assessment. My personal feeling is that it's fine to limit your reasoning to your edit description. If it somehow sparks controversy, that can be ironed out on the talk page.
And yes, the idea is for every article to eventually have an assessment rating. Pecopteris (talk) 21:49, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thank you so much! ViveLaSuisse (talk) 22:22, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, ViveLaSuisse, but you aren't free to assess articles as GA, A, or FA, or to revert these assessments. I suggest that you limit yourself to Stub and Start for a while, only then add C, and avoid B for a year or longer. -- Hoary (talk) 22:51, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is an important addition.
An additional idea, I tend to only rate C-class or higher articles within my areas of expertise. If I don't know much about the subject, I'd stick with Stub and Start articles. Otherwise, my lack of ability to assess source quality, due weight, NPOV etc. within a niche topic area could lead to a mis-assessment.
Hope all of this is helpful. Pecopteris (talk) 23:03, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand now and I appreciate the helpful advice from the both of you (@Pecopteris and @Hoary)! Thank you, again! ViveLaSuisse (talk) 23:56, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Intro lessons

The text box for the intro lessons for wikipedia editing, for instance "Introduce yourself" and "say hi" obscures the page so I can't see whatever I am supposed to click. In "Say Hi" the edit button is missing. Are these lessons important? Is there a way to drag the text box around? Linddaski (talk) 22:24, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Linddaski, these "intro lessons" don't sound at all familiar. I'm sure that they were created with the best of intentions, but I have trouble believing that they're important. (Certainly I never did them, or anything remotely like them.) Perhaps the best thing to do is to read an article about a subject that you know pretty well, and look for infelicities in the expression. Reword these, uncontroversially. (NB one modest action to avoid is the "correction" of US spelling to UK spelling, or vice versa.) Once you've done some of this kind of work and nobody has objected, look for statements that are hard to believe, and check that they really are backed up by the references cited for them. And so on, gradually moving from very minor and utterly uncontroversial edits toward edits that are a lot bolder (but that are of course soundly backed by reliable sources). -- Hoary (talk) 22:45, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Hoary I think they might be talking about the Wikipedia Adventure? I never did it either. -- asilvering (talk) 23:18, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Worth noting is that The Wikipedia Adventure only works with the source editor. The visual editor is not supported. Cullen328 (talk) 23:28, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Linddaski, welcome to the teahouse. Wikipedia Adventure is an old process of introducing newcomers to Wikipedia, it has become too old and needed a lot of rewrite. This situation is nearly existing on several Wikipedias who have this module. Why don't have a try on Wikipedia:NEWCOMERTASK instead? Open your preference, tick Display newcomer homepage and Enable the editor help panel. This will give you some more helpful guides during editing. -Lemonaka‎ 01:27, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to try to ever see about an article edit?

Hi everyone, would there even be a way to ever try to see about an edit to an article being made by anyone at a specific time? Basically I’m wondering if there is any way someone could see if there is a type of edit being made at a time where the edit would be recorded essentially in a log that has information which would really ever have an eventual platform. Rosetie (talk) 23:07, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rosetie. Sorry, I'm not entirely following your question.
One note: On any article, next to the "edit" button, there is a "history" button. This allows you to study a log of every edit that has ever been made to the page, from the moment of :its creation.
Does that answer your question, or are you asking about something more specific? Pecopteris (talk) 23:14, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, that’s not helpful at all. I’m specifically asking if there is any way someone could see if there is a type of edit being made at a time where the edit would be recorded essentially in a log that has information which would really ever have an eventual way to reverse them. Rosetie (talk) 23:28, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosetie: As far as I can tell Pecopteris gave you the answer. The associated history page has a log of all the edits made to the article, and you can click on the linked timestamp to see the page as it was after that edit. Whether a revision can be reverted really depends on if there were any subsequent edits made afterwards, which can make it impossible to undo using the associated undo link. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:40, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, no, Tenryyy, Pecopteris answered a question I didn’t ask. Rosetie (talk) 23:55, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They answered to the best of their ability in a way that appeared to answer your query.
From what I understand of your question, you're either asking if there is a way to look for a specific edit made to a page at a particular time, or perhaps even more esoterically, how to find every edit being made at one specific point in time (which is impossible given how Mediawiki handles edit conflicts). Those edits can be found in the History link next to the edit links at the top of the page. If you've scrolled away from the top of the page, the sticky header (provided you're using the default skin) has a icon that you can click to bring you to that same page.
If that still doesn't answer your question I strongly suggest you fundamentally reword what you're asking for, because right now it has very strong "has anyone really been far even as decided to use" energy. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:17, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I still really want to be able to understand this question, but as of now it remains an enigma. Pecopteris (talk) 00:34, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you asking about Wikipedia:Recent_changes_patrol, where recent edits are checked for vandalism and other things? RudolfRed (talk) 23:26, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, I’m not. I’m asking would there even be a way to ever try to see about an edit to an article being made by anyone where it would be visible at a specific time and also be able to have it saved. Rosetie (talk) 23:31, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rosetie, choose an article that neither is particularly long nor will (because of the fame or notoriety of its subject) have been edited particularly vigorously. Tell us which article it is. You ask about "trying to see about an edit", but this is vague. Tell us exactly what you want to see about an edit, or some edits, or all the edits, to the article that you have chosen. Then you may get a helpful reply, from which you can extrapolate a technique for investigating other articles. -- Hoary (talk) 23:57, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if this helps you, but within Vew history, clicking on the date in an entry shows what the article looked like on that day, but in addition, clicking on "prev" to the left shows the before and after content of the edit that editor made on that date. David notMD (talk) 00:10, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Has Anyone Really Been Far Even as Decided to Use Even Go Want to do Look More Like?" Ca talk to me! 00:16, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! Congrats, Ca, on the most apt comment so far, and very likely the most apt comment possible. (May I just add that I believe that our education like such as in South Africa and, uh, the Iraq, everywhere like such as, and, I believe that they should.) -- Hoary (talk) 01:21, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosetie: I am also struggling to undertand what you are asking for - perhaps if you try expressing it in different words, instead of just repeating the same words again, people might have a better chance to help you. I do have one suggestion that might be what you are looking for. While looking at the Page History (described above), you can display the exact differences that were made in any edit. Just before the time stamp of each edit, you will see radio buttons. Select any two and click the link near the top to "Compare selected versions" - it will show the list of differences between them. If you apply this to just the edit you are interested in, you will see precisely who changed what, when. Is that what you are after?--Gronk Oz (talk) 02:09, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosetie: You ask about edits being made at a particular time. To the best of my knowledge, the system only records the time that an edit is saved, and in principle, that occurs instantaneously. It would theoretically be possible to identify all the articles or pages over a particular range of time, and in principle, it would be possible to analyze the nature of that change. I presume this would have to run on the host, and you'd need to be able to demonstrate how this would improve or otherwise benefit Wikipedia, while at the same time, not have a material impact on Wikipedia performance. (My disclaimer is that I have no knowledge about this kind of stuff, other than I am aware that there are all sorts of bots and background tasks that are running at any given time. Fabrickator (talk) 03:14, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why Wikipedia always in the process of fundraising?

Well, this is a strange question. Why Wikipedia or Wikimedia Foundation is always in the process of fundraising? The fundraising top-banner popped up several times this month, this might be a bad idea for raising money since people will get annoyed of such a frequent spam and may troll real donators away.

Anyway, does Wikimedia Foundation have a serious problem of inadequate funding? -Lemonaka‎ 01:20, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can see the annual reports and plans for spending at Wikipedia:Contact_us/Donors. There is also an email address there you can send your questions to. RudolfRed (talk) 02:06, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
According to the Wikimedia Foundation's Wikipedia page, by 2022, the WMF had 700 employees and contractors, annual revenues of $155 million, annual expenses of $146 million, net assets of $240 million, and an endowment of over $100 million dollars.
Besides your question, OP, other good questions include: what, exactly, is the WMF spending almost $150 million a year on? Why does it need 700 people on the payroll? Why, exactly, do they feel the need to ask for small-dollar donations so frequently, when they post over $150 million in annual revenue and have a quarter-billion dollars in the bank?
Another reasonable question: What do so many large corporate donors (CNN parent company AT&T, BlackRock, BAE Systems, Boeing, Deutsche Bank, Google, the International Monetary Fund, JPMorgan Chase, Pfizer, Verizon, and many more) feel like donating money to the WMF is a good use of their funds? Is it because the executives of these entities want to experience the joy of selfless giving? Or are there other reasons these financially and politically-savvy people think giving money to the WMF is in their interest?
These aren't rhetorical questions - some have clear, definable answers that are a matter of public record. I encourage you to look at the WMF's financial statements and lists of donors & benefactors. Other questions are not as easy to answer, but perhaps an investigative journalist will shed some light on this matter one day. Philomathes2357 (talk) 03:14, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have evidence of improper influence on Foundation staff or articles by companies that have donated money? Have you proposed that the Foundation not accept funds from companies? 700 employees and $9 million difference between revenue and expenses doesn't sound that bad for a global website with expensive computers to keep running, lawyers needed to navigate the laws of 190 plus sovereign countries and potentially help editors in legal trouble, and trying to be accessible to everyone on the planet, doesn't sound like it has a lot of fat or unneeded expenses. I'm in no way saying your questions are unreasonable but any nefarious intent here must be pretty well hidden. If an investigative journalist finds it as you suggest, I'd love to see it. Perhaps I digress. 331dot (talk) 12:13, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not atm, but if it stops fundraising, sooner or later it will have one. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:35, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I point ouf that top-tier American universities have billions of dollars (Harvard 51.9 billion), yet they all aggressively solicit funds. By comparison, WMF's reserves are extremely modest. David notMD (talk) 12:01, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lemonaka Do you have the fundraising banners turned off in your account preferences? 331dot (talk) 12:08, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot Thanks, I turned them off. Okay, now this is just a technical issue instead of something political. -Lemonaka‎ 12:42, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The relationship between enwiki's editors and the WMF is quite complicated and often adversarial. At some point, someone should make a Template about it so we don't have to type out a long explanation of WMF politics to sufficiently answer (and in the process, probably bore to death) people asking questions at HD/the Teahouse casualdejekyll 20:12, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with Image Database

File:Actress Violet Farebrother.jpg shows up image searches for Hermione Gingold, but it is not in WikiCommons for Hermione Gingold. The image could be a young Hermione Gingold, but it has the name of another actress, Violet Farebrother. This is a significant issue, Hermione Gingold did a cameo in Around the World in 80 Days in the 1950s. Starlighsky (talk) 04:12, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What searches are you talking about? Google Knowledge Graph pulls from a variety of sources in a confusing way. RudolfRed (talk) 04:51, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was editing a Wikipedia article, and I used the "add image" tool. It provided this image as one of the images of Hermione Gingold. Starlighsky (talk) 04:54, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Starlighsky This is a quirk of the search software. If you look at the file's page at the link you supplied, you will see that its source was stated to be "https://www.ebay.ie/itm/1936-Actors-Hermione-Gingold-Violet-Farebrother-/233008435345?hash=item3640629091" which has Hemione Gingold within the URL. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:28, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Starlighsky (talk) 11:50, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I really, really, really want to improve this article.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

This article is one of the top articles I want to improve. However, being a semi-new editor, I am not sure if I have what it takes to improve this article to B-class (or even GA status if I'm lucky). Please notify me of any constructive criticism either here or on my talk page.

Thanks for answering, TarantulaTM (speak with me) (my legacy) 04:54, 31 August 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Well, TrademarkedTarantula, since you ask: Templates the that criticize or warn should do so scrupulously and fairly, but you lament/complain that "Statistics like these should have a citation" after statements that lack any statistics (in any of the senses of this word that are familiar to me). By "statistics", do you perhaps mean "assertions"? That oddity aside, just work on improving the article; don't worry about "B" or "GA". When it's a [lowercase!] good article, then start thinking about having it promoted. -- Hoary (talk) 09:39, 31 August 2023 (UTC) Typo fixed -- Hoary (talk) 23:12, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For a start, delete images in the gallery that exist elsewhere in the article. David notMD (talk) 12:06, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Hoary, I may have accidentally copy-pasted the wrong word, so I will replace that. TarantulaTM (speak with me) (my legacy) 23:02, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Darren Isaacs

Good day.

I need your assistance with my two articles title "Makosi Consulting" and Darren Issacs in the draft space. I have provided sources and references, the company has won awards with a recent one being in February 2023. Please, point me out and assist if you can MollelwaFahaSaBasotho (talk) 05:59, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:Darren Isaacs Draft:Makosi Consulting. Please read and follow the reviewer's advice at the top of each piece. Shantavira|feed me 08:16, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
MollelwaFahaSaBasotho, it's not clear that Isaacs has any notability independent of Makosi. Putting aside the question of the notability of Makosi, I see no reason for an article on Isaacs. -- Hoary (talk) 09:43, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The OP also contributed to an earlier deletion discussion on the same topic at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Makosi Consulting. Sounds like there's a WP:COI going on here. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:09, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse hosts are here to advise, not assist. My advice is that neither of these drafts establish notability, there is no hint that better refs exist, the awards and recognitions are minor and thus do not contribute, and in conclusion, the drafts should be abandoned. David notMD (talk) 14:58, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Where to upload source file of image on commons?

If I made a diagram using some software, I'll have the saved source file to continue editing the diagram (e.g. Photoshop file) together with the exported image (e.g. jpeg). When I put the image on commons, can I also release the source file so that others can edit the diagram and release new versions? Mtanti (talk) 10:26, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mtanti Commons only accepts a limited set of free file types, which won't include proprietary Photoshop ones. See c:Commons:File types. So I think that the best you could do is to upload the .jpg and mention somewhere on the file's page that interested people could contact you by email to request the original editable version. Many diagrams on Wikipedia are .svg files, which can be re-edited in free software like Inkscape. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:14, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Changing the title of a Wikipedia Page

I want to change the name of the page Brake run into 'Brakes (Rollercoaster)' because the current title of the article doesn't allow for explanation on other forms of rollercoaster brakes, which are not notable enough for their own article, but could be included in the article should it's name be changed. WikiHmmmm... (talk) 11:51, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome. Changing the title of an article(the preferred term for encyclopedia content, not the broader "page") requires moving the article to the new title. I would first suggest that you discuss this on the article talk page first, to see if any other editors that follow it might disagree. You may then request the move at Requested Moves if you don't wish to do it yourself(which can be done with the "Move" function under the Tools drop-down menu at the top of the article. 331dot (talk) 11:56, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How do I create an article directly?

I want to create a redirect page "Blue sea dragon" redirecting to Glaucus atlanticus, but I noticed that there seems to no longer be a way to directly create articles. I am autoconfirmed with an account. How do I create the article without going through Articles for Creation or the Article Wizard? TypoEater (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome. Since you are autoconfirmed, you should be able to directly create articles. If you type the title of the article you want to create in the search bar, it will (of course) not be found, but a link will be provided for you to create it. You can also do something like edit your sandbox or user talk page to add a link to the nonexistent article to accomplish the same thing. Unless you have much experience in creating articles or having drafts accepted(I haven't looked to see if you are), it is highly recommended that you use the draft submission process so that you can get advice as you go and before the draft is formally part of the encyclopedia as an article(when it will be treated more harshly). 331dot (talk) 11:58, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you just want to create a redirect, go ahead and pardon my response above. 331dot (talk) 12:00, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TypoEater Note that there is already a redirect Blue Dragon sea slug and you could create Blue sea dragon just by clicking on the (currently) redlink. Consider categorising the redirect, presumably using {{R from alternative name}} or one of the more specific scientific options at {{R from alternative scientific name}}. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:07, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article rejection

Hi I'm a newbie at editing but I tried to abide by the 'notable' criteria for a biography article and included over 12 citations from credible secondary sources that were entirely based on the person referred to in the article but still my article was rejected stating "they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people)". The article is Draft:Mohit Joshi . Please guide me where did I went wrong and how should I resubmit it to get approval?Draft:Mohit Joshi Tanmay.s.15 (talk) 13:15, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tanmay.s.15 Hello and welcome. The good news is that your draft was "declined", not "rejected". "Rejected" has a specific meaning, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted. You may do so simply by clicking the blue "resubmit" button at the bottom of the decline message left by the reviewer.
Please read the messages left by the reviewer carefully. Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about someone and their accomplishments. A Wikipedia article 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. Wikipedia wants to know what sources consider to be important/significant/influential about this person, not merely what their accomplishments are. Based on your text, he seems to be an ordinary CEO. Is he known for implementing a unique business strategy that others emulate? Does he have a particular, personal influence in his company's field? (say like Elon Musk) Something like that. 331dot (talk) 13:21, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Show me the way

Hello Sir, giving you brief history of I the user@Supriyomj16022008. First i started making article. It was continuing nicely then one day I want to give the title (Ramakrishna Mission Brahmananda College of Education) of my page. On July'23 I did first mistake and unknowingly instaed of giving title move the user from supriyomj16022008 to Ramakrishna Mission Brahmananda College of Education. Due to lack of my knowledge about wikipedia i did another one or two mistakes including the last one. Another mistakes like again started writing in the sandbox of username@Supriyomj16022008, publish it and then one day revert the user from Ramakrishna Mission Brahmananda College of Education to Supriyomj16022008. Believe me, unknowingly I did it. Please forgive me. Finally may be on 31st July'23 Liz moved the draft from Ramakrishna Mission Brahmananda College of Education to Ramakrishna Mission Brahmananda College of Education 2 for my work as I am a novice. From that day onwards I tried to update my draft. Now slowly slowly I may little familiar with wikipedia. The present condition is given now : I almost complete my Draft:Ramakrishna Mission Brahmananda College of Education 2. I shall try to add few things positively. Now please show me the way what to do next? I want to see my Article:Ramakrishna Mission Brahmananda College of Education (without adding 2) in the main space with all the updates of the draft. For that shall I do submit request of the draft. Thank you. Waiting for your reply. Supriyomj16022008 (talk) 13:37, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the link:Draft:Ramakrishna Mission Brahmananda College of Education 2 for anyone wanting to comment. Karenthewriter (talk) 13:54, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Supriyomj16022008 Mainspace has the article Ramakrishna Mission Brahmananda College of Education which has major deficiencies in its references. This will take a bit of sorting out.... Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:44, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You have created an article and a draft. My recommendation is to abandon the draft and focus on improving the article. A large problem for both is that most of the references are to Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia articles are forbidden as references. I recommend deleting all of the Wikipedia refs.
@Mike Turnbull Thank you for your support. As you are telling about your confusion I agree. I shall try to follow you and focus on improving the article Ramakrishna Mission Brahmananda College of Education which is already in the mainspace and delete all of the Wikipedia references. But few questions are there in my mind. Please solve.

1. How to abandon the draft Ramakrishna Mission Brahmananda College of Education 2 ? Should I simply quit or I have to do something for the draft, its like again I have to revert the page and then start focusing on improvement of my article. 2. The article Ramakrishna Mission Brahmananda College of Education is the mainspace means what? Can you please tell me. Is it means that the article already submitted? or After improvement I have to submit the page? 3. In my query you see I already told about my few mistakes. Now Point No.1 I mentioned about reverting. If I revert then will I get my article in the userpage Supriyomj16022008 which is now not exist? — Preceding undated comment added 16:43, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Supriyomj16022008 Please now edit only the live article Ramakrishna Mission Brahmananda College of Education which is in mainspace, the jargon word we use to mean the published encyclopaedia. Your old draft will be automatically deleted after 6 months of inactivity. Meanwhile, you can copy useful parts out of it to place them into the live article, if that helps you. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:16, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adding "The" to a title

Hello. I've put up an article called The Garland of Sulpicia with a redirect page called Garland of Sulpicia. But it occurred to me that it might be more in conformity with Wikipedia practice to put it the other way round. What is the usual rule regarding "The" in a title? If you agree that it would be better to call the article just "Garland of Sulpicia", could you please delete the redirect page for me, so that I can then change the title of the main article. Thanks. Kanjuzi (talk) 13:40, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kanjuzi There is guidance at WP:THE. It is not usual to create redirects with "The" prefixes. Most editors can't move titles over redirects, so you will now have to make a move request. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:49, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and moved the article. Deor (talk) 14:15, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Kanjuzi (talk) 14:39, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrity Name Change

Hello, I am trying to make changes to the Wikipedia page for British Supermodel Kate Moss. She is listed as being born 'Katherine Ann Moss' which is not correct Factsonfashion (talk) 13:41, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Factsonfashion Her full name is cited multiple times in the article's infobox. If you think that these are wrong, please take this up at Talk:Kate Moss. You will need to provide cast-iron sources for any change. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:53, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
incidentally, is nearly every image in that article and its talk page broken for anyone else? cogsan(give me attention)(see my deeds) 14:37, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, they're loading fine for me. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:39, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Factsonfashion, since you are an employee of Kate Moss Agency LTD, please read and comply with WP:PAID. You can request changes to the article via {{edit request}}s on the talk page. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:37, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weird question...

...but IP editors seem to suddenly be making en-masse talk pages just for articles I've created: -

While nothing actually untoward has happened this seems very odd and I'm just wondering if I'm missing something. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 14:18, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @BoomboxTestarossa: they seem to be adding WikiProject tags, which are intended to flag up the article/draft to relevant Projects, and form the basis for subsequent article ratings. Nothing to worry about, but if you start adding the Projects yourself then this will probably stop. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:22, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, excellent, will try to do so going forward, just the mechanical nature struck me as odd. Thank you =) BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 14:25, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How can I get help in creating my company's wiki page?

I need a neutral perspective in writing about my organization that is 25 years in the industry. Any help will be appreciated. Happbits (talk) 14:28, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Happbits, Honestly, the best advice I can give you is: DON'T . It's very hard to write neutrally about a company you work for. If you decide to do so anyways, remember that everyone here is a volunteer, so you might not receive any help. Nevertheless, I wish you happy editing! Industrial Insect (talk) 14:39, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I assume this relates to Draft:Calsoft. Please read the messages on your Talk Page and comply with the policy at WP:PAID before doing anything else in relation to that Draft. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:53, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Happbits, and welcome to the Teahouse. I echo Industrial Insect's advice: DON'T.
Writing an article is one of the most difficult tasks for an inexperienced editor. I liken it to picking up a violin for the first time, and immediately arranging a concert at which you will perform. When you have a conflict of interest it is many times harder.
When you have made the mandatory declaration of your status as a paid edit, as Mike Turnbull says, then I suggest you read PROUD, OWN, NCORP, and BACKWARDS. Then if you have understood all these, and you have found the independent, substantial sources that are a non-negotiable requirement, you can try creating your draft. Throw away everything you have already written, as it is useless. Forget absolutely everything you know about the company, and write a summary of what those sources say about it - nothing else. If none of them mention something that you would really like the article to say: tough. If some of them say things that you really really don't want the article to say: also tough: you must not leave those out.
Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. ColinFine (talk) 15:01, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to the Accolades for the live action little mermaid film

The Little Mermaid won the Film of the Year award as well as Best Actor in a Motion Award (Halle Bailey) for the Bulletin. Here is the link for the awards: WINNERS ANNOUNCED: Bulletin Awards 2023 — The Bulletin (onthebulletin.com) Rincemermaid (talk) 16:00, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rincemermaid, Thanks for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to change it. We encourage you to be bold in updating pages, because wikis like ours develop faster when everybody edits. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. You can always preview your edits before you publish them or test them out in the sandbox. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 16:15, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question from IP

I was researching Linux distros, in particular, a cut down version for use in routers, and came upon this...

"On May 6, 2003 Cinege updated the LRP website to reflect that the project was being abandoned."

When you click on the reference, it takes you to a page that I find objectionable. The page you end up at has nothing to do with the topic and instead is full of crotches, and speaking as someone who has been celibate for 15 years. I found it quite a shock. I am here hoping someone will look up this quoted string above and use their judgement what to do about the reference link. Thank you very much. Douglas Goodall 2603:3024:1904:8860:55A3:4FC4:2768:7792 (talk) 16:27, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP Editor- I've changed the reference to unfit so it hides the original link, which is now a dead link and has been taken over by a porn site. The Archive copy still works. Qcne (talk) 16:49, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the fix, Qcne, and sorry you had to experience that, Douglas. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 16:56, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, my homosexual eyes are immune to such things! Qcne (talk) 16:57, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Coord" template bot

Hi,

How would I go about creating a bot that moves coord templates down from the top of the page? (They break the page previews when put at the top, but work fine when placed at the bottom of the lead paragraph, or anywhere else in my experience) LOOKSQUARE (👤️·🗨️) talk 16:36, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@LOOKSQUARE: If you wanted someone else to create it, you could use Wikipedia:Bot requests. If you wanted to create a new bot, see Help:Creating a bot. GoingBatty (talk) 20:43, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should articles have a trademark symbol?

As in Lion lights. Kk.urban (talk) 16:47, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, as per MOS:TMRULES Qcne (talk) 16:50, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Kk.urban, using is also a strong signal that an article has promotionalism issues, which I see ColinFine has tagged. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 16:59, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I removed them. 331dot (talk) 17:00, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And somebody else has tagged it for Speedy deletion ColinFine (talk) 17:04, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon J. MacRae

Dear TeaHouse: Praise be to Jesus and Mary! I am seeking an experienced wiki biographer to please help finish a draft I began of Gordon J. MacRae. I am NOT an experienced biographer. Anyone interested, please help and feel free to do you yourself; you do not need my permission to move forward on this. Thank you, and May God bless you and May you have a wonderful day. holylove.org (Marian shrine with many blessings attached). ServantofGod2 (talk) 17:41, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:Gordon J. MacRae {{u|Sdkb}}talk 17:44, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there's certainly sources.[1][2] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:23, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @ServantofGod2! Welcome to the teahouse! I'm afraid as Wikipedia is mostly a volunteer service, you'll likely have trouble finding people to help you. I've also taken a brief look at the draft, and it doesn't seem suitable for Wikipedia. Read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#NEWS like the reviewer linked into the draft. A Wikipedia article is given to those with "notability". Among those requirements is not simply being known for one thing, as it seems the subject of your article is. God bless you and happy editing! Industrial Insect (talk) 18:38, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ServantofGod2: See WP:BACKWARD and follow the guidance given. Find independent sources (Gråbergs Gråa Sång listed some links above) and write the article based on what the sources say, not based on what you know or what MacRae says. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:31, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did some research to see what I could do and whilst there is a wealth of sources, most of them would not be accepted by Wikipedia standards. There seems to be a series of articles by the Wall Street Journal (Link to one of those articles which I can't read due to paywall) which could yield some good information but unfortunately I don't believe it's enough. From what I've read, Father MacRae does warrant coverage of his ordeal but regrettably Wikipedia doesn't seem to be the right place for this coverage. Best wishes in all future endeavors, from Clyde Jimpson of the Arkansas String Beans (talk) 15:41, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Theme CSS Available?

I want to change the color of my Wikipedia theme, but the CSS for the theme is blank. Is there anyplace where Wikimedia shares the CSS for its themes? Ablert A. Rock (talk) 18:54, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ablert A. Rock (talkcontribs) 18:56, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ablert A. Rock, Help:User style may have what you're looking for. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk 19:03, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi or stallion greetings from Prince Paul De-BLUEoyal how can I change and build up my new ID profile when necessary for update?

coding and navigation to access my account or database. 41.190.12.251 (talk) 19:21, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is your account name?
Wikipedia doesn't have "profiles". Wikipedia has articles. Editors have user pages. It is unclear what you are asking. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:28, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. It sounds as if you have the (very common) misunderstanding that Wikipedia has anything at all to do with presenting yourself to the world or increasing your online presence.
It does not. If ever there is an article about you in Wikipedia, it will not belong to you, it will not be controlled by you, it will not necessarily say what you want it to say, and it should be based almost entirely on what people unconnected with you have published about you, not on what you or your associates say or want to say. Please see WP:PROUD and WP:notability. ColinFine (talk) 19:58, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How do I make a new DYK for an article that has already had one?

I wanted to nominate the article Piano Sonata No. 2 (Shostakovich) for DYK because it was promoted to GA a few days ago. However, the following error message appears when I attempt to submit my nomination: "Creating nomination page: Failed to save edit: The article you tried to create has been created already." In 2021, I successfully nominated the same article for DYK when I expanded it by over 5 times its previous length, which accounts for the preexisting DYK template for this article. So how do I get around it to renominate? —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 19:32, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I found this: An article is ineligible for DYK if it has previously appeared on the main page as a bold link at DYK so perhaps it cannot be nominated again. There may be a place to ask for help on this at WP:DYK, if you don't get more answers here. RudolfRed (talk) 19:40, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your help! —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 19:58, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AfC Member

How can I be an Articles for Creation member?

I would also like the answers to be answered in the VisualEditor They call me lily (talk) 19:33, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@They call me lily: See the "How to get involved" section at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation. I don't understand your comment re: visual editor. RudolfRed (talk) 19:35, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @They call me lily, and welcome to the Teahouse.
Yes, @RudolfRed is correct. Please be aware that you've only edited 6 times, and the requirements include to edit 500 times. If you submit a request, it is very likely you request will be rejected. Did these answer your question? I also don't understand your comment: "I would also like the answers to be answered in the VisualEditor". StrawberryChi'sCake (talk) 19:49, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@StrawberryChi'sCake (and @RudolfRed), when someone clicks that big blue button to ask a question, part of the instructions which pop up say Mention if you'd like a reply specific to mobile view or the VisualEditor. New folks often don't quite understand what that means or why it's being asked. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 21:01, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like the answers to be answered in the VisualEditor
@They call me lily: Welcome to the Teahouse. If you are asking to use the visual editor to make comments on pages like these, it is possible to force it to do so, but it won't function exactly as you want it. A good alternative is the reply tool, which should be enabled by default on your account. If it isn't, you can check Preferences → Editing → Discussion → Tick Enable quick replying. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:02, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is settlement give examples

lisa nda 41.114.232.120 (talk) 20:05, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@41.114.232.120`: Welcome to the Teahouse! This is the place for asking questions about how to use Wikipedia. However, we cannot answer questions about your homework. Sorry! casualdejekyll 20:06, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You could read the article Settlement and the articles in the subcategories of Category:Populated places. GoingBatty (talk) 20:38, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@41.114.232.120: Hello! This venue is for questions specifically about Wikipedia itself.
If you have any questions with this subject, feel free to ask your question at the reference desk, and they'll be more than happy to answer your questions. QuickQuokka [⁠talkcontribs] 21:58, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is it worthwhile to leave a message on an IP address talk page?

An editor not using a Wikipedia account just added a paragraph to the Dirty Sally article stating the series' episodes are considered lost. A reference was given, citing a reference book that I own, so I know the data added did not come from that source. I plan to remove the new paragraph, and comment on it at the article's talk page, but I don't know if I should try to reach out to the IP address and politely state that someone may have made a mistake. A little guidance would be appreciated. Karenthewriter (talk) 23:27, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My two cents: it only takes a minute to do. It might help, and can't possibly hurt. So I tend to reach out to IPs. For me, it's a part of assuming good faith. Pecopteris (talk) 23:43, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Pecopteris. I went ahead and wrote a message on the IP address talk page. Karenthewriter (talk) 00:15, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

Dear all, after a negative review, I have revised the bibliography for my article but now I believe that the references are too many. Could someone please help me select around 8-10 strongest references? I am not sure the criteria is still completely clear to me. (For example, while a press note about the person counts for notability, an interview in a prominent professional media does not, neither are the pages proving numerous fellowships). I guess I need help here:

Draft:Svitlana Biedarieva User18762 (talk) 23:53, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@User18762, at a quick glance it looks to me like this person is too early-career for a Wikipedia article - she got her PhD under 5 years ago. I see that she has two books in progress. If these are monographs (ie, if she is the sole author), she will almost certainly have strong notability claims once they are published. -- asilvering (talk) 00:46, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Citing sources with section numbers and inconsistent page numbering

I am looking to make some edits to Bhopal disaster - specifically, adding specific page citations for existing sources. One such source[1] has numbered sections (6, 6.1, 6.1.1, etc.) and restarts page numbering with every top-level section. If I want to cite something in section 8.2.3 using {{rp}}, should I just do[1]: 8.2.3 , or cite both section and page, like [1]: 8.2.3 p. 2 ? Thanks. Ballinskary (talk) 00:27, 1 September 2023 (UTC) Ballinskary (talk) 00:27, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, not sure if I'm not supposed to cite on this page (or pages like it) but I wasn't really sure how else to illustrate my question. Ballinskary (talk) 02:46, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ballinskary Citing like you did here is fine, provided you use the {{Reflist-talk}} template so that the citation remains with the thread (as you did). As you have found out, the {{rp}} template takes as its parameter any text you like, so I think the answer to your question is to use whatever will help the reader the most if they wish to verify that the source supports the information Wikipedia says it does. If the sections are small, then the first version you gave will be fine but if each section is large, then the second version would be better, assuming that the key information is located specifically on that page. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:01, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. In this instance, I don't think that the archive URL is helpful as it relates to a Google books link, not the DOI link, which should be marked as |doi-access=free, since the text is freely available. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:04, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Michael D. Turnbull This is all very helpful, thank you. I just want to better understand your second point. Is the archive URL superfluous here? Would it make sense to modify the existing citation to remove the archive URL altogether and add the "free" doi-access indicator? Ballinskary (talk) 12:22, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ballinskary Yes, I think so. Full information at WP:DOI. When the access=free parameter is used, the linking in the title will go to the doi's target, rather than the Google books target as at present. That's usually better as Google normally doesn't give access to the full text. However, in this case, the Google URL leads to a full 208-page .pdf, so which to use is debatable! Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:47, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for your help, @Michael D. Turnbull. Ballinskary (talk) 16:16, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to what Turnbull said, I feel with rp that long, it would introduce awkward looking gaps in text. I recommend using Help:Shortened footnotes instead. Ca talk to me! 11:03, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense, @Ca. Would something like this[2] make sense? Ballinskary (talk) 12:30, 1 September 2023 (UTC) Ballinskary (talk) 12:30, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, perfect! Ca talk to me! 12:31, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help, @Ca! Ballinskary (talk) 16:17, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b c Eckerman, Ingrid (2005). The Bhopal Saga—Causes and Consequences of the World's Largest Industrial Disaster. India: Universities Press. doi:10.13140/2.1.3457.5364. ISBN 978-81-7371-515-0. Archived from the original on 10 November 2022. Retrieved 29 October 2014.
  2. ^ Eckerman 2005, p. 2, section 8.2.3.

Reliable sources

Hello,

I got into an argument with @Darknipples. I think Don Black's article should refer to him as a white power figure, not a white supremacist, because being a militant racist and former mercenary is notable and being racist is not. Even the Don Black disambiguation page calls him a "white supremacist activist". I told them so and they said, "That's great! I'll look into it!" i.e., it wasn't my place to cite a more reliable source, Kathleen Belew's "Bring the War Home", then they managed to conjure up. Where can I find someone to arbitrate? 2603:7000:D03A:5895:D901:AA0:611A:3336 (talk) 00:57, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't resolve it through discussion on the talk page, then WP:DR has guidance on how to resolve disputes. RudolfRed (talk) 01:35, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An acceptable Wikipedia article summarizes what the full range of reliable sources say about the topic. Many reliable sources going back decades describe Don Black (white supremacist) as a white supremacist, and therefore, so too will Wikipedia. The only legitimate way to change that is to produce indisputably reliable sources that refute the claim of white supremacy. That would be difficult, given what Black has said and done over the last 53 years. I recommend that you read the useful essay Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Cullen328 (talk) 03:36, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, you don't think that a former Grand Wizard of the actual Ku Klux Klan and founder of the infamous Stormfront hate forums should be described as a "white supremacist" and to support this you are citing a book that introduces the man as "Don Black, a high-ranking Klan leader of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan,"??? Rjjiii (talk) 04:24, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This editor is now resorting to ad hominem attacks on my talk page in their arbitration requests. DN (talk) 18:09, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft Massimo Faraò

hello can you please help me to make correction to the article/page Massimo Faraò ? is not clear what i have to change or modify, thanks a lot Massimo Faraò Massimo Faraò (talk) 01:31, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Massimo_Faraò seems to have very little content and no sources at all. Check out WP:REFB for help with that. Also, read the guidance at WP:AUTO. RudolfRed (talk) 01:33, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Massimo Faraò. Unreferenced biographies of living people are forbidden by policy. Writing an autobiography is an example of conflict-of-interest editing and is strongly discouraged. Cullen328 (talk) 03:44, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Massimo Faraò: Read WP:BACKWARD carefully and understand it thoroughly. Then start over on your draft. You must find multiple instances of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of you. Only after finding such sources can you begin writing an article, based only on what those sources say, and not what you know. If you cannot do this, then your draft cannot be published. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:18, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How to make a article protected?

2023 Asia Cup article should be protected, because many times IP users removed, reliable content. Tesla car owner (talk) 06:22, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tesla car owner. Wikipedia:Requests for page protection is the proper place to file a report. The shortcut for future use is WP:RFPP. You are expected to provide evidence. Cullen328 (talk) 06:31, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Adding to what Cullen said, an admin agreed with you so the article is now protected for 3 months. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:34, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple regular users are removing the OPs content because it is POV and written in poor English, that's the actual problem here. They have just received a final warning for it. Black Kite (talk) 08:12, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Keoghan image

There is a person with no account, keeps removing the latest image for Barry Keoghan

Barry Keoghan in 2020.png

, and replacing it with an older one (2017), where you cannot even see his eyes. The 2020 image is being used extensively by many versions of Wikipedia all around the world, and yet this person keeps reverting to the older image, not even keeping the newer version within the article lower down. Can someone advise what should be done here? James Kevin McMahon (talk) 08:18, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's purely down to personal choice, really. Neither image is ideal - the newer one is quite dark whereas the older one is sharper and brighter, but is not the best angle as you say. Of course, the best plan would be to find a better free image. Black Kite (talk) 08:47, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi James Kevin McMahon. Since both images appear to equivalent in terms of copyright status, it's basically come down to whether a WP:CONSENSUS can be established one way or another. Since there's no clear based Wikipedia policy reason (e.g. copyright violation) to favor the use of one image over the other, you should start a discussion on the article's talk page and propose the current image be replaced with the one you want to use. If a consensus can be established in favor of such a change, then it will be made. In addition, since both images are OK for a copyright standpoint, it might be possible to incorporate both of them into the article in some way. The thing that you absolutely don't want to do here is keep trying to force the image you would like to be used into the main infobox. The user who removed the image left an edit summary explaining why (jpeg images are preferred to png images) for the main infobox of BLPs. The is a specific enough reason to assume that they're not just removing the file to be a pain in the butt or as some type of random vandalism; in other words, they seem to have a valid concern with is worth discussing on the article's talk page. If the format of the more recent image is the only real problem the other user has with using it, then perhaps someone at WP:GL/P can help with that. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:56, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My work here is being victimised by someone who does not even have an account, and the only response I get is that it is ok for this person to behave in this manner. I am disappointed with the response from the Wikipedia community on this matter.James Kevin McMahon (talk) 20:31, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@James Kevin McMahon: As this is a matter of needing consensus, discuss this with the IP at Talk:Barry Keoghan. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:54, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Listing where an annual event was held...

Should I list just the Town/City? Or should I list both the Town/City and the Country?

I nearly always list both (no matter what the articles are about), however I'm updating an article which doesn't have a pattern (and is therefore a bit of a mess), so things like each years categories are listed in a different order, and some years mention the country while others don't.

Should host countries always be mentioned, as I think they should? Danstarr69 (talk) 09:06, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is probably guidance about this somewhere within Wikipedia's couple dozen Manual of Style pages, but I don't feel like looking through them(and nobody reads them anyways). For me, I don't use country names when the location is already painfully obvious, such as New York City and Paris. For most cases, you can just list Town/City, except when listing the country is crucial for context. Ca talk to me! 10:48, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Danstarr69 You don't mention the list article you mean, so it is difficult to comment but, of course, linking to the correct city name will in most cases make naming the country less important as readers can follow the link if they wish. For Wikignomes, some advice is at WP:GEOLINK. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:55, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The reviewer of the draft effectively said that the article needs a significant rewrite and discussion, which I assume implies WP:TNT. However, I don't think that guideline would be appropriate since the draft is sourced fairly well. I came here because I might be incorrectly interpreting this guideline and would like some comment from a more experienced editor. Tintinthereporter226 09:34, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Robert McClenon:, who rejected the draft. Ca talk to me! 10:59, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ca and Tintinthereporter226: - I seldom reject a draft unless there is a specific problem or unless the draft is itself a problem. Reviewers normally decline drafts rather than rejecting drafts. There is a specific problem. I rejected the draft because the title of the draft, The Phillips Academy Poll, was and is a locked redirect to Phillips Academy. I couldn't have accepted the draft even if I wanted to accept it. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Phillips Academy Poll. An AFC reviewer cannot overturn an AFD. But, while we are here, I will ask a question of the other editors here. What should a reviewer advise the submitter to do when a title is salted? What advice should I give to the submitter, or what advice does the community here give to the submitter? I have previously advised submitters to go to Deletion Review to request desalting, and have been criticized for that advice. Should the submitter go to Requests for Page Protection to request unprotection? Where should a submitter go to request that a locked redirect be unlocked (which is a form of desalting)? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:32, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Use of CN tag for facts generated through listing

Hello. I would like to ask a question. With WP:VERIFIABILITY, a core content policy stating All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists, and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material., and WP:CN A "citation needed" tag is a request for another editor to supply a source for the tagged fact: a form of communication between members of a collaborative editing community. in consideration, I would like to bring an example and ask my question using it.

  • A source reports a settlement's destruction in war, but the source falls short of reporting about its inhabitants' fate. The key here is that the source does not mention their fate at all.
  • This destruction of settlement is then listed in an article/list titled as a "Massacre", and thus, generating an -unverified by the available sources- fact that its inhabitants were massacred.

My question is: is it OK to use a CN tag to request verification supporting the settlement's inclusion to that list?

Reason I want to do that: It is a big claim to suggest that the inhabitants were massacred. I believe a claim of this kind that can't go without the necessary in line citation verifying that it is indeed a massacre to justify inclusion to the list of massacres.

Reason I am asking: I am told that that CN tags may only be used to verify the content itself, not about how this content is used on articles and lists. - SilentResident (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 09:59, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SilentResident Welcome to the Teahouse. If I understand you correctly, it sounds as if {{failed verification}} template might be more appropriate than this one:[citation needed]. Yes, there may be a citation supporting some, all or, indeed, none of the content. So showing that it failed verification can be very helpful. Obviously, it would be great if you could do some research yourself to establish the published facts, one way of the other. But if you can't then the CN or 'failed verification' can be used to highlight any concerns. If you think it's actually a gross misrepresentation of the known facts, then it could be reasonable to remove the listing entirely and to leave a talk page discussion to explain your concerns 9or to post concerns first and then boldly delete 7 days later if nobody responds)
If you read the documentation at FV, it explains how you can add a reason or refer to the talk page for a discussion. It would look like something this, and display the reason when you mouseover it.[failed verification]
Does this help? Nick Moyes (talk) 10:38, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, indeed it does. I am delighted to know. It's more or less similar to what I was doing already regarding verifiability, just better. Much appreciated! Have a wonderful day! --- SilentResident (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 11:05, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can I add this content on wikipedia or is it illegal ?

I have gained access to some page of a company on multiple url "sec.gov" and I wanna be sure it's legal to put it on wikipedia. It can theoricaly be access by anyone if you have the link and/or if you know the proper google search query but the probability of someone finding it are near to nothing. One of reason I ask the question is because the company which I have some data about is on the top 50 of something they call "Fortune 500" with I looked a bit about and I dont want to have legal problem with big company like that, so here to reformulate my question : can the content I just mentioned above be used on a wikipedia page without getting some legal repersecution or shall the ".gov" and "sec.gov" content not be used on wikipedia or at all? I will take your answer seriously and till then I will continue on search this data until I have confirmation (or not) that I can use this data. 178.197.199.236 (talk) 12:54, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, IP178, and welcome to the Teahouse! Generally speaking, it's not illegal to use content from .gov sites on Wikipedia, but I can't give any more of an answer, including whether it'd be appropriate for Wikipedia, unless you give more details about your specific situation. Writ Keeper  13:00, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, IP user. I'm getting the impression from the way you're referring to it that the information you want to add might be contentious, but I suspect that in most cases, sec.gov is a primary source (As Writ Keeper says, it's hard to say more without knowing the specifics). Irrespective of whether it is a government source, and how easy it is to find, I advise you to be very cautious indeed about adding possibly contentious material without a solid secondary source for it. ColinFine (talk) 14:30, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ping me

Hello!

I noticed that the notification icon has a bug (among other bugs with the interface), and I want to screenshot it to report it.

Please just ping me so I get a notification, nothing more. One ping is enough. QuickQuokka [⁠talkcontribs] 14:26, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Like this, QuickQuokka? ColinFine (talk) 14:30, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ColinFine: Excellent! To future editors: One ping is enough, I already screenshot it! QuickQuokka [⁠talkcontribs] 14:33, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ColinFine:  Done QuickQuokka [⁠talkcontribs] 15:00, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK to associate page with someone that doesn't call out mine?

Hi! Just started editing pages and wondering, what's the etiquette/protocol involved with associating a page with someone that doesn't mention the same page in their profile. Is that allowed? Frowned upon? Outright prohibited?

Thanks! CGHorowitz (talk) 14:36, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if I am quite catching what you are saying. Do you mean linking to articles? Ca talk to me! 14:59, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to be vague! Here's what I mean as a very hypothetical example:
Say I wanted to update the National Zoo's page to say "George Clooney visited on [make up a date]." I'd include a citation to whatever news article had that information. But obviously George Clooney's page wouldn't have a mention of him visiting the National Zoo on that day. So would it still be okay for the Zoo's page to include that info if Clooney's page didn't?
I hope that example helps make my question a little more understandable and not just more confusing. CGHorowitz (talk) 16:04, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely, CGHorowitz. Everything that's in an article should be verifiable from a source, but not everything that's verifiable is appropriate to an article. To take your example, it might be significant for the Zoo that Clooney visited it, but pretty trivial information about Clooney that he visited there. ColinFine (talk) 17:32, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@CGHorowitz:, yes that would be OK. Keep in mind that there are no "profiles" on Wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia. And you don't own any article either. If there is an article about you, you shouldn't be editing it at all, but proposing changes on the talk page. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:04, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Got it - thanks! And apologies if I'm not using the correct terminology. I'm still learning. CGHorowitz (talk) 16:15, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notifications hard to see on mobile

Where's Waldo the notification button?

Hello fellow editors!

I noticed a few days ago that the notification button looks different.

Before it had a red background, making it pop out and be the first thing I notice. Now it's white text on a light grey background (Literally like this).

I don't have any visual impairments, and I can't see it almost at all. I can't imagine how this accesibility monstrosity feels for visually impaired and people with other such disabilities.

This happens both when I try this on my phone and on my computer (through https://en.m.wikipedia.org) QuickQuokka [⁠talkcontribs] 14:58, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are more people with technical knowledge at WP:VPT, I think you would get better answers there. Ca talk to me! 15:00, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i ate the button yum yum
it seems that was a glitch. i got the same result on my phone on all 2.5 layouts (but not my pc), but on dark mode. switching to light mode and back fixed it
whatever that was didn't happen again, but to balance that out, the dark and light mode buttons decided they should both appear in the same time and place, and that the one that didn't work should go over the other cogsan(give me attention)(see my deeds) 17:44, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cog-san: was the button very tasty?
Hmm... Interesting.
I tested this hypothesis before on my phone, by switching to light mode, but it still came up like this, even after refreshing.
Maybe it was a cache issue on my side? QuickQuokka [⁠talkcontribs] 21:27, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect data in Fallbrook, California listing

Government information in this article — Fallbrook, California — is not correct, and I don't know how to edit. Can an editor fix this?

Government[edit]

INCORRECT: "In the California State Legislature, Fallbrook is in the 38th Senate District, represented by Democrat Catherine Blakespear,"

CORRECT: "Fallbrook is in the 40th Senate District, represented by Republican Brian Jones."

INCORRECT: "Fallbrook is in California's 50th congressional district, represented by Democrat Scott Peters."

CORRECT: "Fallbrook is in California's 48th congressional district, represented by Republican Darrell Issa." 2603:8001:D540:A066:D863:B112:6D76:E3D9 (talk) 15:15, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why not post this to Talk:Fallbrook, California? You say you don't know how to edit, but it's clear that you know how to add an edit request to a talk page. That's exactly what the talk pages are for: to suggest improvements to the article.
When you propose an improvement, however, you should also include links to sources for verification. You have not done so above. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:02, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
IP editor. The second part is certainly correct, thanks, based on this URL which is the current version of the existing citation, so I've made that change. Congressional boundaries changed in January this year, apparently. I can't make the other database cited in the article work correctly, so that needs a better source. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:06, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AfD personal stat tool

Hi! I can't remember where I saw it, but I recall there being a tool that enabled you to look at your personal statistics for deletion discussions, comparing your !votes with the outcomes. I want to check my stats to see where I land in terms of reflecting community consensus when I vote and see if I need to adjust my approach accordingly. Thank you. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:22, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Pbritti: I think this is it: [3] RudolfRed (talk) 15:24, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@RudolfRed: Brilliant, that's the one! Thank you! ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:27, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Userbox help

So i just began working on my userpage, While it is a time consuming task i want to figure out how to straighten the userboxes so they are in a straight line rather then all over the place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Subariba (talkcontribs) 15:56, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Subariba! Welcome to the Teahouse. You can organise your userboxes by encasing them in two templates: {{Userboxtop}} and {{Userboxbottom}}. To do this, lay it out like below:
{{Userboxtop}}
{{Userbox1}}
{{Userbox2}}
{{Userbox3}}
...
{{Userboxbottom}}
Hope this helps! Schminnte (talk contribs) 16:12, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @Subariba: I took the liberty of adding some {{clear}} templates to hopefully resolve the issue for you, presuming you wanted horizontal rows instead of a column. Revert if that's not what you were looking for. GoingBatty (talk) 16:15, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

timezone stamp

how can i convert the timestamps that i see in edit history to my time zone? I am in virginia (usa). Iljhgtn (talk) 18:39, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Iljhgtn, and welcome to the Teahouse!
One way to change your time zone is to look at your preferences. I also recommend you see the Wikipedia:Comments in Local Time page.
Did this answer your question? StrawberryChi'sCake (talk) 19:23, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i just updated that. My local time now is 15:28 just as an example, but it only seems to work for comments? i want it to work for viewing when edits were made in the view histroy section Iljhgtn (talk) 19:29, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chris-Chan

Out of curiosity what is the rationale for not having this page? I get during the early days Chandler would not be considered notable, but post 2021 the media coverage (in addition to the huge fan base) seems to more than justify a page. I'm honestly surprised no one has asked this question yet. I see the earlier deletion discussions, but could someone point me to something more recent? HaileJones (talk) 18:58, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @HaileJones, and welcome to the Teahouse.
I'm not sure I understand your question. Can you make your statement clearer? StrawberryChi'sCake (talk) 19:26, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is no Wikipedia article for Chris-Chan. What is the current justification for this? HaileJones (talk) 19:34, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the most recent stuff can be found here. Let's just say from past experiences and prior situations, you'd have to make a very strong BLP-compliant case. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:37, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. HaileJones (talk) 19:39, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would add this DRV as part of the same episode, providing a perhaps more formal justification. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:50, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia articles are created by volunteers like you. If you want to recreate the article please ensure it adheres to WP:BLP. Note that having a "huge fan base" does not contribute to notability. Shantavira|feed me 19:36, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The original title Chris Chan was salted because of repeated BLP and harassment issues stemming from hate campaigns like those stemming from Kiwi Farms. Lavalizard101 (talk) 19:38, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We are currently forbidden to create the article in question. I would cite the extensive media coverage of this individual as justification for notability. Clearly it is a controversial topic - I am seeking to understand why. HaileJones (talk) 19:39, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
HaileJones, Chris Chan has been salted and can only be created by an administrator. That person has been the subject of malicious trolling and harassment for many years. If you go to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, and search for "Chris Chan" in the archives, you can find extensive discussion of the serious problems caused by editors obsessed with Chris Chan. I consider it unlikely that an article about this person will be approved any time soon. Cullen328 (talk) 19:46, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed the harassment has spanned at least a decade or two. Lavalizard101 (talk) 20:02, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting an entry

The entry about me, R. Duane Ireland, is very inaccurate. How can I delete this entry in its entirety? If I cannot delete it, what action can I take to delete this inaccurate entry?

regards,

R. Duane Ireland Miss Boo cat (talk) 20:09, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, welcome to the Teahouse.
Unfortunately it looks like R. Duane Ireland passes #6 of the WP:NACADEMIC criteria, so we can't easily delete the article for not being suitable for Wikipedia.
If you have suggestions for the article, then you can post on the Talk:R. Duane Ireland or make an Wikipedia:Edit requests. Here's the relevant policy: WP:AUTOPROB.
Any changes you suggest should be backed up by a reliable, preferably secondary, source. Qcne (talk) 20:23, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Miss Boo cat, and welcome to the Teahouse! Rather than going straight for deletion, you might consider requesting changes be made by opening a new section at the article's talk page and providing reliable sources to back up your requested changes - by placing {{edit COI}} at the top of the section, the request will be flagged for review by other editors. You are permitted to remove unsourced material from the article by yourself. If you only want the article deleted rather than improved, please open a request at WP:AFD and make clear that you are the subject and would like the article to be deleted. Tollens (talk) 20:25, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
thank you for this information. I think I will request that the entry be deleted. Changing this is quite burdensome. My concern is that they are clear factual errors in the entry that simply cannot stand.
Duane Ireland Miss Boo cat (talk) 20:55, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Miss Boo cat: Apologies for not making clear above, but I just wanted to make sure that you are aware: opening a discussion at AFD is not a guarantee that the article will be deleted. If the consensus is that the article has value to the encyclopedia, it will be kept. Tollens (talk) 21:15, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For more, general, information please read the guidance at WP:ASFAQ. Helping to improve the article is the best approach, I think, as Wikipedia is short of decent articles on notable academics, whereas it is full of biographies of minor "celebrities". Mike Turnbull (talk) 20:35, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! I feel as though I am an absolute do loop here! For example, Michael A. Hitt is listed as my advisor in the side bar. This is not correct in that J. Duane Hoover was my advisor. I completed my PhD in 1977. How in the world am I to provide evidence to this support this fact? And there are errors in the text as well that frankly, are embarrassing to me. Miss Boo cat (talk) 21:15, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Miss Boo cat You can nominate it for deletion via WP:AFD. You will have to state a reason that is Wikipedia relevant; factual errors would be valid, perhaps providing as a link a university website entry about you. The process asks editors to state Keep or Delete. At the end, an Administrator makes a decision. Mostly likely the AfD would fail. As to why your 'corrections' were reverted - all factual statements in articles about living people require references - you provided none. David notMD (talk) 21:17, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is simply too much trouble to provide those references particularly given that my concern is the errors in the current text that are embarrassing. I am retired from the profession--clearly, I have no need for a Wikipedia entry. For example, the text states that I received an offer from Ohio State while interviewing with Texas A&M. This is factually incorrect. I did not receive an offer from OSU--I merely interviewed with that school. How can I provide evidence to support this change? It is embarrassing to me for this text to state I had an offer when that is not the case. Miss Boo cat (talk) 21:20, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Most factual errors don't have a good supporting reference. When that is the case, you can go to Talk:R. Duane Ireland - start a new section and just let them know you're the article subject and there is some incorrect information that should be removed. Someone will remove it for you. If you add the text {{Edit COI}} to the top of your request that should speed the process along. MrOllie (talk) 21:41, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean start a new section? Miss Boo cat (talk) 21:43, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, apologies. They changed the name of the button some time ago and I'm still not used to it. You should see a button at the top of the talk page called add topic. Posting there will be similar to posting here at the teahouse. MrOllie (talk) 21:47, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not your fault. But all of this is incredibly frustrating and beyond complicated. Miss Boo cat (talk) 21:49, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Crimea: according to Wikipedia, Russia or Ukraine?

Wikipedia article about Michail Onufrienko. Biography. "In 2014, ... Subsequently, he moved to the Russian peninsula of Crimea." Isn't, according to Wikipedia, Crimea part of Ukraine? 62.235.120.82 (talk) 20:16, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IP editor. Wikipedia articles reflect what its reliable sources say: there is no "according to Wikipedia". In the context of the article Michail Onufrienko the text should reflect what the source it cites says. As I don't speak Russian, I don't know what that is! Of course, one could edit the article to merely say "the Crimean peninsula", thus avoiding the issue. Mike Turnbull (talk) 20:39, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(EC) @Mike Turnbull The relevant part of the source (specifically, the second paragraph below their 'infobox') says
Личную жизнь публицист не афиширует. Считается, что фактами о близких мужчина не делится в целях безопасности. Тем не менее, известно, что журналист женат. Пара воспитывает дочь. После событий 2014 года Онуфриенко перебрался в Россию, потом на Донбасс. Говорят, сейчас проживает на территории Крыма.
Translation (ru → en) by Google:
The publicist does not advertise his personal life. It is believed that a man does not share facts about loved ones for security reasons. However, it is known that the journalist is married. The couple is raising a daughter. After the events of 2014, Onufrienko moved to Russia, then to the Donbass. They say that now lives in the Crimea.
So the source does not call the Crimea Russian. I have fixed the article to reflect what the source says. --CiaPan (talk) 21:05, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure others will comment on the "according to Wikipedia" part - but in terms of the content you've highlighted, I have a strong perspective which may spark disagreement.
According to the objective reality on the ground, Crimea is a part of Russia, regardless of anyone's subjective feelings on the matter. It is militarily and economically completely dominated by, and integrated into, greater Russia. Ukraine has absolutely no control whatsoever over the territory, and there is no viable path towards regaining such control. Crimea is as much a part of Ukraine as Taiwan is a part of China - only in the realm of fantasy. Some countries recognize this, others do not. Which side of the question a given country is on depends almost entirely on their own carefully calculated geopolitical self-interest in regards to their relationship with Russia. The media from those countries will usually parrot whatever opinion is held by their government, with little interest in or regard for the cold, hard facts of the situation.
So, if Wikipedia says that Crimea is a part of Ukraine, it is taking a fringe view, held by some (mostly) Western governments for political reasons (and certainly held by the Ukrainian government). It is parroted by their media in an effort to show "solidarity" with Ukraine, but not supported by evidence. If a source that's otherwise reliable describes Crimea as currently being a part of Ukraine, I'd say the reliability of the source should be called into question on that particular issue, due to POV/bias issues. The sentence you quote should not be changed, unless an inexpressibly-unlikely scenario unfolds wherein Ukraine retakes Crimea at a later date. That's my two cents. Good day. Pecopteris (talk) 20:57, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is by no means a "fringe view" that Crimea is Ukrainian territory under occupation, even just based on UN votes. Nor it is accurate that there "is no viable path" for Ukraine to reassert its control. 331dot (talk) 21:06, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh boy, I opened up a can of worms, didn't I? This could get very involved very fast. Geopolitics is my life, so I'm happy to go there, but I think most other editors would be decidedly unhappy if we went there on this page for thousands of bytes. You are absolutely right that there's a blurry line between "occupation" and "control, to the point of incorporation into the occupier's country".
I was referring only to the day-to-day reality as it is currently, which is that if you traveled to Crimea today, on 1 Sep 2023, you would find yourself in a world controlled legally, economically, and militarily by Russia. (Legally, in the sense that Russian laws are enforced by Russian policemen and Russian courts).
The more salient question is how Crimea should be handled on Wikipedia. I think CiaPan did the right thing by looking back to the source. I also think that if it's not necessary to label Crimea "Ukrainian" or "Russian" in a given context, it's best not to label it. It's probably also best to avoid stating "Crimea is a part of Russia" or "Crimea is a part of Ukraine" in Wikivoice, anywhere, due to the ability for users to cherry-pick sources to justify their POV and turn the page into a battleground. Pecopteris (talk) 21:20, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hi I am new here and really want to start editing different articles here on Wikipedia. My question is how do I find articles to edit and is there some sort of software/bot that will automatically send me stuff I can start editing if I don’t know where to begin? Also, is there some sort of tutorial on making sure I’m following proper guidelines when making edits? Any help would be greatly appreciated as I start my journey here on Wikipedia. 2600:100D:B026:E491:7C2F:A20E:8E6D:9B79 (talk) 22:15, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]