Wikipedia:Teahouse: Difference between revisions
→Adding my pictures: new section |
Undid revision 1173813137 by Firefangledfeathers (talk) It's clear this isn't evasion, the comment is well grounded in wikipedia policy. Based on recent anti-LGBT edits by Firefangledfeathers this appears to be a pattern of an administrator abusing his authority on behalf of an alt-right povpusher, possibly a real world friend of Firefangledfeathers. |
||
Line 208: | Line 208: | ||
::::::Thank you your reply. Suggestions on how to be a better editor and improve help me, and I will try to remember it |
::::::Thank you your reply. Suggestions on how to be a better editor and improve help me, and I will try to remember it |
||
::::::I added to my comment while you replied and did not see your reply until after. I dont think it changes your comment. The diff is [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse&diff=prev&oldid=1173490414]. [[User:Softlemonades|Softlemonades]] ([[User talk:Softlemonades|talk]]) 19:37, 2 September 2023 (UTC) |
::::::I added to my comment while you replied and did not see your reply until after. I dont think it changes your comment. The diff is [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse&diff=prev&oldid=1173490414]. [[User:Softlemonades|Softlemonades]] ([[User talk:Softlemonades|talk]]) 19:37, 2 September 2023 (UTC) |
||
Response that was given at the talk page in question: ''You brought it to discussion and ignored the responses. As a said before, this claim is further substantiated by the sources at the end of the sentence, and not just Wong. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 21:39, 2 September 2023 (UTC)'' |
|||
The problem here is that Philomathes2357 is misrepresenting the edit and the sourcing. Philomathes2357 has a habit of going to different notice boards and other areas to engage in forum shopping, hoping to find supporters he can then rally back to other pages. Review his posting history for more details. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/76.142.90.17|76.142.90.17]] ([[User talk:76.142.90.17#top|talk]]) 00:24, 4 September 2023 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
== How to add map? == |
== How to add map? == |
Revision as of 00:23, 5 September 2023
![This is the teahouse](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f9/WP_teahouse_logo.png)
Melecie, a Teahouse host
Your go-to place for friendly help with using and editing Wikipedia.
Note: Newer questions appear at the bottom of the Teahouse. Completed questions are archived within 2-3 days.
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)
- 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)
- @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)
- 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)
- Ballinskary,
- @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)
- @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)
- Thanks so much for your help, @Michael D. Turnbull. Ballinskary (talk) 16:16, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
- @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)
- @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)
- @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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Yep, perfect! Ca talk to me! 12:31, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for your help, @Ca! Ballinskary (talk) 16:17, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
- Ballinskary, whether you use {{rp}} or {{sfn}} (I'd go with the latter), you can separate section and page using param
|loc=
, so, for example: - which is slightly better because of metadata issues, and has documentary value for editors following after. (Note two sfn's and one rp above.) Mathglot (talk) 03:45, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks, @Mathglot, that's good to know. Is there any specific advantage to using a section sign versus not using one, or is it just a different citation style? Ballinskary (talk) 13:54, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Ballinskary: I would only use it in cases where there was good reason to, such as matching existing usage in other refs or in the article, or even better, because that's what sources used. Otherwise, it might be opaque to ESL speakers. Mostly I was just trying to max out options in the examples for you. Mathglot (talk) 18:08, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Mathglot Thanks again for the tips, much appreciated. Ballinskary (talk) 23:26, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Ballinskary: You're more than welcome. You may be able to help me, as well. I realize this is a tricky citation issue, and I've been trying to come up with a good description of it that could be useful in the general case. It's not quite ready yet, but when it is, it would be useful to have your feedback about it, as I may be too familiar with it to see the pain points or the parts that are unclear to someone new to it. May I ping you from the page for your opinions about it? It might not be today. Mathglot (talk) 00:02, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Mathglot Of course, I'd be happy to help. I'll keep an eye out for the ping. Ballinskary (talk) 00:12, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Ballinskary: You're more than welcome. You may be able to help me, as well. I realize this is a tricky citation issue, and I've been trying to come up with a good description of it that could be useful in the general case. It's not quite ready yet, but when it is, it would be useful to have your feedback about it, as I may be too familiar with it to see the pain points or the parts that are unclear to someone new to it. May I ping you from the page for your opinions about it? It might not be today. Mathglot (talk) 00:02, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Mathglot Thanks again for the tips, much appreciated. Ballinskary (talk) 23:26, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Ballinskary: I would only use it in cases where there was good reason to, such as matching existing usage in other refs or in the article, or even better, because that's what sources used. Otherwise, it might be opaque to ESL speakers. Mostly I was just trying to max out options in the examples for you. Mathglot (talk) 18:08, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks, @Mathglot, that's good to know. Is there any specific advantage to using a section sign versus not using one, or is it just a different citation style? Ballinskary (talk) 13:54, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- Yep, perfect! Ca talk to me! 12:31, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
- 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)
References
- ^ a b c d 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.
- ^ Eckerman 2005, p. 2, section 8.2.3.
- ^ Eckerman 2005, p. 2, 8.1.2.1 General aspects.
- ^ Eckerman 2005, p. 5, § 8.1.2.6.
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)
- Pinging @Robert McClenon:, who rejected the draft. Ca talk to me! 10:59, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
- @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)
- Contact any admin, or follow procedure at WP:SALT. Mathglot (talk) 06:40, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- @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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- @Iljhgtn I think that your best bet is to set your time zone in your global preferences at Special:GlobalPreferences#mw-prefsection-rendering Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:37, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering also works here at the English Wikipedia. You enabled a feature at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:43, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- i live in richmond, so i just chose the NYC timezone. hopefully it works now. i guess this response i will see it it leaves it as 11:01am for me, which is my current time.. Iljhgtn (talk) 15:01, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- strange, i saw 15:01... that is not richmond or NYC... i dont know why it is still doing the UTC thing. Iljhgtn (talk) 15:02, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Iljhgtn: Have you set the wanted time zone at Special:GlobalPreferences#mw-prefsection-rendering or Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering and clicked Save at the bottom? Are you referring to page histories here at the English Wikipedia like [1]? PrimeHunter (talk) 18:41, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- yes i clicked save and did that. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:36, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Iljhgtn: Are you logged in when you view the page history and using the same browser as when you edit? There are some apps which may display differently but your edits show no signs of using them. If I select "America/New York" under "Time zone" at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering and view the page history of this page while logged in then the time for your above post "yes i clicked save and did that" says 15:36. What does it say for you? By the page history I mean [2] and not something you see after clicking a link in the page history. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:08, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- yes i clicked save and did that. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:36, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Iljhgtn: Have you set the wanted time zone at Special:GlobalPreferences#mw-prefsection-rendering or Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering and clicked Save at the bottom? Are you referring to page histories here at the English Wikipedia like [1]? PrimeHunter (talk) 18:41, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- strange, i saw 15:01... that is not richmond or NYC... i dont know why it is still doing the UTC thing. Iljhgtn (talk) 15:02, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- i live in richmond, so i just chose the NYC timezone. hopefully it works now. i guess this response i will see it it leaves it as 11:01am for me, which is my current time.. Iljhgtn (talk) 15:01, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering also works here at the English Wikipedia. You enabled a feature at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:43, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Iljhgtn I think that your best bet is to set your time zone in your global preferences at Special:GlobalPreferences#mw-prefsection-rendering Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:37, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- There is no Wikipedia article for Chris-Chan. What is the current justification for this? HaileJones (talk) 19:34, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
- 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)
- Thank you. HaileJones (talk) 19:39, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
- 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)
- So broadly speaking Wikipedia's policy is to discount the importance of an individual who has experienced harassment campaigns unless the coverage is more significant than in the Chandler case? I presume that the media coverage of the Stanford rape case was too extensive to not have an article despite the harassment. HaileJones (talk) 18:04, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- 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)
- Thank you. HaileJones (talk) 19:39, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
- 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)
- There is no Wikipedia article for Chris-Chan. What is the current justification for this? HaileJones (talk) 19:34, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Indeed the harassment has spanned at least a decade or two. Lavalizard101 (talk) 20:02, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
- I also suggest you take a careful look at that media coverage with an eye towards WP:BLP and WP:RS (perhaps also looking at WP:RSPS) and with due consideration towards WP:GNG. I think you'll find that this "extensive media coverage" is a lot more shallow than it seems at first glance with a lot of those sources tabloids unsuitable for a BLP and maybe even unsuitable for Wikipedia point blank. Further a lot of that coverage is not the sort of indepth coverage of the person you'd expect for a BLP but instead about specific things. And given the issues highlighted above and in earlier discussions, there's very good reason for us to lean strongly on 'no article' if it's at all borderline. Nil Einne (talk) 02:11, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you, this is a better point. HaileJones (talk) 18:17, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- I also suggest you take a careful look at that media coverage with an eye towards WP:BLP and WP:RS (perhaps also looking at WP:RSPS) and with due consideration towards WP:GNG. I think you'll find that this "extensive media coverage" is a lot more shallow than it seems at first glance with a lot of those sources tabloids unsuitable for a BLP and maybe even unsuitable for Wikipedia point blank. Further a lot of that coverage is not the sort of indepth coverage of the person you'd expect for a BLP but instead about specific things. And given the issues highlighted above and in earlier discussions, there's very good reason for us to lean strongly on 'no article' if it's at all borderline. Nil Einne (talk) 02:11, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- Indeed the harassment has spanned at least a decade or two. Lavalizard101 (talk) 20:02, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
- 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)
How do I find film credits outside of IMDB and so on?
I have a draft for a biography. I did find credits at the British Film Institute, but I know of no way to add other credits outside of IMDB. Starlighsky (talk) 22:39, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Starlighsky: If it is online, you can use {{Cite web}}. See WP:REFB for more help on citing your sources. IMDB should not be used anyway, since much of it is user generated. RudolfRed (talk) 00:24, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- Hello, Starlighsky, and welcome to the Teahouse. RudolfRed, I think the question was about finding the sources, not about how to cite them.
- Starlighsky, that is the big question, and the reason that creating Wikipedia articles is often so much harder than it looks. If you know film magazines that are more solid than just gossip sheets, you could see if they cover it. Otherwise, Google is your friend. If you're not sure whether a particular source is reliable, RSN is the place to go (there is a list of sources commonly asked about at RSP). But if you can't find sources that are reliable, and independent of the subject, and that discuss the subject at some length, then I'm afraid the chances are that the subject does not currently meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and there's no point in spending any more time on this.
- It sounds as if, like almost all new editors who try to create articles, you have written your draft BACKWARDS. Sorry. ColinFine (talk) 10:29, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting me know. I do just want to offer a perspective that IMDB screens its entries. However, I respect Wikipedia's opinion. Starlighsky (talk)Starlighsky 13:40, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
Can you take a look at this article
These articles looks way off
2607:FB91:882F:557A:AD4:1551:8009:A673 (talk) 01:30, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- They both have already have notices at the top that they need more work. RudolfRed (talk) 01:35, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- And please don't edit your post after someone has replied. RudolfRed (talk) 01:53, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- Why do I feel this concerns me? I have previously/recently edited all the 4 articles Jeraxmoira (talk) 06:24, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
Pagina recusada
ola estou a tentar criar uma pagina para uma empresa que ainda nao e bem conhecida Kamavagas (talk) 04:10, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- hola, puedes traducir este texto al ingles por favor? (asking editor to translate his question to English) Pecopteris (talk) 04:13, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Kamavagas Espero que você esteja bem. Esta é a Wikipedia em inglês e você deve usar o idioma inglês aqui durante a discussão. No que diz respeito ao seu pedido, você está dizendo que deseja criar uma página de uma empresa que não é muito conhecida. Então, quero que você saiba que a Wikipedia não é o lugar certo para algo que não é conhecido. Obrigado. ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 08:28, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
Translation: Hi, I am trying to create a page for a business which is yet not well known.
- Hi, could you translate this text into English please?
- I hope you are well. This is English Wikipedia and you must use the English idiom here during the discussion. With regard to your request, you are saying that you wish to create a page for a business that is not well known. Then, I wish that you know that Wikipedia is certainly not the place for something that is not known. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7B:124:3D00:2B8D:308D:B18C:5BD8 (talk) 08:57, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- "...must use the English language here..."; and "...that Wikipedia is not the right place for...". Otherwise, the rest is okay. Mathglot (talk) 20:13, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
Need Assistance on Installing CSD log
Hello all, Please I need help on how to succesfully install my CSD log. I am a New Page Patrol Student, and I was instructed to install CSD log for my assignment. I have installed it and carry out the assignment but teacher complained that my CSD log is empty. If anyone knows how to fix it should contact me pls. Best.Uncle Bash007 (talk) 08:29, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- Install Twinkle in your preferences and configure it there. Cabayi (talk) 08:32, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot @Cabayi Uncle Bash007 (talk) 08:38, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- i dont have time, but
Courtesy link: User:Music1201/MyCSD.js - unmaintained? if anyone would take a look, would probably be helpful! NotAGenious (talk) 13:15, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
British or English, Scottish, Welsh, Northern Irish? unconscious bias
Is there any rationale between which individuals are described as British and which are described as English?
I ask as I recently looked up the actors in the finale of What we do in the Shadows and that made me concerned that perhaps a unconscious racial bias has seeped in? Of the four actors born in England in the finale Matt Berry is the only one described as English. Natasia Demetriou is described as English-Cypriot, and both Kayvan Novak and Benedict Wong are described as British.
I haven't conducted any systemic study but it does seem to be a running theme on comedians and actors pages. Similarly I just checked the cast of Westworld, and only Thandiwe Newton is listed as British, all the other actors from the UK are listed as either English (or in Anthony Hopkins case Welsh American).
Perhaps there needs to be some consistent guidance on this? Otherwise wikipedia seems to be suggesting some racialised view where only white people can be English etc. 84.71.109.118 (talk) 11:18, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- I agree this is unsatifactory, but the rationale is that Wikipedia simply reports what reliable sources say. If someone is described as British then we inevitably have to follow suit unless we can find a more specific reliable source. I personally don't care whether I'm described as English or British, and I suspect many English people feel the same. Shantavira|feed me 11:28, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks, but none of those examples seem to be tagged with a source when making the determination, it seems to be held as one of those uncontentious facts. Another British comic; Shaparak Khorsandi's page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaparak_Khorsandi) lists her as British, and cites her show "Oh my country!" but that show is explicitly about her love of England and how she see herself as English. Wouldn't it be easier to follow the example of every other country and just call anyone with UK citizenship British? rather than just those from ethnic minorities? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.71.109.118 (talk) 11:36, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- As you would expect, this has been discussed many times before, e.g. WP:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_1041#British_or_English_on_lead? There is also guidance at WP:UKNATIONALS. Passports in the UK reflect the fact that we are UK citizens, irrespective of nationality, ethnicity or race. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:48, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks, but none of those examples seem to be tagged with a source when making the determination, it seems to be held as one of those uncontentious facts. Another British comic; Shaparak Khorsandi's page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaparak_Khorsandi) lists her as British, and cites her show "Oh my country!" but that show is explicitly about her love of England and how she see herself as English. Wouldn't it be easier to follow the example of every other country and just call anyone with UK citizenship British? rather than just those from ethnic minorities? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.71.109.118 (talk) 11:36, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- National identity in the UK is complex. It's a sweeping generalisation, I know, but I strongly suspect there is a much stronger national identity to Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish, than to English. It would raise more problems than it solves, if all UK citizens were described as "British". The descriptions are open to challenge, of course. I'm not sure why Wong isn't "English", though Newton and Novak were born and brought up in London, the UK capital, so could easily be seen as "British". Sionk (talk) 12:04, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks Mike and Sionk, but the guidance doesn't seem to address the issue of racial bias. The point Mike is irregardless of race a british citizen can have their nationality listed as either British or as one of the constituent countries yet when it comes to non white people there seems to be assumption that they can't be English, or Scottish because they are not white so instead they are assumed to be British. Take Hardeep Singh Kohli is an SNP member, identifies as Scottish, is for Scottish independence yet he's listed as British. Perhaps the article Mike's cite should be updated to warn editors not just to assume because someone isn't white they aren't English, Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.71.109.118 (talk) 13:55, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- Everyone from the UK should be described as British, whether they like it or not.
- Only places and things should be described as English, Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish, ie English cafe, Scottish invention, Welsh mountain, and Northern Irish village etc.
- However most people refuse to follow that rule, and describe people from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish, sometimes even Irish in Northern Irelands case, yet all English people are always described as British. Danstarr69 (talk) 16:18, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
Everyone from the UK should be described as British, whether they like it or not
. This would lead to a lot of arguments over articles for people from Northern Ireland. The best solution is to decribe people as reliable sources describe them, or as the subject describes themselves. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:35, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks Mike and Sionk, but the guidance doesn't seem to address the issue of racial bias. The point Mike is irregardless of race a british citizen can have their nationality listed as either British or as one of the constituent countries yet when it comes to non white people there seems to be assumption that they can't be English, or Scottish because they are not white so instead they are assumed to be British. Take Hardeep Singh Kohli is an SNP member, identifies as Scottish, is for Scottish independence yet he's listed as British. Perhaps the article Mike's cite should be updated to warn editors not just to assume because someone isn't white they aren't English, Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.71.109.118 (talk) 13:55, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- There was a recent thread on Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors with a similar dispute about Soviet or Russian. DuncanHill (talk) 16:42, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
how do i improve and when can i retry?
User blocked, page in question deleted
|
---|
User:Infernopawn69/sandbox Infernopawn69 (talk) 11:52, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
|
How to add semi-protection status to Pages?
There have been some mistakes made regarding some certain claims of copyright and so there are constant removal or restoration of information back and forth, so how can we protect Wikipedia pages from these issues? So how can we add semi-protection status to Wikipedia articles? DavidDunnymede (talk) 14:10, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- @daviddunnymede: requests for page protection are made at wikipedia:requests for page protection. ltbdl (talk) 14:15, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- Is this a general question or about something specific? Are your concerns related to edits by checkuser blocked DantheWikipedian? --Onorem (talk) 16:02, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, because of disruption caused by editors like that and by some who revert whole pages just to remove copied work, end up reverting changes made by other editors. So it would be real mess to clean up and I suggest because of it, that we should add some form of protection for pages, so that only registered users could edit. DavidDunnymede (talk) 09:54, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
How do you properly type a section in an edit summary?
i.e. → (section name) 2605:B40:1303:900:B914:3BD0:A72B:38ED (talk) 15:48, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- Hello, you can use this markup here: /* section name */ Ca talk to me! 15:54, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- Never mind, found out 2605:B40:1303:900:B914:3BD0:A72B:38ED (talk) 15:54, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
I'm concerned about a sourced claim. Please advise
On the article The Grayzone, a content dispute has arisen. In the second paragraph of the lead, it currently reads:
"It is known for critical coverage of the US and its foreign policy, and misleading reporting, and sympathetic coverage of authoritarian regimes".
The part I'm concerned about is "misleading reporting". This Wikivoice statement cites only one source: an essay called "How to Abolish the Police in Hong Kong". The citation simply asserts "The Grayzone is known for misleading reporting", with no corroborating evidence or examples.
I don't think that this single source is sufficient for us to be saying, in Wikivoice, that an outlet is "known for misleading reporting". I find it questionable from an encyclopedic perspective, from an NPOV perspective, from a WP:DUE perspective, and possibly from a WP:BLPGROUP perspective, too.
Not to mention that the sentence is grammatically incorrect. Instead, I think this statement belongs in the "response" section, attributed to the authors of the essay.
There is another editor who feels that this must be stated in Wikivoice in the lead - attributing it in the "response" section simply will not do.
I'm having a hard time understanding the logic, and no argument has been presented other than "there is no consensus to remove this". But after I removed it, multiple other editors worked on the page without objection to my edit - only one editor seems to be defending the wording ATM, but that may change.
So, I'm appealing to the broader community. Is this "misleading reporting" statement appropriate? Is the single source cited of sufficient quality and expertise to justify repeating its opinions in Wikivoice? Are there potential WP:BLPGROUP concerns here? Am I missing the mark - is the sentence actually essential for the integrity of the article? Am I substantively damaging the article by suggesting that the sentence be attributed? Please share your opinions. Thank you. Philomathes2357 (talk) 16:17, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- My two cents: this is an open and shut case. There's no way that such a strong, accusatory statement can be made in Wikivoice with this lone source. This looks tendentious to me. Not sure about BLPGROUP, but I think you're right that a case could be made. I say: you must attribute it. This is so bad that I'm tempted to do it myself, but I will wait to see other editor feedback, and I highly encourage Philomathes to do the same - and please avoid edit warring, no matter what. Good day. Pecopteris (talk) 17:01, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- I agree, and this is why I tried to work with the editor to reach a compromise. When he told me I had "removed an RS", I re-incorporated it, but he was not satisfied. I feel that he has been engaged in an edit war, and I've been trying to reach a mutually agreeable position. Philomathes2357 (talk) 17:20, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- To be blunt, Philomathes, although I agree with you on substance - it takes two to edit war. You've done the right thing by bringing the question to broader attention, but going back and forth with the other editor is unlikely to convince anyone of your position, and it isn't a good look for either of you. I encourage you (both of you, frankly) to take a step back and give the community at least 24 hours to respond to your thoughts before you edit The Grayzone again. Pecopteris (talk) 17:23, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
There is another editor who feels that this must be stated in Wikivoice in the lead - attributing it in the "response" section simply will not do.
I never said any of that. If an editor who wasnt WP:POVPUSHing edit warring and WP:NOTGETTINGIT removed it, it would be different. But you were, and other editors asked you to stopThis is so bad that I'm tempted to do it myself, but I will wait to see other editor feedback
Im fine with an uninvolved editor doing itI feel that he has been engaged in an edit war, and I've been trying to reach a mutually agreeable position.
- To be blunt, Philomathes, although I agree with you on substance - it takes two to edit war. You've done the right thing by bringing the question to broader attention, but going back and forth with the other editor is unlikely to convince anyone of your position, and it isn't a good look for either of you. I encourage you (both of you, frankly) to take a step back and give the community at least 24 hours to respond to your thoughts before you edit The Grayzone again. Pecopteris (talk) 17:23, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- I agree, and this is why I tried to work with the editor to reach a compromise. When he told me I had "removed an RS", I re-incorporated it, but he was not satisfied. I feel that he has been engaged in an edit war, and I've been trying to reach a mutually agreeable position. Philomathes2357 (talk) 17:20, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
and this is why I tried to work with the editor to reach a compromise
After not getting consensus on talk before, you didnt go back there until after posting here.I encourage you (both of you, frankly) to take a step back and give the community at least 24 hours to respond to your thoughts before you edit The Grayzone again
The community asked Philomathes to drop it several times. They have been bludgeoning the talk page, which already had the topic raised. Ping @Doug Weller Softlemonades (talk) 19:03, 2 September 2023 (UTC)- @Softlemonades: Since I've been made aware of this content dispute, I've noticed that your comments are overly focused on Philomathes. I don't think the community at large would find that impressive. Philomathes' behavior has significant room for improvement: in particular, their comments are far too detailed and philosophical for the average editor to follow, and this can dissuade other editors from collaborating with them. I must say, your behavior towards Philomathes isn't exactly laudable or collaborative, either.
- I'd encourage you to focus exclusively on the content dispute in question, and not on Philomathes. If their behavior is truly awful, there is always WP:ANI. Likewise, I'd encourage Philomathes to keep any further comments to themselves, unless they have a (very brief) remark which is urgently and immediately relevant to the content dispute. As I advised Philo above, complaining about other editors' perceived slights against you instead of discussing content is unacceptable.
- If neither of you have anything else to say about the content dispute, I really implore you both to step back and let other editors take a look. If other editors see that this has turned into a battleground, they won't want to jump in and offer their opinion for fear of drudgery and harassment. On that note, I'm done here - I made my position clear, and I have nothing more to say. Pecopteris (talk) 19:30, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you your reply. Suggestions on how to be a better editor and improve help me, and I will try to remember it
- I added to my comment while you replied and did not see your reply until after. I dont think it changes your comment. The diff is [3]. Softlemonades (talk) 19:37, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
Response that was given at the talk page in question: You brought it to discussion and ignored the responses. As a said before, this claim is further substantiated by the sources at the end of the sentence, and not just Wong. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 21:39, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
The problem here is that Philomathes2357 is misrepresenting the edit and the sourcing. Philomathes2357 has a habit of going to different notice boards and other areas to engage in forum shopping, hoping to find supporters he can then rally back to other pages. Review his posting history for more details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.142.90.17 (talk) 00:24, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
How to add map?
How to add a colour map in an article? I want to show Muktainagar taluka, a region with colour in Maharashtra. Tesla car owner (talk) 17:43, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- Is {{maplink}} what you want? Or do you want a pushpin map in the infobox like this:
Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 22:04, 2 September 2023 (UTC)TeahouseCoordinates: 20°56′N 76°02′E / 20.933°N 76.033°E - No, I want highlight a Muktainagar taluka in Maharashtra's map and also want to add the map of the taluaka, like it present in "District census handbook Jalgaon" (see at PDF file [1]) but what to show road and palaces' name in it. Tesla car owner (talk) 10:42, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- {{maplink}} would be the thing for that then, but you'll probably need to create a wikidata item. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 12:22, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- No, I want highlight a Muktainagar taluka in Maharashtra's map and also want to add the map of the taluaka, like it present in "District census handbook Jalgaon" (see at PDF file [1]) but what to show road and palaces' name in it. Tesla car owner (talk) 10:42, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
References
- ^ District census handbook Jalgaon. Mumbai. 2014.
{{cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
CA articles
should i use british english or american english on canadian articles? Iljhgtn (talk) 19:59, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- Hi. I think MOS:ENGVAR is the most thorough treatment of this topic available. To answer your question: I would err on the side of British English in articles that are about Canada. Pecopteris (talk) 20:04, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- Hello, Iljhgtn. Use Canadian English in articles about Canadian topics. Cullen328 (talk) 20:05, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- Why didn't I say that? Duh! I've read studies which state that, when presented with a false dichotomy and asked to state the correct answer to a question, most people will pick one of the two choices offered, even if they are both wrong answers. My comment was an example of this. Thank you for providing the correct answer, @Cullen328. Pecopteris (talk) 20:12, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- Interestingly, User:Iljhgtn/Tools already contains the correct answer to Iljhgtn's question. Cullen328 (talk) 20:15, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- that is interesting. i forgot i even had that Iljhgtn (talk) 20:26, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- sorry, i did not mean to present a "false dichotimy" either. Iljhgtn (talk) 20:27, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- Hey, no worries. I wasn't trying to suggest that you did anything wrong. The brain fart was on my end. Pecopteris (talk) 20:31, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- Interestingly, User:Iljhgtn/Tools already contains the correct answer to Iljhgtn's question. Cullen328 (talk) 20:15, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- Why didn't I say that? Duh! I've read studies which state that, when presented with a false dichotomy and asked to state the correct answer to a question, most people will pick one of the two choices offered, even if they are both wrong answers. My comment was an example of this. Thank you for providing the correct answer, @Cullen328. Pecopteris (talk) 20:12, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- Hello, Iljhgtn. Use Canadian English in articles about Canadian topics. Cullen328 (talk) 20:05, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
The URL for this university is broken. When I did a Google Search, I couldn't find an official website. Can anybody determine if this institution still exists and if the official website has moved? Kk.urban (talk) 21:41, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- Hi Kk.urban. Google's cache shows the website worked earlier this week. Make the Google search site:usat.edu, click the vertical dots icon
to the right of a url, click the down-arrow at the top right, and click "Cached". I don't know whether the site is coming back. I didn't find anything newer than 2018 in the cached pages and [4] says USAT was "effectively closed" in December 2018. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:28, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
Dead links to references
Should content that is based on links/references that can no longer be reached be deleted? Should archives like the Way Back machine be searched? Kronveldt (talk) 00:14, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Kronveldt: No (delete), and yes (search internet archive). If you can't find it, you can tag the ref with {{dead link}}, or add
|url-status=dead
if it's one of the citation templates. Mathglot (talk) 00:35, 3 September 2023 (UTC)- archive.today is also worth checking. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 00:48, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- I can point you to Help:Using the Wayback Machine for more details. Cwater1 (talk) 20:35, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Draft
Hello, i am having a bit of trouble with creating the Infobox https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?create=Create+page&mfnoscript=1&title=Burning+Men# I'll add everything else including the sources once I can get the Infobox fixed, also doesn't appear to be a draft,can it be added as draft too please Veganpurplefox (talk) 00:14, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- Hello, Veganpurplefox. Your infobox template is incomplete. It lacks the closing curly brackets. Please see Template:Infobox film for what is needed. Cullen328 (talk) 00:20, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Fixed and draftified. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 00:21, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- thank you! Veganpurplefox (talk) 00:24, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
How do I make an article?
OP indeffed.
|
---|
Plz help Black Monk3e (talk) 00:35, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
|
Draft: Colonial American County Courthouse Architecture
Courtesy link: Draft:Colonial American County Courthouse Architecture
If a submission lacks the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article, does that mean the language is too informal or that it contains overly technical language and jargon for the average wikipedia user? Also, what would be an example of peacock terms in the article? Garrett Architectural History (talk) 02:12, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Garrett Architectural History: It might be best to ask the reviewer who declined it, OlifanofmrTennant. When declining a draft, a reviewer is presented with several different templated reasons, and it looks to me like the "informal tone" template was the closest thing to what was intended. In my view, the draft doesn't have an informal tone and doesn't have too much technical jargon. However, it has almost no resemblance to an encyclopedia article, lacking structure and organization, badly formatted citations, and various violations of Wikipedia:Manual of Style guidelines.
- Try looking at similar articles; for example Wayne Lyman Morse United States Courthouse. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:55, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- I left a comment one the draft OLI 05:08, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree. Garrett Architectural History, your draft bears little resemblance to an actual encyclopedia article about Colonial American County Courthouse Architecture. The draft strays way off topic repeatedly into local administrative arrangements in England, the judicial processes of the Dutch, and fleeting references to Spanish and French colonial judicial buildings. You need to stick to the topic of courthouse architecture, with only brief additional content establishing context. Vast swathes of your draft are unreferenced, in violation of the core content policy Verifiability. The prose consistently raises questions about whether you are drawing your own conclusions, which is a violation of another core content policy, No original research. Wikipedia editors simply summarize what reliable published sources say about the topic, and we are not permitted to draw our own conclusions. Your draft is full of weak, tentative phrasing like "would have been" and "would have likely been" and "likely would have only contained" and "smaller colonial American counties might have had" and these formulations occur repeatedly. These phrases are considered weasel words and should be removed. Read MOS:WEASEL. Summarize reliable sources confidently and without equivocation. The formatting of the draft is completely non-standard, lacking a lead section, clearly delineated subsections, and a software generated table of contents. The software cannot generate a table of contents when the formatting departs so dramatically from what is typical of millions of Wikipedia articles. There is not a single wikilink in your draft. Instead of actually adding images, you have included external links to the records of the uploads of those images to Wikimedia Conmons. Your notes and your references are almost indistinguishable, are poorly formatted, and in most cases lack important bibliographic information. Not a single one includes a clickable link to an online source. In conclusion, your draft needs an awful lot of work. Cullen328 (talk) 07:11, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Draft subjects
hello, from what I added for the movie article, what could be extracted from sources I have added? Some sources has a lot of content but dont know what should be added and what should not be added into a Wikipedia article for movies. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Burning_Men# Veganpurplefox (talk) 02:27, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Veganpurplefox: The content you have is a good start. If you can summarize what the reviews say, you'd have something that could be submitted for review. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:58, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- Good ill try to do that! Veganpurplefox (talk) 09:06, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- I think i put everything together but the times i was not able to read more because we need to be subscribed to view the content and was only able to seen the first paragraph before it let me unsee it Veganpurplefox (talk) 09:55, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- so I submitted it as I got everything added Veganpurplefox (talk) 17:49, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Editing article on Ekseption
Hi,
to whomever this may concern: I would like to edit the Ekseption page to somehow explain the origin of the name "Super B." for the track on Spin's second album, Whirlwind (1977). I had the wonderful experience of interviewing the keyboardist who wrote the song, Hans Jensen, who told me the amusing anecdote that the song is named after a "very pretty girl" he met in Thailand whose nickname was Super B (Super Boobs). My edit was removed because it wasn't "constructive"? Is there a way for me to add that in the footnotes? 130.132.173.219 (talk) 03:49, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- Hello - the edit was likely removed because many edits that are purely intended to be disruptive can look similar to yours (though I don't believe you intended to be disruptive at all). Unfortunately, Wikipedia has a policy prohibiting the use of original research in articles - unless this information has been published already in a reliable source it cannot be included as others have no way to verify that the information is true. If this is published somewhere, you can add a reference to that source and restore the edit. Tollens (talk) 03:56, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Is reference from Baidu Baike accepted as Wikipedia citation?
Good day room,
Is reference from Baidu Baike accepted as Wikipedia citation?
What if a historical place exists but there isn't enough reference available? Is it possible to publish an article about that place?
Thanks. Sultanularefeen (talk) 07:13, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- Hello, Sultanularefeen. Although there are major differences in how Baidu Baike and Wikipedia are operated, both projects are based on user generated content. Therefore, a Baidu Baike article is not acceptable as a reliable source on Wikipedia. Similarly, one Wikipedia article cannot be used as a reliable source for another Wikipedia article. In both cases, such an article may lead you to actually reliable sources if they are cited.
- Coverage of historical places requires references to reliable sources. Otherwise, unethical people could just fabricate hoax articles about supposed historical places. Cullen328 (talk) 07:24, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- Many thanks for your information Cullen328. Sultanularefeen (talk) 09:26, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- Sultanularefeen, please don't ask the same question in different places. I have gone to the trouble of answering your question on my user talk page, and now I find you asked the exact same question here. ColinFine (talk) 16:19, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- Many thanks for your information Cullen328. Sultanularefeen (talk) 09:26, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Article not reviewed
Hi, I created an article titled Naulakha Temple, Deoghar about two months ago. Although the article seems to have been accepted and categorized as well, no editor has reviewed it yet. Usually, the articles I create take less than a week to get reviewed, but this one in particular has remained unreviewed for over two months now. Could someone please look into it? Thanks! Dissoxciate (talk) 07:57, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- Hi @Dissoxciate: new page patrol has a very large backlog, it is simply taking longer than usual for some articles to be reviewed. Is there a particular reason why you're in a hurry? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:10, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- Hi @DoubleGrazing, no I'm not at all in a hurry, so apologies if I sounded that way. I just made an observation that it was taking longer for the article to get reviewed than usual. Dissoxciate (talk) 08:18, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Dissoxciate According to WP:NPP the oldest article not reviewed is currently 21 months old! It will have been indexed by search engines, though, as the cut-off for that is 90 days. There is also a large backlog of WP:AfC drafts of ca. 3900, although that has fallen recently. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:29, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- Hi @DoubleGrazing, no I'm not at all in a hurry, so apologies if I sounded that way. I just made an observation that it was taking longer for the article to get reviewed than usual. Dissoxciate (talk) 08:18, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Notability for Ivan Oransky
I tried to address the banner questioning notability. Would appreciate if experienced editors could take a look and possibly clear the banner (or comment otherwise). I have no CoI with the subject of the article. Thank you. B030510 (talk) 08:54, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- @B030510 I tidied up a couple of items and removed the tag. Well done for making the improvements to the article. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:00, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Multiple sources
my draft gets the same sources stated at different titles, how do it get them all into fit into one and not multiples of the same article? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Burning_Men# Veganpurplefox (talk) 09:58, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- @veganpurplefox:
- have the first instance of the reference "named".
- like so:
<ref name="name">content</ref>
- when you wish to use the reference again, use:
<ref name="name" />
- note that each different reference needs a separate name. ltbdl (talk) 10:12, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- like this: < ref name="Burning Men BBC">Burning Men BBC</ref>< ref>"Burning Men: Road movie evokes 'atmospheric landscapes". BBC.</ref> for the first one? Veganpurplefox (talk) 10:18, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- @veganpurplefox:
- not quite. like this:
- <ref name="Burning Men BBC">"Burning Men: Road movie evokes 'atmospheric landscapes". BBC.</ref>
- ltbdl (talk) 10:47, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- thank you, its all fixed except for one that does this: Cite error: The named reference "Burning Men Deadline" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page). Cite error: The named reference "Burning Men Deadline" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page). Veganpurplefox (talk) 11:14, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Veganpurplefox:
Fixed: you had defined the reference name in one place with a space before a period and in a different place without the space. If you want to re-use a named reference, just type
<ref name="name"/>
. You can do this in the VisualEditor – click the "Cite" button, then use the "re-use" tab to select the reference you defined before. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 12:27, 3 September 2023 (UTC)- thank you! Veganpurplefox (talk) 12:29, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Veganpurplefox:
- thank you, its all fixed except for one that does this: Cite error: The named reference "Burning Men Deadline" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page). Cite error: The named reference "Burning Men Deadline" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page). Veganpurplefox (talk) 11:14, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- like this: < ref name="Burning Men BBC">Burning Men BBC</ref>< ref>"Burning Men: Road movie evokes 'atmospheric landscapes". BBC.</ref> for the first one? Veganpurplefox (talk) 10:18, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
antigypsyism and Nazi Germany
Hello, I believe that antigypsyism should be added to the list of central ideological features of the Nazi regime, along with the already-listed features of "racism, Nazi eugenics, anti-Slavism, and especially antisemitism". Gwendolyn Albert (talk) 13:15, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Gwendolyn Albert There is already an article on the Romani Holocaust which covers this pretty extensively. If you believe there should be reference to that in another article you could either make that edit yourself or suggest an edit on the Talk Page of the article you mean, including a relevant source citation. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:22, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
How to report editor wars?
I just saw the edit history of this page: Chalukya–Chola wars. This is an edit war, right? How do I report this? EpicAarush (talk) 15:08, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- @EpicAarush I see nothing in the edit history that could be defined as an WP:EDITWAR. Can you specify what you think meets our definition? Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:23, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Mike Turnbull: Look at the edits between “Pirayone” and “CatTheMeow” between 29 November 2022 and 2 December 2023: 3 reverts in short time (admittedly not 24 hour span). You can see more revert conflicts also in there EpicAarush (talk) 15:44, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- I didn't look at it, but that is so far in the past that there's no need to do anything now. 331dot (talk) 15:47, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- Oh, okay. Thank you for replying! EpicAarush (talk) 15:58, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- I didn't look at it, but that is so far in the past that there's no need to do anything now. 331dot (talk) 15:47, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Mike Turnbull: Look at the edits between “Pirayone” and “CatTheMeow” between 29 November 2022 and 2 December 2023: 3 reverts in short time (admittedly not 24 hour span). You can see more revert conflicts also in there EpicAarush (talk) 15:44, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Would this be considered a SPS in this article?
I'm currently writing a draft for the newest The New York Times game Connections. There are multiple reliable sources I've found to make this article verifiable and notable. Would WP:SPS count here? If it did, would I be able to use articles from The New York Times as a source? Thanks, TarantulaTM (speak with me) (my legacy) 18:11, 3 September 2023 (UTC).
- Hello, TrademarkedTarantula. An article in the New York Times about one of their games is not an independent source, so is of no value in establishing the notability of the game. If you also have significant coverage in reliable, truly independent sources, then a NYT article can be used in limited ways. You can find some guidance at WP:ABOUTSELF. Cullen328 (talk) 18:41, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
May I edit "list of United States cities by population"?
I noticed that they include towns, I would like to add the 10 Towns in New York that exceed 100k residents. AndrewSan12 (talk) 18:25, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- Hello, AndrewSan12. I see that you are already discussing this at Talk:List of United States cities by population. That is the best place to get input from other editors interested in that particular article. Cullen328 (talk) 18:35, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- okay, Thank you. AndrewSan12 (talk) 18:36, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
The Wikipedia International Churches of Christ article
Most of the religious organizations that have articles in Wikipedia have a criticism section. Why does the International Churches of Christ article not have a criticism section? Every time someone tries to enter criticisms or create a criticism page the edits are reverted and taken out. 2600:1700:4260:35D0:5142:ABEC:5B2D:D219 (talk) 20:45, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- Courtesy link: International Churches of Christ. 331dot (talk) 20:56, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- Someone with the same IP (maybe you?) are already discussing this at Talk:International_Churches_of_Christ, that is the place to discuss improvements to the article. If talk page discussions don't lead to consensus, read about next steps at WP:DR RudolfRed (talk) 21:01, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- (ec) "Tries to enter criticism" is putting it mildly, in looking at the edit history. The article will not be turned into a hit piece on this organization, please see neutral point of view. If you have independent reliable sources and are interested in summarizing them neutrally, please discuss this on the talk page. 331dot (talk) 21:03, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- Criticism sections aren't always the best way to deal with negative coverage of a topic (see Wikipedia:Criticism#"Criticism" section), but thanks for flagging up this article, which would benefit from some attention from editors with experience of dealing with contentious topics and are in need of more independent sourcing. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:01, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
Cast actor
hi, I was wondering how I can add actors in a TV series (Will tnt series) for the Cast paragraph. I tried but it keeps getting removed and seen it a promotion while there's proof on the rotten tomatoes and tv guide Veganpurplefox (talk) 21:03, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Veganpurplefox: hello and welcome to the teahouse. I suggest that you bring this issue up at the talk page of the TV series you're working on. I do not know TV series very well.
- Also, please be mindful about WP:Reliable Sources. I am not sure if Rotten Tomatoes counts as a reliable source–someone please chip in. TheLonelyPather (talk) 22:25, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- Okay thank you, rotten tomatoes appears green and reliable on this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#perennial_sources Veganpurplefox (talk) 22:28, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Veganpurplefox: It seems like you are reading that entry wrong. It reports -
There is consensus that Rotten Tomatoes should not be used for biographical information,...
- and that should be considered to include info like appearance in cast lists. I urge you to look for better sources. Even a recap site would be better if it mentions the actor by name, but a more regular review of the episode that talks about the actor's contribution would be best. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 01:47, 4 September 2023 (UTC)- but it's not a biography, he is in the cast list. And there's also recap referring him Veganpurplefox (talk) 01:51, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- I didn't read it wrong Veganpurplefox (talk) 01:52, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- On an other language of his there was this article that mentions him too https://naekranie.pl/osoby/edward-hayter and appears in more than just these that I wrote Veganpurplefox (talk) 02:49, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- it was a Wikipedia reliable reference in an other language Veganpurplefox (talk) 02:50, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- Veganpurplefox, other-language Wikipedias are separate projects independent from this English-language Wikipedia. They each determine their own standards of reference reliability, often different from en.Wikipedia, which is often said to have the most stringent standards. That an o-l Wikipedia accepts a source is no guarantee that en.Wikipedia will do so (although it might, and references here don't have to be in English).
- Biographical information is any information pertaining to a person's life, including whether (or not) they acted in a particular film: it doesn't have to be in an actual biographical article. Wikipedia is particularly strict about it when the person concerned is still alive. See WP:BLP. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.194.81.165 (talk) 13:45, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- Whats the difference from an alive person and a dead one? And why is english more strick than other languages? Veganpurplefox (talk) 13:53, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- One difference is how unsourced or improperly sourced statements are handled. For a living person, the response is most likely going to be removal of the statement. In other cases, it's a judgement call. Perhaps all that is needed is a {{citation needed}} tag. In either case, of course, if a suitable source is found using that source is the preferred solution. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 17:13, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Veganpurplefox In most jurisdictions, you cannot libel a dead person, only a living one. English Wikipedia has been caught out in the past by hoax articles about living people, e.g. the Wikipedia Seigenthaler biography incident. This WMF page suggests that standards across all Wikis should be similar on biographies of living people. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:23, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- Whats the difference from an alive person and a dead one? And why is english more strick than other languages? Veganpurplefox (talk) 13:53, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- it was a Wikipedia reliable reference in an other language Veganpurplefox (talk) 02:50, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- but it's not a biography, he is in the cast list. And there's also recap referring him Veganpurplefox (talk) 01:51, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Veganpurplefox: It seems like you are reading that entry wrong. It reports -
- Okay thank you, rotten tomatoes appears green and reliable on this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#perennial_sources Veganpurplefox (talk) 22:28, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Adding Sections to Articles
Excuse me, I don't know if this is a good place to ask this question, but how do I add sections to Wikipedia articles? I tried finding out by myself, with the toolbar feature on my account, and I tried looking it up on the reference desk, but I couldn't find anything useful. Triviatronic9000 (talk) 00:52, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Triviatronic9000, welcome to the teahouse. Sections are created by creating their headings, as shown below.
== Section == === Subsection === ==== Sub-subsection ====
- You can take a look at Help:Section for more information. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 01:48, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
Improvements to an article
I have been improving the article, Wii U GamePad for the weekend, an attempt to possibly get this into GA status alongside the main article, Wii U. If anyone would like to copyedit the article or suggest improvements would be appreciated. Summerslam2022 (talk) 01:38, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Summerslam2022, hello and welcome to the teahouse. I suggest requesting a copyedit at WP:GOCE. The Guild maintains a Copy Edit Requests Page where editors can ask for copyedits on articles they are working to develop and improve or wish to nominate for Good Article, A-class, or Featured Article status. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 02:16, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- I've already requested a copyedit, but i was asking for any improvements that could be made to this article. Summerslam2022 (talk) 02:30, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- At first glance, it seemed well-written without any obvious problems. I couldn't find any original research, and every sentence had a source to back it up. Plus, it maintained a neutral and balanced tone throughout. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 03:17, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- Hm, alright. After it gets copyedited, I'll nominate the article for GA status. Thanks! Summerslam2022 (talk) 05:53, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- At first glance, it seemed well-written without any obvious problems. I couldn't find any original research, and every sentence had a source to back it up. Plus, it maintained a neutral and balanced tone throughout. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 03:17, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- I've already requested a copyedit, but i was asking for any improvements that could be made to this article. Summerslam2022 (talk) 02:30, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
2603:6081:85F0:71F0:275A:F715:DF75:2B66 (talk) 03:36, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
Is Worldpopulationreview.com a deprecated source?
I was updating the Akiachak, Alaska article and noticed that the aforementioned website had quite useful information about the 2020 census data for Akiachak. However, the interface and the amount of ads on the website are off putting, which makes me wonder if it is a deprecated or otherwise untrustworthy source. Figured this was a good place to ask if I should cite it. Thanks in advance. Slamforeman (talk) 04:15, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- Slamforeman, much the better place to ask is WP:RSN. (The question has already been raised there, but got no response.) -- Hoary (talk) 06:04, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for the redirect! I will ask my question over there instead. Slamforeman (talk) 15:02, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
Draft: Self-Assessment Manikin
Link: Draft:Self-Assessment Manikin
I'm looking to add a photo of the scale to the page but I can't find a concrete copyright license to the picture. Sources from academic journals should be under free-use,.but I know Wikipedia doesn't allow free-use content in general, so I'm not sure how to go about it.
Any other advice on improving the article would also be appreciated, thanks! 267 08:33, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- Twosixtyseven: the first sentence of the draft refers, ungrammatically, to "a stimuli". It says that the subject is an "assessment technique", but does not make clear what's being assessed, or who might be doing the assessment, or why. It does go into the details of the technique, but that's not much use to the general reader, who won't know what the technique is for. Maproom (talk) 07:44, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for the feedback! I edited that section a little, is it any more clear now? 267 08:33, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, that's much better! Maproom (talk) 09:56, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for the feedback! I edited that section a little, is it any more clear now? 267 08:33, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- Twosixtyseven, if by "Sources from academic journals should be under free-use" you mean "Material in academic journals is conventionally ('all rights reserved') copyright, and therefore can only be reused within Wikipedia via a claim of 'fair use'", then I understand. However, this wouldn't be true: some academic journals are copyleft. -- Hoary (talk) 08:07, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, the first part is what I mean, but I'm not sure if I totally understand your second sentence (to be honest, I'm not sure I understand what copyleft means). Do you mean that some journals do allow distributing materials even without fair use, and if so, do you have any advice as to how to go about finding this information? 267 08:33, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- I'll try to answer you (after a break for dinner); but first, are you Heyu929 or are you Twosixtyseven? However well-intentioned, signing yourself [[User:Heyu929|267]] is a sure-fire way to confuse and irritate the people you're dealing with. -- Hoary (talk) 09:08, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- Heyu929 or Twosixtyseven, when you and I write here, we are copyrighting what we write under the the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License 4.0. This is a flavor of copyleft, which in turn is a flavor of copyright. Now, when looking for material outside Wikipedia for potential repurposing within Wikipedia, unless we have an excellent reason not to do so we assume conventional copyright. Conventional copyright may be asserted by the copyright holder, but failure to assert it doesn't mean it doesn't hold. If it is asserted, the assertion may or may not be accompanied by the formula "All rights reserved". If this does appear, all rights are reserved by the copyright holder; if it doesn't appear, then we should assume that all rights are reserved by the copyright holder unless we have an excellent reason not to do so. Now, the vast majority of recently published academic articles and books are conventionally copyright ("All rights reserved"). However, some are not. Consider the Language Science Press, which says: "All our books are published under the CC-BY license. In exceptional cases, we have published books under the CC-BY-SA and the CC-BY-ND license." Material copyright with a CC-BY or CC-BY-SA license can be used for Wikipedia, provided that whoever uploads it to Wikimedia Commons scrupulously provides copyright-related information. ¶ Now, what's your signature? -- Hoary (talk) 11:49, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Heyu929 Your source doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0148037 has an explicit copyright statement saying that the article is CC BY 4.0, "which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited" and is absolutely OK for Commons, where you will provide the URL from which you obtained the diagram(s) you wish to use. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:55, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, the first part is what I mean, but I'm not sure if I totally understand your second sentence (to be honest, I'm not sure I understand what copyleft means). Do you mean that some journals do allow distributing materials even without fair use, and if so, do you have any advice as to how to go about finding this information? 267 08:33, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
I want to publish info on my person and efforts so far
Collapsing |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Wikipedia account - draft contents Sverre T. Evensen - author and innovator - born in Oslo, Norway on February 21, 1945 Pen name S.T.Evensen – a Google Book Search Partner; Initiator of a Social Enterprise for Impact Investing – organized as a Collaborative Value Network Overview Books and New Venture Competitions: 1981. Economic Co-responsibility – a dividing line in politics. Cappelen/Bonnier – pursued by Endowment for Ethics & Enterprise (EEE) and Bankier.co mentioned below; 2006. Director from the Outside: Good Governance inspired by Democratic Values. Xlibris.com 2016. Nordic Model Analyses. Stances on Syndromes vs. Scenarios. Xlibris.com – on Institutional Development and Consequences for Enterprise and Predictability; 1993-2018. The Altruistic Gene Trilogy. Xlibris.com – re: Pluralism, Behavior-oriented Real Economy and Financial Innovation with Social Impact; 2017 and 2023 Entries in HBS.edu New Venture Competition - Social Enterprise for Impact Investing – organized as a Collaborative Value Network (CVN) in Maritime Regions. Relevant work experience up to now In 1988 he initiated Bankier.co (Bankierhuset S.T.Evensen & Co DA) as a supplementing alternative to multi-role financial-groups resulting from deregulation of European financial markets. Cf. the website: www.bankier.co on scaling-up “of Social Enterprises for Impact Investing – organized as a Collaborative Value Networks” presented in HBS.edu NVC 2017“ – and “boosted by cyber-secure FINTECH“ presented in HBS.edu NVC 2023. He founded Endowment for Ethics & Enterprise along with Bankier.co and serves as a board member.
The Norwegian Shareholders Association (1979) and the Norwegian Enterpriser Association (1987) - with a secretariat at the time in the Polytechnic Association. Works in progress are mentioned on the Page: “Contact” at www.bankier.co Education: NHH.no M.o.M. 1968; INSEAD.edu MBA, 1971; Wharton.edu AMP 1980; Norwegian National War College 1986; HBS.edu OPM27, 1997-1999; BI.no M.o.M. Governance and Innovation 2010.
Member of the Board of Advisors (BoA) at Kean.edu/CBPM since 2013. Kean.edu is located near Newark’s Center for inter-Modal Transport & Distribution in New Jersey, USA. He has promoted: · Vocational training at university-level to benefit students’ learning and reduce tuition; · Programs for talents’ action learning based on parallel transfer of experience from emeriti of public- and private sector. Such programs can result in sources of cases for educational purposes. Assertion: International organizations should serve as much needed Catalysts of Collaboration between Academia and Maritime Centers - to help realize the above-mentioned ideas. Catalysts, maritime regions and regional academia can help communities face pro-actively China’s Road & Belt Strategy, which is supported by Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) - dominated by China. Note: Most people live and work in maritime regions. There, the needs of owners/ enterprisers and investors are similar - everywhere. Alas - Amsterdam, Hamburg and London have established public catalysts for impact investing. Sverre T. Evensen (talk) 08:34, 4 September 2023 (UTC) |
- @Sverre T. Evensen: Please look at the top of this page. It says this is: A friendly place where you can ask questions to get help with using and editing Wikipedia, not a place to post your resume. Additionaly, please see WP:WWIN, especially the WP:PROMOTION section. --CiaPan (talk) 08:40, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- Sverre T. Evensen(ec) Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. This is not the place to create and submit a draft- that is done via Articles for Creation. However, more generally, Wikipedia is not a place to post your resume or tell the world about yourself. Please read the autobiography policy. Wikipedia is a place to summarize what independent reliable sources state about topics that meet our definition of notability, not what someone wants to say about themselves. 331dot (talk) 08:41, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
Redirect page change
I wrote East Khandesh (former district) article. When the article wasn't exist, many link related to East Khandesh was redirected to Jalgaon district, I want you to delete that rediect page and link all links of East Khandesh to East Khandesh (former district). Tesla car owner (talk) 09:19, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- Hello, Tesla car owner. You can go to the redirect, and select "What links here", to see what links there are through the redirection. If there aren't many, you can edit them individually yourself. If there are more, you'll need a bot to do it. I suspect that this may be something that AWB can do for you (I've never used it, so I don't know); otherwise you can go to bot requests. ColinFine (talk) 10:30, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
Inquiry on adding references
Hello! I am a new Wikipedia Writer/Editor and my first article draft requires some serious edits before moving to the mainspace. I understand about making the language more formal and neutral, will work now on that. However, I need to clarify some details about references. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Dr._Tharupathi_Munasinghe This is the article.I included some pdf, journal articles, newspaper articles, youtube links as references. Some of them had client's academic and career information published by his universities as a scholar. I also included some websites containing client's work. Can you please let me know what I had done wrong?
Also, my reviewer had stated :
Comment: Pretty much needs to be entirely rewritten. Sources are needed for the unsourced bits. Please remove external links from the body, and cut down on some of the works. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 17:22, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- Should I remove all external links?
- Which work do you sugget I better cut down?
BizChrome (talk) 11:14, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- Hello, BizChrome, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid that the experience you are having is fairly standard for people who try to create an article as the first thing they do editing Wikipedia. So my advice would be to put Munasinghe aside entirely for a few weeks or even months, while you learn how Wikipedia works by making small improvements to some of our existing articles that interest you.
- But when you do continue with the draft, the thing you need to understand is that 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. Essentially nothing written or published by him or his university will help your draft to be accepted.
- You need to start by finding independent source that talk about him in some depth. That should be your very first step, long before actually writing any text, because if you can't find any, you'll know that he does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and not to spend any more time on it. If you find some, then you will need to forget everything you know about him, and write a summary of what those independent sources say. That is probably why the reviewer said "Pretty much needs to be entirely rewritten". Please see BACKWARDS. ColinFine (talk) 12:06, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you ColinFine, now I get what you explained. Sure, I will spend more time to explore within. I am actually glad my first try went wrong, as I am learning a lot. Thank you again and will refer to Teahouse for futher inquiries. BizChrome (talk) 13:40, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- Slight addition to User:ColinFine's excellent reply, you can use information from their personal websites/blogs/whatever under certain criteria (See WP:BLPSELFPUB), but, as Colin mentioned, it does not count towards notability. There's also a promotional tone that needs to be cleaned up, and watch for WP:PEACOCK words. (ex. "prominent", "skilled", "nuture", etc.) ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 18:22, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you ColinFine, now I get what you explained. Sure, I will spend more time to explore within. I am actually glad my first try went wrong, as I am learning a lot. Thank you again and will refer to Teahouse for futher inquiries. BizChrome (talk) 13:40, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
Adding a 'Thanks' button for reviewers
I am not sure if this is the right place but I would really like to know if there's some function to thank reviewers for reviewing articles beyond posting on their talk page, which could potentially be seen as annoying and/or time-consuming for the reviewer if they are busy. It strikes me as odd that there's such an easy way to thank people who make edits to a page on the watchlist but not for those who carry out the important review function, who probably have to wade through a lot of stuff. Is there a function I am missing, and if not can we please have one? =) BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 11:21, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- @BoomboxTestarossa Assuming you mean reviewers who have accepted WP:AfC drafts, there will always be an edit in the history where the draft was moved to mainspace as the reviewer accepted it. In a recent example, you can see that on 2 September and that's an edit that can be "thanked" in the usual way. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:34, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
David Wicht Article
Courtesy link: Draft:David Wicht
Good Day
I was wondering if I could get help on my article about David Wicht. It keeps getting declined and there are multiple reliable sources about him and his role in the the South African film industry. I would like to speak to an editor about it because many other SA producers with much less clout than David have wikipedia pages so I am not sure why the article keeps getting rejected. Please help with some advice.
Kind Regards
Karin Karinvanderlaag (talk) 12:00, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- Your userpage indicates that you are being paid by Wicht to write the article, so please don't expect help from us to do your job. Familiarize yourself with WP:PAID and the feedback already provided at the draft. Putting your three best sources forward would help, since at a glance the present ones don't seem valid. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 13:04, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- Hello, Karin, and welcome to the Teahouse. Have you read your first article? or BACKWARDS? Nothing written or published by Wicht or FilmAfrika, or based on press releases or interviews, is relevant to getting the draft approved. And references like your #3, which doesn't even mention Wicht, serve no end at all.
- As for the "producers with less clout", please see OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It may be that those articles are written more conformant with Wikipedia's policies; or it may be that they ought to be rewritten or deleted but nobody's got round to it yet.
- The way you refer to them suggests that you, like many people, have the misconception that a Wikipedia article is in some way for the benefit of its subject. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, it is not, in any degree whatever. Of course the subjects of many articles get some benefit from the existence of the article (and some definitely do not). But that is incidental, and no part of Wikipedia's purpose. See WP:PROUD. ColinFine (talk) 13:10, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
Editing in a specific language
Hi all,
I wonder how can i choose to edit pages in one language only (ex. only in french or only in greek, etc)
TIA TheGreekEditor2023 (talk) 12:17, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- Hello, TheGreekEditor, and welcome to the Teahouse of the English Wikipedia. If you want to edit pages in French, you need to go to the French Wikipedia, which is a separate project. If you want to edit pages in Greek, you need to go to the Greek Wikipedia, which is yet another project. ColinFine (talk) 12:30, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
Need assistance in verifying these sources
Hi everyone!
I need your help. I'm considering creating a page about Celeris Therapeutics GmbH. To ensure I have the right sources, I was wondering if you could verify these sources for me:
- https://www.trendingtopics.eu/celeris-therapeutics-einstieg-von-apex-ventures-leitet-grosse-seed-runde-ein/
- https://www.trendingtopics.eu/celeris-finanzierungsrunde-2022/
- https://brutkasten.com/artikel/celeris-foerderung-aws
- https://www.inibio.eu/inibiotech-fund-invests-eur1million-in-celeris-therapeutics
- https://www.bmaw.gv.at/Presse/Archiv/2022/Oktober-2022/EIC-Accelerator.html
- https://www.ots.at/presseaussendung/OTS_20221019_OTS0038/vier-oesterreichische-unternehmen-erhalten-wichtige-europaeische-innovations-foerderung
- https://app.dealroom.co/companies/celeris_therapeutics
- https://www.ffg.at/news/eic-accelerator-von-horizon-europe-26-mio-euro-fuer-hochinnovative-start-ups
- https://www.kleinezeitung.at/wirtschaft/6206042/20-Millionen-Euro-Kapital_Steirisches-Startup-Celeris-sagt
- https://www.aws.at/service/cases/gefoerderte-projekte-auswahl/deeptech/seedfinancing/2021/celeris-therapeutics/
- https://www.eif.org/what_we_do/equity/Case_studies/celeris-austria.htm
- https://eic.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2022-10/Seleceted%20companies%20-%20EIC%20Accelerator%2015%20June%20cut-off%20corrected.pdf
- https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/startups/celeristx-drug-discovery-for-incurable-diseases-with-ml-on-aws/
- https://biotechaustria.org/en/verband/
- https://www.sfg.at/innovationspreis-steiermark/wirtschaftspreis-des-landes-steiermark-sieger/
- https://transkript.de/start-up-der-woche/start-up-der-woche-detail.html?tx_news_pi1%5Bnews%5D=8340&cHash=222b7bcb8d240a38ce2200ce5444b067
I hope this isn't too much to ask. By the way, I've found a similar article about the Austrian Centre of Industrial Biotechnology. It has only three references, including a dead link, but it has been active since 2020. I'm wondering if creating a page about Celeris would have a chance of approval. I hope someone can provide some insights here. Thank you.Laurenceuuu (talk) 13:58, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- Laurenceuuu It is too much to ask. Use WP:YFA to draft an article, including what you consider important, properly formated references, per standards described at WP:42. David notMD (talk) 14:12, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Laurenceuuu Are any of these sources something other than routine attempts at getting funding and doing what start-ups usually do? Articles on companies have to meet WP:NCORP guidelines, which this company might do if we can be convinced it will "design drugs for incurable diseases", as one source claims, rather optimistically given that if a disease really is incurable, drugs won't help! Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:59, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- Given that the company was founded in 2020 and has fewer than 25 employees and no products, my opinion is that WP:TOOSOON is relevant. David notMD (talk) 15:33, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
Draft in review
Hello, i was wondering if during the reviewing of the draft if reviewers will correct some things if not written well or if i can ask here if someone could read it and make changes if needed? Draft:Burning Men# Veganpurplefox (talk) 21:39, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- Veganpurplefox Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I've fixed your link to a standard internal link so that everyone can read it in their preferred version of Wikipedia(mobile or desktop). Reviewers are able to edit drafts, but are under no obligation to; typically they give advice, as there are many drafts awaiting review and they don't have time to edit all of them. 331dot (talk) 21:50, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- I see, thanks Veganpurplefox (talk) 21:54, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- The first sentence has a word missing, after "2019". Maproom (talk) 22:24, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- fixed it, thank you! Veganpurplefox (talk) 22:27, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- Veganpurplefox, I suppose that by "Reccuring" you meant "Recurring"; but I don't know what you mean by "Recurring". And perhaps you instead meant something else. Also, what's "a person camera point of view"? -- Hoary (talk) 22:34, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- Recurring means the characters that aren't main characters but appears a lot, is it the same thing as secondary characters? And a person camera point of view is a way that when filming they put a camera into the actors face so they can see what they see and it is moving like an actual person Veganpurplefox (talk) 22:38, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- here a video making the film that could expalin the point of view :https://twitter.com/BurningMenFilm/status/1142399638735138817?s=20 Veganpurplefox (talk) 22:41, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- Veganpurplefox, for "the actors have a camera into their faces so viewers see what they see and the images are moving as if the actors really move", perhaps "the actor has a forward-pointing camera mounted on a helmet so viewers share their moving point of view"; although I'm pretty sure that editors more conversant with video than I am (and there are many such editors) will come up with wording that's far better. -- Hoary (talk) 23:43, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- I will fix that Veganpurplefox (talk) 23:45, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- Veganpurplefox, for "the actors have a camera into their faces so viewers see what they see and the images are moving as if the actors really move", perhaps "the actor has a forward-pointing camera mounted on a helmet so viewers share their moving point of view"; although I'm pretty sure that editors more conversant with video than I am (and there are many such editors) will come up with wording that's far better. -- Hoary (talk) 23:43, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- here a video making the film that could expalin the point of view :https://twitter.com/BurningMenFilm/status/1142399638735138817?s=20 Veganpurplefox (talk) 22:41, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- ah I see, I didn't know it was only 1 c and 2 r for recurring, so I'll fix the reccuring word. Does both words have different meaning? Veganpurplefox (talk) 23:04, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- Veganpurplefox, you have a list of "Cast". This is divided into "Main" and "Recurring". I understand "main cast". I don't understand "recurring cast". (A simple solution might be removal of the subheaders "Main" and "Recurring".) -- Hoary (talk) 23:32, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- it is used in multiple tv series main and recurring so I'm not sure to understand what you don't understand? Veganpurplefox (talk) 23:41, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- For example: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camelot_(TV_series) same as Will (TV series) Veganpurplefox (talk) 23:43, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- I know even less about TV than I know about film, but I presume that in the context of a TV serial a "recurring" character is one whose appearance recurs in episode after episode. (This needn't be incompatible with "main". in The Virginian, James Drury and Doug McClure played major characters who appeared in episode after episode. They weren't "guest stars".) Burning Men isn't a serial, so there's no recurrence (or anyway there's no recurrence as I understand the word). -- Hoary (talk) 23:51, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- Ah i see what you mean, i see the difference between the series and films, i thought it was written the same way, i will remove the main and recurring sections so its only into one Veganpurplefox (talk) 23:55, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- is the vague term on person point of view be removed now or I let it there till someone else either find something better for it? Veganpurplefox (talk) 00:00, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- it is used in multiple tv series main and recurring so I'm not sure to understand what you don't understand? Veganpurplefox (talk) 23:41, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- Veganpurplefox, you have a list of "Cast". This is divided into "Main" and "Recurring". I understand "main cast". I don't understand "recurring cast". (A simple solution might be removal of the subheaders "Main" and "Recurring".) -- Hoary (talk) 23:32, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- Recurring means the characters that aren't main characters but appears a lot, is it the same thing as secondary characters? And a person camera point of view is a way that when filming they put a camera into the actors face so they can see what they see and it is moving like an actual person Veganpurplefox (talk) 22:38, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
Adding my pictures
Hello, I have taken a few pics of Sidney Sussex College (Cambridge) from my iPhone however, I just can not seem to upload them and continue to get error message; even though these are my pics. Any help would be much appreciated. Thanks, Sahib Warne23 (talk) 00:05, 5 September 2023 (UTC)